Great Lakes Regional 

Collaboration Strategy

To Restore and Protect the Great Lakes

 December 2005

TA B L E O F CO N T E N T S

Executive Summary ........................................................ 1

Introduction ...................................................................... 7

Strategy Team Recommendations ................................ 15

 Aquatic Invasive Species ..................................... 17

 Habitat/Species ..................................................... 23

 Coastal Health ....................................................... 29

 AOC/Sediments .................................................... 36

 Nonpoint Source ................................................... 41

 Toxic Pollutants ..................................................... 47

 Indicators and Information .................................. 53

 Sustainable Development .................................... 59

Appendices ..................................................................... 65

Executive Summary

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

EX E C U T I V E SU M M A RY

The Resource

The Great Lakes are a unique and extraordinary resource that have provided vast amounts of 

fresh water to nourish the history, culture, economy, and well-being of the people in this part of 

the United States. They have done so for millennia for the region’s Native Americans whose life 

ways and communities have been and remain intertwined with the natural resources found in their 

ancestral homelands. And, for the past few hundred years since the earliest journeys of European 

explorers, the Great Lakes natural bounty has provided for the needs of a growing nation.

Today, more than 35 million Americans receive the benefits of drinking water, food, a place to 

work and live, and transportation from the Great Lakes. Millions of people enjoy fishing, hunting, 

swimming, boating, and the sheer beauty of the Lakes in remote parks and on the stunning 

shorelines of some of our largest cities, and agricultural fields yield abundant harvests of a large 

variety of crops. The region’s many Native American communities rely upon the Great Lakes’ 

natural resources to meet their subsistence, economic, cultural, medicinal, and spiritual needs. We 

have thrived on the richness the Lakes have brought us, but have not protected them adequately 

to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy them as we have. 

Challenges

The challenges we face on the Great Lakes are many in number and serious in nature. Aquatic 

invasive species continue to arrive at the rate of one every eight months, adding to the more than 

160 already causing serious ecological and economic damage. At the same time, past and ongoing 

development has compromised Great Lakes habitats, and threatens the plants and animals that 

need them to survive. Many of our coastal areas, in particular, also suffer from massive sewer 

overflows that contaminate the water and close the beaches. The thirty-one areas identified more 

than 15 years ago where the most significant harm to the resources has occurred continue to be 

of great concern; none of them has been fully restored to date. Continued pollution from non 

point sources in these areas and many others contribute to impaired water quality and related 

problems. Although releases of toxic pollutants have been reduced significantly over the years, 

there is a legacy of contamination in sediments and fish throughout the system, and mercury and 

other pollutants continue to enter the Great Lakes from nearby and distant sources. While large 

amounts of data and information on the Great Lakes have been collected over the years, not 

enough of that has been transformed into knowledge about the key indicators of the health of the 

ecosystem. In addition, many of the practices of industry, agriculture, communities, and private 

citizens simply have not been sustainable. 

Collectively, these problems and others have seriously compromised 

the environmental health of the Great Lakes. Because the stressors 

to the Great Lakes have developed over time and there has usually 

been a delay in the Lakes’ response to the stressors, many believe 

that we have time to counter these stresses and restore the Lakes. 

However, in many areas of the Lakes, historic stressors have 

combined with new ones to reach a point where ecosystem-level 

changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly. As a result, there is a new 

sense of urgency for action on the highest priorities for restoring 

and protecting the Great Lakes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

Since 1970, governments, citizens, industry, and agriculture have worked together extensively to 

restore and protect the Great Lakes. Although much progress has been made, some of the problems 

have become more serious, many have not been solved, and new ones continue to develop. Despite 

good intentions and hard work, the strategies and efforts to date simply have not been effective 

enough to do the job of cleaning up the Great Lakes or preventing further degradation. A much 

more concerted effort over a longer period of time is essential for the restoration and protection 

of the resource and the prevention of future problems.

The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration

In December 2004, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration of National Significance (GLRC) was 

launched, creating a unique partnership of key members from federal, state, and local governments, 

tribes, and other stakeholders for the purpose of developing a strategic plan. This Strategy is 

intended to build upon the extensive regional efforts to date, working together toward a common 

goal of restoring and protecting the Great Lakes ecosystem for this and future generations.

An Executive Committee made up of senior elected and appointed officials from different levels 

of government has helped guide the GLRC over the past year as the Strategy has been developed. 

Eight Strategy Teams, each focusing on a different issue affecting the Great Lakes basin, began 

work in January 2005 to develop recommendations for action. More than 1,500 people from 

diverse backgrounds have participated on these Teams. A Draft Strategy was released on July 

7, 2005 for public comment. Comments were solicited and received through a series of public 

meetings, the Internet, and in writing. This Strategy is the result of that collaborative process but 

it should not be construed as an endorsement or approval by the GLRC members of each and 

every Strategy Team recommendation. Implementation will proceed promptly after the Strategy is 

released. Because we share the Great Lakes with Canada, we must do everything possible to make 

sure that our plans and actions are compatible and synchronized with their efforts. 

Strategy Team Recommendations

The work of the Strategy Teams includes many recommendations for action focused on the steps 

that should be taken over the next five years to proceed with restoration to achieve the greatest 

results. The actions identified by the Strategy Teams highlight the highest priorities recommended 

by the Teams for early implementation. Much more will need to be done to fully restore and 

protect the Lakes. Those additional actions, as well as much more supplemental information, are 

included in the Appendices to the Strategy. The Strategy Teams considered the overarching issues 

of human health, tribal interests and perspectives, and research, and factored them in to the extent 

possible. The Strategy Teams worked to characterize the problems faced in the Great Lakes, and 

to establish goals and milestones. The key recommendations crafted by each Strategy Team are set 

forth below.

Immediate action to stop the introduction of more aquatic invasive species (AIS) can prevent 

significant future ecological and economic damage to the Great Lakes. The steps needed include: 

prevention of AIS introductions by ships through ballast water and other means; 

stopping invasions of species through canals and waterways; 

restricting trade in live organisms; 

passage of comprehensive federal AIS legislation; 

establishing a program for rapid response and management; and

education and outreach on AIS introduction and prevention. 

•

•

•

•

•

•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

The plants and animals of the Great Lakes need habitat in order to survive in the future, and 

there is a need for significantly more habitat conservation and species management. The 

recommendations focus on: 

native fish communities in open waters and near shore habitats;

wetlands; 

riparian (streams) habitats in tributaries to the Great Lakes; and 

coastal shore and upland habitats. 

The near shore waters and the coastal areas are the region’s largest source of drinking water and 

experience a variety of recreational activities. To minimize the risk to human health resulting from 

contact with near shore waters, actions needed include: 

major improvements in wet weather discharge controls from combined and sanitary 

sewers; 

identify and control releases from indirect sources of contamination; 

implement a “risk-based approach” to manage recreational water; 

protect sources of drinking water; and 

improve the drinking water infrastructure and support source water protection. 

The United States identified the 31 most contaminated locations on the Great Lakes under the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada more than 15 years ago. None of them have 

been restored to date. To remedy this situation, a dramatic acceleration of the cleanup process at 

these areas of concern (AOC) is needed. The actions recommended are: 

amend the Great Lakes Legacy Act to increase funding and streamline the process; 

improve federal, state, and local capacity to manage the AOC cleanups; 

create a federal-state AOC coordinating committee to work with local and tribal interests 

to speed cleanups; and 

promote clean treatment and disposal technologies as well as better beneficial use and 

disposal options. 

Non point sources of pollution contribute significantly to problems in the Areas of Concern, as 

well as to other locations in the Great Lakes, including the open waters. Actions to address these 

problems include: 

wetland restoration; 

restoration of buffer strips;

improvement of cropland soil management; 

implementation of comprehensive nutrient and manure management plans for livestock 

operations; and 

improvements to the hydrology in watersheds. 

Toxic pollutants continue to stress the Great Lakes ecosystem, posing threats to human and 

wildlife health. Persistent toxic substances such as mercury and PCBs remain present in fish at 

levels that warrant advisories and restrict consumption throughout the Basin. To address this 

ongoing problem, actions are needed to: 

reduce and virtually eliminate the discharge of mercury, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides and 

other toxic substances to the Great Lakes;

prevent new toxic substances from entering the Great Lakes;

institute a comprehensive research, surveillance and forecasting capability;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

create consistent, accessible basin-wide messages on fish consumption and toxic reduction 

methods and choices; and

support efforts to reduce continental and global sources of toxics to the Great Lakes.

With a resource as large and complex as the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is essential to have a sound 

information base and representative indicators to understand what is happening in the system. 

This information must then be communicated to the public, to decision makers, and all others 

involved. To improve over the current situation, the following actions are needed: 

better coordinate the collection of critical information regarding the Great Lakes ecosystem 

and support the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) and the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System (IOOS) as key components of the Global Earth Observation 

System of Systems (GEOSS); 

promote the continued development of science-based indicators, including those 

developed through the SOLEC process;

double funding for Great Lakes research over the next five years; 

establish a regional information management infrastructure; and 

create a Great Lakes communications workgroup to manage scientific and technical 

information. 

Ensuring the long term sustainability of the Great Lakes resource will require a number of 

significant changes in the way we approach such things as land use, agriculture and forestry, 

transportation, industrial activity, and many others. To start this process, we need to:

adapt and maintain programs that promote sustainability across all sectors; 

align governance to enhance sustainable planning and management of resources;

build outreach that brands the Great Lakes as an exceptional and competitive place to live, 

work, invest, and play; and

provide leadership for sustainable development through implementation of the Strategy 

recommendations.

This document provides the full range of recommendations, options, and ideas generated 

by the Strategy Teams. While better coordinated use of existing resources will allow for some 

recommendations to move forward early in the implementation process, others will require 

modest additional funding, and some will be impossible to implement absent substantial new 

expenditures on the part of the various Collaboration partners. While the release of this Strategy 

does not constitute a commitment of additional resources on the part of any member of the 

Collaboration, the members are committed to continuing to work together in partnership toward 

the goals identified in the Strategy. 

The Collaboration partners have rallied around a shared vision of a restored, sustainable Great 

Lakes ecosystem that has generated optimism and engendered a spirit of cooperation. What is 

needed now is the will to act and the leadership to proceed if we are to realize our vision and reach 

our goals. The time to begin is now. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Introduction

7

INTRODUCTION

9

IN T RO D U C T I O N

A National Treasure

When the United States is photographed by satellite cameras, the Great Lakes stand out as one 

of the few recognizable features. In the west, Lake Superior, the Ojibwas’ “Gichigami” and 

Longfellow’s “shining big sea water,” is the largest freshwater lake in the world. Some 750 miles 

to the east, in the land of James Fenimore Cooper’s Hawkeye and Chingachgook, Lake Ontario’s 

average outflow of two million gallons per second gives birth to the St. Lawrence River—the 

connection to the Atlantic Ocean. In between, more than 35 million U.S. residents live, work, and 

play supported by the waters of the Great Lakes basin. 

The Great Lakes are the largest single source of fresh surface water in the Western Hemisphere. 

The Lakes support thriving fisheries, a strong agricultural sector, and vibrant tourism. A draft 

study for the Army Corps of Engineers shows that one-third of all registered recreational boats in 

the United States are located in the eight Great Lakes States, where boating results in $35.6 billion 

of annual economic activity and supports 246,117 jobs. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife survey 

data indicate that fishing, hunting and wildlife watching generate almost $18 billion in annual 

revenues in the Great Lakes region.

The Great Lakes Region is the ancestral homeland of thirty-five federally-recognized Indian Tribal 

Nations whose reservations are located in the Basin or which retain treaty-guaranteed rights to hunt, 

fish or gather in the Basin. Although each Tribal Nation is unique and distinct in its own right, all 

Great Lakes Tribal Nations share much in terms of historic, cultural and social underpinnings of 

their respective communities, particularly regarding their interdependence with and reliance upon 

natural resources to meet subsistence, economic, cultural, spiritual, and medicinal needs. Tribal 

governments play a vital role in Great Lakes protection and restoration efforts. They provide a 

range of governmental services to promote the health, welfare and security of their peoples and 

their physical/biological communities.1 

A Time of Growth

The first European explorers encountered the Tribal Nations as they used the Great Lakes travel 

routes to open the interior of what would become the United States of America. As the young 

country began to grow, the Great Lakes region’s natural resources sparked its development. Iron 

ore from Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota was shipped to mills 

in Indiana and Ohio to meet the expanding demand for steel forged 

in furnaces fueled by Pennsylvania coal. Millions of board feet of 

timber were cut and shipped to build growing cities. New European 

immigrants came to the region to farm the land and open businesses. 

The boundless fisheries of the Great Lakes helped feed a rapidly 

growing population. 

As the cities grew, commerce expanded, and the Lakes became 

the major transportation route to move goods back and forth 

through the region and, with construction of canals, to cities on 

the Atlantic coast. Henry Ford launched the automobile industry in 

Michigan. Other manufacturing followed—paper, chemical, heavy 

manufacturing and steel—all supported by Great Lakes shipping 

1 A more detailed discussion of Great Lakes Tribal Nations and the perspectives that they bring to the Collaboration is provided in 

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, Tribal Nations Issues and Perspectives, Version 1.0 (April 26, 2005) that is contained in the 

Appendices to this Plan.
INTRODUCTION

10

By the 1900s, the Great Lakes region, with its manufacturing might and economic strength, was 

the industrial backbone of America. 

Completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 removed the last obstacle to international shipping 

and world commerce. The promise for long-term economic vitality seemed to be fulfilled.

The Price of Prosperity

But these advances had a price. Physical changes to the Great Lakes ecosystem wrought by heavy 

industry, agriculture, and rampant development endangered the future of the Lakes. 

For example, the St. Lawrence Seaway, in opening the Lakes to the world, also became a doorway 

for destructive exotic species. Within just a few years of the arrival of the sea lamprey, the once 

ubiquitous lake trout were nearly gone. Other species soon followed the lamprey, many arriving 

in ballast holds of international ships. The Pandora’s Box had been opened. More than 160 exotic 

species now exist in the Lakes.

In the meantime, some of the region’s largest cities were regularly dumping raw sewage into the 

Lakes. Most industries had no treatment systems beyond those needed to support their industrial 

processes, and their discharges poisoned rivers throughout the basin. By the 1970s, the Great Lakes’ 

image as a symbol for the nation’s strength was tarnished. While many areas, such as the Kakagon 

River Sloughs in Lake Superior, remained pristine, other areas became a national embarrassment. 

The image of the Cuyahoga River aflame in 1969 epitomized the decades of abuse and its sorry 

consequences. 

Looking for Solutions

Fortunately, America was waking up to its environmental problems. Strong environmental laws, 

including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, began to address the lax pollution controls 

of the time. Recognizing the need for shared action to protect the Great Lakes, the U.S. and 

Canada developed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972, and amended it in 1978. 

A new philosophy, the ecosystem approach was embraced as the way to restore the Great Lakes’ 

ecological integrity. 

In 1987, thirty-one locations in the U.S. were designated Areas of Concern and energized groups 

of stakeholders developed plans to clean up these polluted hot spots. In addition, States, Tribes, 

local governments, federal agencies, advocacy groups and many individual citizens came together 

to create consensus recommendations for the actions necessary to restore each of the five Great 

Lakes. Because these consensus plans identified gaps in existing programs and critical funding 

needs, there was a growing expectation that the planning process would lead to the technical 

and fiscal resources essential to implement the recommendations. This expectation was never 

realized. 

As a result, the problems remained and in some instances have become more serious.

The number of exotic species has exploded in the Great Lakes region. As a result, millions 

of dollars are directed annually to protect water intakes at industries, water utilities, and 

power plants. 

Although phosphorus reductions at wastewater treatment plants led to successful algae 

reduction, cladophora again fouls some beaches and near-shore habitats.

There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower four lakes. Other 

desirable fish population levels remain severely depressed.

•

•

•
INTRODUCTION

11

Municipal wastewater treatment infrastructure is old and deteriorating, and sewage 

overflows during storm events allow inadequately treated wastes to enter the Lakes.

Contaminated sediments continue to leach toxic pollutants into the food chain, causing 

elevated levels of PCBs and mercury in fish, wildlife, and humans.

Once a cleanup success story, Lake Erie has become the scene of dissolved oxygen 

depletions and resultant avian botulism outbreaks, killing thousands of migrating birds.

Aging and obsolete factories that once fueled the country’s growth were abandoned, leaving 

behind brownfields that challenge municipal governments’ redevelopment efforts. 

Drinking water supply contamination risks remain, threatening the health of Great Lakes 

residents.

Tributary flows and habitats, essential to the fish of the Lakes, have been negatively altered 

by local watershed activities that change hydrology.

Wetlands that provide habitat and serve as pollution filters have been lost.

Growth patterns have diminished public access to much of the Lakes’ shoreline. 

These problems have catalyzed actions by dedicated constituencies who have continued the call 

for help. But it has been a challenge to effectuate a national action plan to restore and protect 

the Great Lakes. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of Great Lakes restoration 

programs concluded that leadership and interagency coordination were lacking. The GAO also 

found that improved coordination was essential to increase the effectiveness of existing and future 

programs. 

Re-energizing Restoration Efforts

In 2003, at the request of a Great Lakes Congressional delegation, the Great Lakes Governors 

identified nine priorities for Great Lakes restoration and protection as a first step in providing the 

leadership and coordination all agree was needed. Since their release, these priorities have been 

adopted by the Great Lakes Mayors, the Great Lakes Commission, and other Great Lakes leaders. 

These priorities form the organizing principle for this plan. The first of the priorities—ensuring 

the sustainable use of our water resources—is being advanced through the Governors’ efforts, 

in partnership with the Premiers of Ontario and Québec, to implement the Great Lakes Charter 

Annex of 2001. This plan describes the actions needed to achieve the objectives that relate to the 

other eight priorities. 

A key piece of the puzzle was put into place when President Bush issued an Executive Order in 

May 2004. This Order recognized the Great Lakes as a “national treasure” and created a Federal 

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to improve federal coordination on the Great Lakes. The 

Order also directed the U.S. EPA Administrator to convene a “regional collaboration of national 

significance for the Great Lakes.” This collaboration process was needed to develop, by consensus, 

the national restoration and protection action plan for the Great Lakes. 

The Collaborative Process 

In December 2004, the region’s leaders kicked off the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. Since 

then, the Collaboration has developed a Strategy that provides a set of recommendations to restore 

and protect this national treasure. More than 1,500 people representing the federal, state, local 

and tribal governments; non-governmental entities; and private citizens have participated on eight 

issue-specific Strategy Teams to develop the plan. The Strategy is a reflection of this partnership 

and recognizes that we must all work in concert in order to be successful. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
INTRODUCTION

12

The GLRC Strategy is based on “Recommendations from the Strategy Teams” which represent 

each Team’s highest priority recommendations for actions that can be taken over a period of time 

to effectuate improvements in the Great Lakes basin. They do not represent all that needs to be 

done to completely restore the Great Lakes. Other recommendations the Teams developed during 

the collaborative process, as well as much supporting information, appear in the appendices. 

The overarching issues of human health, research and information, and tribal perspectives were 

considered by each of the Strategy Teams as they pursued their work. Human health issues are 

discussed by a number of recommendations made by the Strategy Teams, particularly the Coastal 

Health Team, the Persistent Toxics Team, and the Areas of Concern/Sediment Team. Research and 

information issues are included chiefly in recommendations from the Indicators and Information 

Team.

Making the Final Plan

As set forth in the Framework that established the parameters of this collaborative effort, the 

members of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration are issuing the final Great Lakes Regional 

Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. These members, who each have 

representation on the Executive Committee, are Federal Government Cabinet Officials, Great 

Lakes Governors, Mayors, and Tribal leaders. Representatives of Congress and of the Canadian 

government serve as observers. In developing the final Strategy, the Executive Committee and 

Strategy Team leadership addressed the following:

The implementation process will emphasize some new actions to be taken as well as 

stressing the importance of making more effective use of the authorities, programs and 

funding already available at all levels of government, and will demonstrate opportunities 

for doing so. The President’s Executive Order charges the Federal Interagency Task Force 

with improving coordination among the approximately 140 different federal programs 

operating in the Great Lakes basin. An untold number of state, municipal, and tribal 

programs—as well as the efforts of non-governmental entities—must also be coordinated 

and managed as efficiently and effectively as possible as a necessary first step in restoring 

and protecting the Great Lakes; 

Part of this coordination is the recognition that no one Collaboration partner can be the 

sole source of support for implementing the Strategy. The Collaboration partners expect 

that, to the extent the Strategy’s goals cannot be accomplished under current resources or 

programs, responsibility will continue to be shared among those who value and currently 

invest in the preservation and restoration of the Great Lakes; and 

The Executive Committee acknowledges the funding climate in which implementation 

is likely to occur. While better coordinated use of existing resources will allow for some 

recommendations to move forward, others will require modest additional funding, and 

some will be impossible to implement absent substantial new expenditures on the part of 

the various Collaboration partners. While, the release of this Strategy does not constitute 

a commitment of additional resources on the part of any member of the Collaboration, 

the members commit to continuing to work together toward the goals identified in this 

document. 

The Role of Tribal Nations

The Collaboration recognizes Tribal Nations as valuable partners under this Plan. It also 

acknowledges the United States’ unique treaty obligations and trust responsibilities toward Tribal 

Nations and their communities. Accordingly, the Framework Agreement establishes the need for 

•

•

•
INTRODUCTION

13

this Plan to address Tribal interests and perspectives as an overarching issue. The Collaboration 

recognizes the efforts of each Strategy Team to consider and address Tribal perspectives. These 

general comments are offered to complement and help integrate the Teams’ efforts.

Tribal Nations count upon the United States government to adequately fund their natural 

resource and environmental management programs pursuant to various laws2 and long-standing 

federal policies.3 Consequently, Tribal programs are particularly vulnerable to federal budgetary 

reductions. The loss of what might be considered a small amount of funding to others usually 

constitutes a large percentage of a Tribal program’s funding, resulting in a correspondingly large 

reduction in services to Tribal communities, if not a de facto elimination of that program. 

The Collaboration recognizes the need to maintain base funding levels for Tribal programs to 

ensure that the Tribal Nations are able to provide for the health and welfare of their communities. 

A secure, on-going funding base ensures the capacity to carry out the primary purposes of basic 

natural resource and environmental management programs. It further assures essential, culturallyappropriate research and monitoring of consumption patterns and risk exposures of Tribal 

members who engage in subsistence life ways, who use natural resources for medicine and in 

ceremonies, and whose livelihood is based upon natural resources. And, only with this funding can 

Tribal Nations remain effective partners in Great Lakes protection and restoration efforts.

The Collaboration acknowledges that most environmental problems, and particularly habitat 

degradation, disproportionately impact the culture, religious practices and other life ways of Tribal 

communities. Accordingly, it acknowledges and supports particular priorities that Collaboration 

member Tribal Nations have identified, including the prevention and control of invasive species, 

the reduction and prevention of toxic pollutants, and habitat protection and restoration. With 

this Plan, the Collaboration pledges its commitment to address these priorities to help sustain the 

overall health and well-being of Tribal communities and of the natural resources upon which they 

rely.

Creating a Shared Vision

The collaborative process that has produced this Strategy has engendered a new spirit of shared 

responsibility and optimism. Most importantly, the Collaboration has rallied around a shared vision 

of a restored, sustainable Great Lakes ecosystem. The Collaboration has reaffirmed a number 

of important underlying principles to guide not only decision makers as they move forward in 

implementing key actions, but also every Great Lakes citizen as they carry out everyday activities.

While the Strategy is a best effort to identify some means of moving closer to that shared vision, the 

Collaboration recognizes that it can not possibly identify every action or funding avenue that will 

help achieve the desired end. The members of the Collaboration hope that those whose activities 

impact the Great Lakes basin will use the Strategy as a benchmark to guide their decisions in a 

way that supports the ultimate shared vision. From thinking about the practices of the everyday 

household consumer, to the processes of Great Lakes industries, the Strategy can and should be 

used to identify how everyone in the Great Lakes basin might contribute to a cleaner, healthier 

environment.

2 Such laws include dozens of treaties between the United States and Great Lakes Tribal Nations and a number of federal statutes such 

as the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.

3 These policies are stated in a number of Executive Branch documents such as President Bush’s Memorandum to the Head of 

Executive Departments and Agencies (September 23, 2004), President Clinton’s Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000), EPA’s 

Policy for Administration of Indian Programs on Reservations (November 8, 1984) and the USFWS Native American Policy (June 28, 

1994). Most federal agencies have now adopted similar policies.
INTRODUCTION

14

Similarly, the Collaboration expects that the Strategy will be used by decision makers and funding 

sources as an important benchmark in judging funding requests and project proposals by the 

various Collaboration partners that are consistent with the Strategy. The Strategy will succeed only 

if it is fully utilized in a dynamic, adaptive fashion to leverage even more and greater opportunities 

to protect and restore this national treasure. 

Continued Role of the Regional Collaboration

With the release of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, the Collaboration partners will 

continue to fulfill the role that was articulated in the Framework Document, released in December 

2004, which is to serve as a broad forum to address regional issues that relate to Great Lakes 

ecosystem protection and restoration. The Executive Committee will develop a formal addendum 

to the Framework document outlining plans for the continuation of the GLRC, including the 

Executive Committee and the Executive Subcommittee’s function and operation by March 30, 

2006.
Strategy Team 

Recommendations

Acknowledgement of Recommendations from the Strategy Teams

The GLRC Executive Committee acknowledges the valuable recommendations provided by the eight 

Strategy Teams. The Strategy Team reports provide information on actions that will help guide restoration 

activities at all levels of government and by the private sector over the coming years, and will serve as an 

important tool to use in selecting and weighing competing priorities with respect to Great Lakes restoration activities. 

15

STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

17

ST R AT E G Y TE A M RE C O M M E N DAT I O N S

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES 

I. Problem Statement 

Significant progress over the previous three decades to restore the Great Lakes has been interrupted 

and undermined by the present crisis of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS). Invasive species come from 

outside an ecosystem, degrade habitat, kill native and naturalized species, and short-circuit food 

webs needed to maintain and rehabilitate biological resources. The Great Lakes region continues 

to face wave after wave of aquatic invasion. Sadly, even after decades of high-profile invasions like 

the sea lamprey and zebra mussel, the rate of new introductions has not slowed.4 Our Great Lakes, 

which are the world’s greatest freshwater lakes, are succumbing to an irreversible “invasional 

meltdown”5 that may be more severe than chemical pollution, as AIS often make the Great Lakes 

home, they reproduce and spread, rendering eradication impossible. Existing measures to prevent 

the introduction of new species and to control species that are already established are woefully 

inadequate. The Great Lakes cannot afford even one new invader, and as invasions are irreversible, 

prevention is paramount. 

An “invasive species” is defined as a species: 1) that is not native, and 2) whose introduction causes, 

or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.6 AIS have entered 

or may enter the lakes through vectors such as maritime commerce (e.g., ship ballast), aquaculture, 

canals and waterways, recreational activities, and the trade and use of live organisms. The AIS 

Strategy Team’s plan addresses species invasion through these vectors. More than 160 non-native 

aquatic species are established in the Great Lakes, and during the last several decades established 

populations have been discovered at an average rate of 

one every 8 months.7 Not all of those species are invasive, 

but economic losses in the Great Lakes Basin from those 

that are were estimated in 2005 at $5.0 billion per year.8

Moreover, 42 percent of threatened and endangered 

species in the U.S. are at risk, mainly because of invasive 

species. 

Recommendations below apply only to the U.S. While 

a heightened U.S. response to AIS is welcomed and 

overdue, the U.S. should work closely with Canada to 

ensure commensurate action on both sides of the border, 

especially with regards to ballast water controls for ships 

4 

Great Lakes. [online] URL http://www.iaglr.org/scipolicy/ais/ais_iaglr02.pdf.

5 Ri

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 2513-2525.

6 Executive Order 13112. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/laws/eo13112.pdf.

7 Mills, -

ductio

invasive species in the North American Great Lakes accelerate? BioScience 55:4; Holeck KT, EL Mills, HJ MacIsaac, MR Dochoda, 

RI C

Lakes. BioScience 54:919-929; Holeck KT, EL Mills, HJ MacIsaac, MR Dochoda, and A Ricciardi. 2005. [Letter] Response from 

Holeck and colleagues. BioScience 55:4-5.

8

economic and environmental assessment. Environ. Manage. 35(1): 1–11.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

18

transiting the St. Lawrence either in ballast or declaring no ballast on board. Bi-national cooperation 

is required to prevent introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes via maritime commerce, canals 

and waterways (including Long Lac and Ogoki diversions, St. Lawrence Seaway, and Welland 

Canal), trade of live organisms, and recreational activities. 

II. Goals and Milestones 

Goal: Prevent all new introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes.

Goal: Stop the spread of AIS within the basin, extirpate harmful AIS, or if impossible, then 

 control to levels that ensure sustainable ecosystems and the social, economic and cultural

 uses they support.

Interim Milestones: A complete list of all milestones developed to measure progress through 2010 

toward reaching the goals is included in AIS appendix A. The most important interim milestones 

supporting the recommendations are to:

Enact comprehensive federal legislation (specifically legislation that would incorporate all of 

the terms contained in S. 770, H.R. 1591 and 1592 as introduced in the 109th Congress; 

collectively the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act—NAISA; with modifications as outlined 

in recommendation #3) to authorize and fund AIS programs; 

Provide expanded federal support for AIS research and outreach programs; and 

Develop a binational plan of action to prevent additional species invasions, and control 

established populations of the most damaging AIS. 

III. Recommendations 

The AIS Strategy Team offers the following five recommendations. A complete list of 

recommendations is included as Appendix A. Dollar figures have been included in the 

recommendations, where available. The dollar amounts provided are often incomplete estimates; 

more realistic figures should be developed. 

1) Ship and barge-mediated introductions and spread of AIS in the Great Lakes should be 

eliminated, through the immediate promulgation of environmentally protective standards for 

ballast water, and the implementation of effective ship-board treatments and management 

measures. Specifically: 

Immediately require, verify, and enforce (in the current shipping season under existing 

authorities) that ocean-going vessels in the no ballast on board condition (NOBOB) 

implement practices that are an improvement over current practices9; 

Immediately require, verify, and enforce best performing ship-board ballast water treatment 

and hull management methods for ocean-going vessels (with a set approval period), with 

continued upward ratcheting of the treatment floor as treatment performance improves. 

Approved treatment must be to an environmentally protective standard by 2011; 

Immediately require monitoring, reporting, and public dissemination of all ballasting 

activities, prevention practices, and outcomes such that progress toward the goal is 

measurable and enforcement practical; 

Review and apply best-performing ballast water management practices to non-oceangoing vessels operating exclusively within the Great Lakes (including application of ballast 

water treatment for new ships) to eliminate the spread of AIS already introduced into the 

system; and 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

9 The Steering Committee of the Collaboration has requested the Strategy Teams put forward recommendations that can be 

implemented even before the process is finalized in December, 2005. The AIS Strategy Team recommends this action on NOBOBs 

as one for immediate implementation.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

19

Immediately and significantly expand research, testing, and evaluation of policies and 

technologies as alternatives to on-board treatment. Alternatives to be investigated should 

include (but not be limited to) cargo transfer, shore-based treatment, use of Clean 

Water Act discharge permits, and state/regional actions. Programs under which these 

investigations can be conducted include the Ballast Water Technology Demonstration 

Program and the Environmental Technology Verification Program. These investigations 

will hasten development of effective shipboard treatment systems. If ship-board treatments 

are shown to be inadequate, the team recommends implementation by 2011 of effective 

alternatives that prohibit ballast water from ocean-going ships from being discharged into 

the Great Lakes. 

Rationale: The failure to install meaningful and enforceable regulations for treatment of ballast 

water from ballasted and NOBOB ocean-going ships remains a major inhibitor for achieving the 

protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. Moreover, some AIS have limited means to disperse 

throughout the Lakes without the help of ships. Clearly, the status quo is unacceptable and does 

not protect the Great Lakes. Ocean-going ships are the prime vector for AIS introductions into the 

waters of the Great Lakes, so stopping those introductions is a top priority. Also, preventing the 

spread of AIS by the Great Lakes shipping industry is also a priority, so ballast water management 

practices for ships that operate within the Great Lakes should be reviewed and modified. Quick 

passage and immediate implementation of comprehensive federal legislation is required to prevent 

ship-mediated introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes. The government has significant authority 

under existing law to take immediate action, particularly in the management of NOBOB ships. Shipboard treatment actions must be fully implemented now, and evaluated well in advance of 2011. 

This will require immediate action by the Coast Guard to promulgate ballast water regulations. 

In addition, research and planning on alternatives is needed immediately so that methods may be 

applied by 2011, in the event best-performing ship-board treatment fails to fully protect the Great 

Lakes and the nation. 

Cost: $13.2 million annually for five years. 

2) Federal, state, and/or local governments must enact measures that ensure the region’s 

canals and waterways are not a vector for AIS, including full federal funding of the Chicago 

San-Ship Canal barrier and the sea lamprey control program. Specific recommendations are 

to: 

Complete construction of barrier II, make barrier I permanent, provide federal funds to 

operate both dispersal barriers in the Chicago Waterway system, and complete a study of 

options for permanent hydrological and/or biological separation of the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River systems; 

Fully examine options and their economic benefits and costs to prevent the spread of AIS 

via the Lake Champlain Canal and other canal systems linking the Great Lakes with other 

basins; 

Close or modify, through the use of physical barriers or control structures, canals that have 

fallen into disuse or disrepair—if rebuilt, prevent passage of aquatic invasive species; 

Prohibit development of new cross-drainage basin connections; 

Address intermittent flood-related connections; 

Initiate measures to prevent or reduce the movement of AIS into stream segments opened 

up by dam/impediment removal or culvert construction, and fully consider benefits to 

native species and impacts from AIS when evaluating cost-benefits of proposed fish 

passage projects; 

Develop and implement AIS monitoring plans to provide comprehensive monitoring and 

reporting of AIS through the canal vector; and 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

20

Fully fund the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s sea lamprey control program. 

Rationale: A unified (federal) approach is preferred, but some canals and waterways are under state 

or local jurisdiction that will require state or local legislation. Canals facilitate the conveyance of bulk 

goods and commodities and are used for recreational activities, but they also facilitate the spread of 

AIS by allowing cross-basin transfer between watersheds. Canal closure can re-establish the natural 

geographic separation of the Great Lakes from other drainage basins. Work to complete the barrier 

system on the Chicago Waterway is moving forward, and provisions supporting this project exist 

in the pending NAISA legislation and in the Senate version of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2005 (S. 728). New legislation is needed to study options for hydrological separation and 

to address issues in other canals, particularly in un-used waterways. Existing canals and waterways 

should include dispersal barriers, flood control barriers, physical barriers, and other provisions to 

ensure hydrologic separation of historically disconnected watersheds. Wherever possible, canals 

that have fallen out of use should not be improved and, in fact, should contain physical barriers 

to prevent the free-flow of organisms. Dam removal, while often an important element of habitat 

rehabilitation, should be done carefully, with full coordination of federal, state, and local agencies, 

so as not to solve one problem by creating another, an AIS pathway. The sea lamprey control 

program, successfully carried out by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, should be fully funded 

so that this species, which entered the system through canals, remains under suppression. 

Cost: $45 million annually for five years. 

3) Federal and state governments must take immediate steps to prevent the introduction and 

spread of AIS through the trade and potential release of live organisms. Specifically: 

Develop a list of species of concern for the Great Lakes basin and an immediate 

moratorium by the States on the trade of species on that list, until the species are screened 

and approved for trade ; 

Implement provisions of the pending NAISA legislation, as introduced, that establish a 

federal screening process for organisms proposed for trade10; 

Modify the pending NAISA legislation mandating that the screening process should 

classify species proposed for trade into three lists—prohibited, permitted, and conditionally 

prohibited/permitted; 

Modify NAISA to clearly state that the screening process established must place the 

burden of proof of non-injuriousness on the importer; 

Allocate sufficient resources to heighten the number of species under the Lacey Act 

as “injurious,” to prevent the interstate transportation of harmful species; the Fish and 

Wildlife Service FWS should list black, bighead, and silver carps as injurious under the 

Lacey Act; 

Significantly increase resources for the enforcement of laws governing the trade of live 

organisms; and 

Develop and implement risk models for organisms in aquaculture. 

Rationale: The trade of live organisms is vibrant. Hundreds of millions of fish and hundreds 

of thousands of invertebrates, plants, and other organisms are traded live each year. However, 

serious problems and many loopholes in the trade regime exist. In many cases, trade is unregulated, 

facilitating importation, interstate commerce, and trade among the pathways that pose the greatest 

risk for introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes ecosystem. This recommendation is 

designed to close the loopholes in the trade regime. It calls for an immediate listing of species and 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

10 For predictions about which fish species from Eurasia would be most damaging to the Great Lakes, and thus for insights into an 

immediate candidate list for damaging species that should be listed in the Lacey Act, see: Kolar, C.S. and D.M. Lodge. 2002. Ecological 

predictions and risk assessments for alien species. Science 298:1233-1236.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

21

a state moratorium on trade of those species. It supports the provisions of NAISA that establish a 

screening process and it proposes that the screening process be based on a three-list approach. The 

recommendation also improves the implementation of key federal laws that restrict the interstate 

transportation of injurious species and calls for increased law enforcement to ensure the laws are 

implemented properly. Underlying the recommendation is the requirement that the burden of 

proof demonstrating that an organism is not injurious be placed on person(s) who proposes to 

import it. When the screening process is developed pursuant to NAISA, it will be important to 

place the burden of proof on the importer. Placing the burden on the government to demonstrate 

injuriousness (which occurs usually after it is too late to address the problem, if at all) does little to 

contain the spread of AIS through trade, and does not protect the Great Lakes. 

Cost: $17 million annually for five years. 

 4) Establish a Great Lakes Aquatic Invasive Species Integrated Management Program to 

implement rapid response, control, and management programs and assess the effectiveness 

of those programs. This program, which will require authorization, must: 

Allocate funds for development and implementation of State and Interstate Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Management Plans through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 

with a particular emphasis on the immediate use of techniques to control or slow the 

spread of AIS; 

Develop voluntary agreements and codes of best practices for industrial trade groups; 

Encourage investigation of economic requirements and incentives (e.g., bonds or 

insurance) to prevent new introductions; 

Establish a revolving fund for rapid response actions; 

Establish an interagency, Great Lakes Federal Rapid Response Team, that will conduct 

activities on federal lands, and in other locations with State, Tribal, and local cooperation; 

and 

Allocate funds to implement a system of enhanced monitoring and ecological surveys in 

the Great Lakes; 

Support additional research to develop and implement new control methods for 

uncontrolled species of concern; 

Establish a coordinated data management system, through the Smithsonian Institution, the 

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, or other suitable entity, to develop an 

accessible, integrated, and centralized database that allows for the reporting and tracking 

of AIS infestations; and 

Ensure overall coordination and accountability through the Invasive Species Council, 

including developing regular and comprehensive reports summarizing the status of AIS 

activities (including those of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the Great 

Lakes Panel on ANS in implementing the National Invasive Species Management Plan), 

formulating a complete AIS federal budget request, overseeing progress in addressing AIS, 

evaluating the collective response to AIS, and communicating AIS needs and problems to 

Congress and the public. The National Invasive Species Management Plan should include 

specific focus on AIS in the Great Lakes. 

Rationale: The Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office) 

observed that more than 20 federal agencies in ten departments are involved in AIS management 

and that States also play a significant role11, and much better coordination of federal, state, and 

local actions is needed. One entity should be empowered to coordinate the AIS actions in the Great 

Lakes. For example, fifty years ago the governments of the U.S. and Canada mandated and funded 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

11 Government Accountability Office (formerly General Accounting Office). 2002. Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater 

Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem. Report GAO-03-1.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

22

the development of successful control techniques for sea lampreys. A similar mandate is required 

for other AIS. Part of improved coordination is the systematic collection and free dissemination of 

AIS information. There must be a central place for the public, researchers, managers, and others to 

report AIS infestations. This information, in turn, should be available to anyone and should be used 

in implementing AIS programs. To achieve better detection and management of AIS, States and 

the federal government must cooperate in the development of AIS management plans, including 

plans allowing for monitoring, rapid response, and control. Moreover, codes of best practices for 

industry and the use of economic incentives (for example insurance and posting of bonds prior 

to engaging in practices where there is a risk of unintentional release) would significantly help 

industry participate in AIS management. When an AIS is first detected in the Great Lakes, States 

and the federal government must be prepared with pre-approved plans and funds to mount a rapid 

response action. Implementing an integrated pest management program in the Great Lakes will 

result in immediate cost-effective benefits.12 

Cost: $44 million annually for five years. 

5) Federal, state and tribal agencies, academic institutions and other organizations should 

receive adequate support to conduct and evaluate cost-effective AIS vector-specific outreach 

and education programs. These programs should focus on behavior change and responsibility 

of resource users. Specifically, the following actions should be taken: 

Support programs that educate Great Lakes boaters and anglers on how to take preventive 

actions against AIS; 

Continue AIS-focused Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) training and 

plan implementation for research and management agencies within and outside of the 

Great Lakes basin; 

Support a program that educates all facets of the Great Lakes maritime commerce industry 

including ports, carriers, shippers, mariners, resource users and users of goods produced 

from cargoes transported to and from the Great Lakes by ships, about the urgency and 

cost-effectiveness of preventing/containing AIS, the status of prevention, and what is 

needed to advance prevention; and 

Support a new comprehensive AIS Organisms-in-Trade educational campaign including 

the bait industry, modeled on the Sea Grant AIS-HACCP and Pet Industry Joint Advisory 

Council/Sea Grant/USFWS HabitattitudeTM campaigns. Measurable objectives and 

timetables for these programs are included in Appendix F. 

Rationale: People of all walks of life play a role in preventing the introduction and spread of AIS 

and, therefore, must be involved. Education and outreach are critical in an effective program to 

address AIS. Several entities have developed and implemented extremely successful educational 

campaigns (e.g., Sea Grant’s HACCP program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Task Force’s Stop Aquatic HitchhikersTM campaign, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory 

Council/Sea Grant/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HabitattitudeTM campaign). These programs 

should be expanded, emulated, and applied to all aspects of AIS, and particularly applied to reach 

people who pose the greatest risks of AIS introductions. The proposed educational campaign 

targeting maritime commerce, for instance, would involve shippers, ports, consumers, and others 

touched by the marine shipping industry, thus involving all people who work in and benefit from 

shipping. Effective educational campaigns rely on repetition and sustained messages from multiple 

sources. 

Cost: $19.5 million annually for five years. 

•

•

•

•

12 For background on the cost-effectiveness of slowing the spread of AIS, see: Leung, B., D.M. Lodge, D. Finnoff, J.F. Shogren, M. 

Lewis, and G. Lamberti. 2002. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc Royal Soc 

London B 269: 2407-2413.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

23

GLRC HABITAT/SPECIES ISSUE AREA 

STRATEGY TEAM REPORT

I. Problem Statement

The landscape and aquatic ecosystems in the Great Lakes basin have been altered due to human 

settlement and activities, resulting in the loss or degradation of many habitats, and threatening the 

species they support. Invasive species, non-point source runoff, and aquatic food web disruption 

are some of the key threats to the health and sustainability of Great Lakes habitats and species they 

support; additional key threats are loss of fish spawning substrate and nursery areas, disruption 

of sediment transport, contaminants, altered lake levels, loss of floodplains and riparian buffers, 

hydrological changes, and landscape fragmentation and alterations. Great Lakes habitat loss and 

degradation is a pressing concern. The Great Lakes have lost more than half of the region’s original 

wetlands and 60 percent of forest lands, and the region only has small remnants of other habitat 

types such as savannah or prairies. These changes in habitat type and extent have contributed to 

numerous plant and animal extirpations throughout the Great Lakes basin. 

These impacts are of concern, as human health and prosperity, as well as the sustainability and 

biodiversity of Great Lakes wildlife, fish, and plant species and their habitats, are dependent on 

the health of the entire ecosystem. Natural habitats and native fish and wildlife communities 

play a critical role in maintaining ecosystem health and function, and contribute to the social and 

economic vitality of both the region and the nation. Nearshore and open waters provide drinking 

water for municipalities and habitat for numerous species of fish, aquatic life, and birds. The 10,000 

miles of coastline consist of over 530,000 acres of coastal wetlands, sand and cobble beaches, and 

the largest system of freshwater dunes in the world buffer upland areas from storms. More than 

30,000 islands scattered throughout the Lakes are refuges for rare and sensitive species. Thousands 

of tributaries and streams transport sediments, nutrients, and organic material throughout the 

watershed. Inland, thousands of lakes and wetlands support a diversity of fish and wildlife and 

are important reservoirs for water. Forest lands and rare savanna and prairie remnant ecosystems 

contribute to clean air, filtered water, and stabilized soil. The full array of these habitat types 

are vital for sustaining the many important Great Lakes species, particularly species targeted for 

restoration programs like trumpeter swans and lake trout in the lower four lakes. Appendix 2 

contains a complete list of representative biodiversity in the Great Lakes. 

In addition to supporting sustainability and biodiversity, Great Lakes 

resources have substantial economic value. Current estimates indicate 

that boating, fishing, hunting and wildlife watching generate over 50 

billion dollars of economic activity annually and generate hundreds 

of thousands of jobs (additional economic statistics are included in 

Appendix 1). Healthy and diverse Great Lakes ecosystems are also of 

great value to the Tribal Nations who rely on these resources to meet 

their subsistence, economic, cultural, spiritual, and medicinal needs. 

Habitat and species restoration and protection efforts are vital to the 

maintenance and recovery of these valuable Great Lakes resources. 

The following systems are identified as the initial priorities for which 

protection and restoration efforts should be focused: 1) Fish and 

wildlife populations in the Open and Nearshore Waters; 2) Wetlands; 

3) Riverine Habitats; 4) Coastal Shore and Upland Habitats.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

24

The causes and impacts of habitat degradation and species loss are many and transcend state 

boundaries. Likewise, the benefits of Great Lakes protection and restoration efforts extend far 

beyond the Great Lakes states. Successful campaigns for the protection and restoration of the 

Great Lakes ecosystem require substantial financial resources, the talents of a broad range of 

stakeholders, and coordination among local, state, tribal, federal, and international agencies. 

There are currently numerous policies, regulations, and ongoing management efforts to address 

these issues (see Appendices 3 and 5). Many of these ongoing activities have demonstrated that 

smaller successes can be achieved, increasing the feasibility of system-wide success. A coordinated 

concentrated effort, with a focus on the initial priorities for protection and restoration efforts, as 

well as a broader viewpoint that puts individual projects into a broader region-wide Framework, 

will help to address impacts to Great Lakes ecosystem health.

II. Goals and Milestones

Goals and milestones are guided by population and habitat objectives from plans which were 

developed through the cooperative efforts of teams of qualified scientists and other experts 

(Appendix 5 includes a complete discussion of ongoing efforts). An overarching long-term goal 

that applies to all habitat types is to continue progress on recovering state and federally listed species 

and communities as well as taking proactive steps to prevent future listings. In addition, a process 

should be created or adopted to prioritize conservation actions, and the actions recommended 

should consider the full range of habitat and species biodiversity and be scientifically justified with 

measurable outcomes. These actions must also be considered from a basin wide perspective and 

therefore must include coordination with Canadian conservation efforts. 

Open/Nearshore Waters 

Long-term goals: 

Open and nearshore waters possess a full array of safe and healthy natural habitats required 

to meet the growth and reproductive needs of fish and wildlife, in accordance with the 

Joint Strategic Plan for the Management of Great Lakes Fisheries.

Open and nearshore waters harbor self-sustaining fish and wildlife communities that 

include 

reproducing native fish species, especially lake herring, deepwater ciscos, lake trout, 

yellow perch, walleye, lake whitefish, coaster brook trout, lake sturgeon, American eel, 

and Atlantic salmon as a significant component. 

Self-sustaining populations of non-native game fish contribute to stabilize fish 

communities.

Competition for habitat, predation, and disruptions to the food webs from invasive 

species are 

eliminated or neutralized by preventing new introductions and managing existing invasive 

populations. 

Food webs are free of toxic contaminants.

Healthy fish communities support sustainable commercial, subsistence, and recreational 

fisheries.

Short-term actions:

Develop and evaluate lake trout restoration efforts through strategies such as a 40 

percent increase in the number of lake trout stocked, using guidance from existing fishery 

management plans (Appendix 5). 

Develop an initiative to re-establish native lake sturgeon and coregonines in five areas of 

the Great Lakes from which they have been extirpated. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

25

Refine or develop techniques or models to improve assessment and exploitation strategies 

and management protocols for important fish species such as yellow perch, lake whitefish, 

lake trout, and walleye stocks.

Develop an understanding of factors involved in recruitment of lake trout and other 

important native species, and remove or mitigate major impediments to recruitment.

Wetlands

Long-term goals:

Wetland conditions should be sufficient to provide a full range of ecosystem services 

including hydrologic retention, nutrient and sediment trapping, spawning, nesting, and 

nursery habitats, and other habitat needs of fish and wildlife.

Fish, wildlife, and plant communities and their habitats are protected and conserved. 

Wetlands in hydrologically modified environments are maintained and improved.

Non-native plant and animal species are managed or prevented.

One million acres of high quality wetlands in the basin are protected or restored. 

Self-sustaining non-endangered population levels for all currently listed wetland wildlife 

species, as determined by the state Departments of Natural Resources.

Short-term actions:

Restore or protect 550,000 acres of wetlands and associated uplands (1.1M acres). 

Achieve at least 1.54 million breeding pairs of waterfowl (annual breeding population 

under average environmental conditions). 

Update inventory and mapping of wetland habitat types in the Great Lakes basin. 

Acknowledge, develop and enhance federal and state regulations and enforcement 

for coastal and inland wetland protection that also facilitate and accelerate wetland 

restoration.

Riverine Habitats and Related Riparian Areas 

Long-term goals: 

Lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, and connecting channels are conserved or restored to 

ensure their connectivity to floodplains.

Intact stream corridors sustain native and migratory fishes, other aquatic biota, and 

wildlife.

Barrier-free access to cold and warm water tributary spawning and nursery habitats is 

sufficient to sustain migratory fishes. 

Rivers and streams are adequately buffered to reduce sedimentation and nutrient inflow. 

Natural flow regimes (including groundwater infiltration) are restored or emulated.

Short-term actions: 

Restore ten Great Lakes tributaries (five tributary barrier projects and five riparian habitat 

projects).

Restore coaster brook trout and lake sturgeon in Great Lakes tributaries.

Adopt a method to characterize or classify watersheds based on degree of altered 

hydrology.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

26

Coastal and Upland Habitats 

Long-term goals: 

Coastal shore habitats and natural processes that sustain them—such as sediment transport, 

lake-level fluctuation, and wetland migration—are protected, restored and/or managed. 

Coastal and upland habitats sustain long-term diverse and abundant populations of native 

resident and migratory fish and wildlife species, especially those that are threatened and 

endangered. 

Sufficiently large and connected inland habitats are protected and restored, contributing 

to ecosystem health and biodiversity, and providing migration corridors for species. 

Highly altered environments are managed to emulate natural ecosystems. 

New invasions of non-native species are prevented and existing non-native populations 

are eliminated or controlled. 

Erosion is controlled and groundwater is recharged. 

The vitality of these habitats provides a broad range of social, cultural, and economic 

benefits.

Short-term actions: 

Inventory and assess all Great Lakes coastal habitats and prioritize them for protection 

and restoration. 

Protect or restore 10,000 acres of high priority coastal and upland habitats per year across 

the basin.

Conduct detailed monitoring of Areas of Concern in coastal shore areas.

Protect and restore 1,100,000 acres of upland associated with wetlands.

III. Overall Recommendation 

Habitat Conservation and Species Management Funding Should Be Increased by $288.7M/year. 

While there are currently a variety of targeted authorization levels, appropriations have failed to 

match the authorized funding levels. As appropriations shrink, there is a growing expectations gap 

between those who supported legislative actions to achieve results and those entities implementing 

protection and restoration programs. As funding is diminished, program effectiveness is 

diminished. As an example, under the Farm Bill Wetland Reserve Program there is a program to 

restore wetlands, but there is not enough funding to meet the demand and it is oversubscribed 

for private landowner enrollment. Similar appropriation shortfalls are evident in budgets related 

to other federal legislation designed to protect and restore the critical habitats and promote 

important species management needs of the United States. Therefore, the recommended actions 

are premised on a tiered approach to reflect different options for the implementation approaches 

which include:

Increasing appropriations to match previously authorized levels;

Increasing the authorized funding level where existing levels are inadequate to achieve 

specified results; and 

Creating new authorizations and appropriations where program gaps currently exist.

These recommended actions are a significant step towards meeting habitat/species goals, but 

reaching full restoration and protection objectives for the entire basin will require more resources 

and more time. Federal, state, tribal, and local government involvement along with private or 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

27

industrial landowner implementation is crucial for all of the recommendations including funding. 

The outcomes resulting from these recommended actions should be measurable. The immediate 

measure of project success may be, for example, the amount of area impacted by the project. After 

a few years, the assessment may shift to species numbers and/or population diversity in response 

to the habitat changes. 

The Overall Recommendation for habitat conservation and species management funded at 

$288.7 million annually should be allocated as listed below. 

1. Native Fish Communities in Open water/Nearshore Habitats - $20 million annually

 Provide 20 million additional dollars annually for efforts to promote the restoration and 

protection of native fish communities in the near shore and open lake waters. Fishery 

resources and associated uses are among the most sensitive of all uses made of the Great 

Lakes and are an integral part and indication of ecosystem quality. This funding would support 

implementation of the fishery goals and objectives developed via the Joint Strategic Plan for 

Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, adopted in 1981 and updated in 1985 and 1997 by 

all state, provincial, tribal, and federal agencies with fisheries management authority in the 

Great Lakes. This funding would be used for research, population assessments, restorative 

stocking efforts, predictive fisheries modeling, development of regulations, and enforcement 

surveillance to protect stocks and promote sustainable harvests. 

2. Wetlands – $188.7 million annually 

 To achieve the goals of the Great Lakes regions specified in the North American Waterfowl 

Plan and related Joint Ventures, target 57 million new dollars annually for acquisition, 

restoration, and other protection tools for wetlands. Wetland restoration costs are estimated 

between $1,000 and $1,700 per restored acre, based upon average costs of wetland restorations 

undertaken by Ducks Unlimited and USDA’s Wetland Reserve Program. An estimated sixtysix percent of historic Great Lakes wetlands have already been lost. Therefore, primary 

emphasis would be on wetland protection and restoration directed at achieving a net increase 

of wetlands in the basin, and would include a monitoring component. Currently, authorizations 

exist in several federal agencies (see Appendix 5, Ongoing Efforts). Improved coordination 

and joint targeting efforts could lead to project designs and locations that provide both nonpoint source pollutant controls (for water quality benefits) as well as increased amounts of 

critical wetland habitat. See Appendix 6 for more information on this recommendation. 

3. Riparian Habitats – Great Lakes River Restoration - $40 million annually

 There is currently no national program to specifically support restoration of the physical 

integrity of our nation’s rivers. Rivers are critically important to the establishment of selfsustaining Great Lakes fish communities and estuarine fish and wildlife populations. Congress 

should therefore develop legislation to restore Great Lakes rivers. It should provide $40 

million annually to implement watershed projects that restore the hydrology, protect and 

restore the riparian habitats for wildlife, restore in-stream habitats needed for fish spawning 

or nursery sites, and promote access for anadromous fish migrations while restricting exotic 

species expansions. The program could work jointly with USDA programs like the CREP 

riparian buffer programs to achieve systemic results through improved inter-governmental 

coordination and watershed targeting. Funding should be allocated to states and tribes on a 

formula basis based on watershed size, tributary miles, populations in the basin, and miles of 

Great Lake shoreline.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

28

4. Coastal Shore and Upland Habitats - $40 million annually

 We recommend creating a coastal shore and upland habitat conservation program to coordinate 

funding to ensure Great Lakes native species and communities of greatest conservation need are 

protected, restored, and appropriately managed. We further recommend an increase in funding 

for existing landowner incentive programs to encourage private and corporate landowners to 

conserve habitat and help to protect important native species. With recommended funding 

levels of $40 million per year for five years, we expect the results to be the prevention of 

habitat and species loss and the conservation of coastal shore and upland habitats supporting 

healthy populations of numerous species. This funding should be directed to existing state, 

tribal, and federal natural resource management programs. Funding would also provide grants 

for cost share projects, acquisitions, easements or other incentives for private and corporate 

landowners and municipal governments to provide long term habitat and species protection 

and restoration efforts. 

 There are common priority themes which would drive protection and restoration of coastal 

and upland areas across the basin and include:

Habitats specified in endangered species recovery plans;

Habitats that represent rare, threatened or endangered species;

Rare or unique habitats like islands or dunes or rocky coastlines; and

Habitats critical to species restoration programs.

 While these themes are categorized as common priorities, monitoring, indicators, and 

measurable objectives, they would differ across the basin in recognition of the natural 

variations. It may therefore be necessary to suggest a temporal approach to monitoring which 

evolves as the projects develop and the biological systems subsequently begin to respond.

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

29

COASTAL HEALTH

I. Problem Statement

Contact (including external, ingestion, and inhalation)13 with nearshore waters of the Great Lakes 

can pose a risk to human health.14 As the primary source of drinking water, supplier of fish for 

both personal and commercial benefit, and recreational outlet for millions of U.S. residents, the 

nearshore waters of the Great Lakes should pose a minimum risk to human health through contact. 

(The Great Lakes are a natural body of water and hence the achievement of null risk is unrealistic.) 

To reduce human health risk, Great Lakes nearshore waters should be drinkable (with conventional 

treatment), swimmable, and the fish harvested should be consumable at all times. The need to 

close beaches, issue boil water notices, publish fish consumption advisories,15 and mechanically 

remove stranded algae should be minimized. These factors have led to the following trends and 

events in the Great Lakes.

The estimated volume of combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges in the U.S. is 850 

billion gallons per year, with most of these CSOs located in the Great Lakes and Northeast 

regions;16

In 2001-2002, 23 States reported 65 waterborne disease outbreaks affecting 2,536 

individuals (61 hospitalized, eight died) which represent the largest number to occur since 

reporting began in 1978. Five of these outbreaks were attributed to water bodies in Great 

Lakes states (MI, WI);17 and

The NRDC’s annual survey of water quality monitoring and public notification at U.S. 

beaches finds that there were 51 percent more beach closings and advisories in 2003 

than in 2002. Across the country, pollution caused 

more than 18,000 days of closings and advisories 

at ocean and Great Lakes beaches last year – 

more than ever recorded in the survey’s 14-year 

history.18

•

•

•

13 Contact includes various levels of body contact experienced by swimmers, water skiers, users of personal watercraft, scuba divers 

and tribal communities who live along the shore. 

14 Coastal Health is affected by the overall health of the natural ecosystem addressed in the Great Lakes Collaboration Habitat/Species 

strategy chapter. Coastal Health is also affected by the legacy of industrial pollution addressed in the Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxics 

Reduction and Areas of Concern/Restoration Sediments strategy chapters.

15 The Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxics Team will address fish consumption advisories. 

16 2004 CSO/SSO Report to Congress. 

17 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC. 2004

18 NRDC Testing the Waters 2004.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

30

II. Goals and Milestones

Goal: By 202019 or sooner where possible, eliminate inputs of untreated or inadequately treated20

human and industrial waste to Great Lakes basin waters from municipal wastewater treatment 

systems and on-site disposal systems.21

Interim Milestones:

By 2006, EPA and the Great Lakes States will actively enforce NPDES authority to ensure 

pretreatment programs are properly implemented;

By 2007, U.S. EPA and the Great Lakes States will undertake a thorough review of their 

ongoing wet weather control programs to identify and correct deficiencies, including 

adequate staffing and funding, to ensure that programs are achieving the requirements of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), including anti-degradation;

By 2007, watershed planning and applications of best management practices to promote 

infiltration and reduce impervious cover shall be components of wet weather management 

implemented by local governments;

By 2007, Congress should fully fund the Clean Water State Revolving Fund;

By 2008, U.S. EPA, in cooperation with Great Lakes States, will promulgate rules governing 

the disbursement of new wet weather management grant funds;

By 2009, Congress will appropriate grant funds for a wet weather control program;

By 2009, local governments shall develop ordinances to ensure proper construction, siting, 

and maintenance of on-site disposal systems, including conducting inspections at the time 

of property transfer;

By 2010, or as soon as possible, all municipalities with wet weather overflows in the Great 

Lakes basin will have adopted and begun to implement comprehensive storm water control 

programs with the objective of meeting all appropriate state and federal regulations; and

For communities with wet weather problems that have not proceeded with required 

planning and implementation by 2010, the States or U.S. EPA will apply necessary 

enforcement actions (administrative order or judicial action) to require correction of the 

problems by a date certain with appropriate penalties.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

19 The date given in this goal assumes approximately five years for communities who have not done so already to create their longterm control plans (LTCPs) or other comprehensive wet weather solutions. The U.S. EPA CSO Control Policy of 1994, the driving 

engine for the LTCPs, did not provide a date by which communities needed to submit their plans for approval. However, the CSO 

Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development of 1997 recommends a CSO control implementation period 

of 15 years for communities with high financial burden, while acknowledging that the time boundary is not intended to replace the 

negotiations and deliberations necessary to balance all of the environmental and financial considerations that influence the site specific 

nature of the controls and implementation schedules. Since the schedule recommendations laid out in the 1997 guidance have not been 

met in some communities, and considering the seriousness of CSOs’ environmental impacts, the sense of the Coastal Health Strategy 

Team is that CSO control should be expedited. Therefore, the Team recommends a goal of implementing the LTCPs consistent with 

the guidance recommendations and, where feasible within 10 years of their approval. The recommended federal grant program would 

provide communities with the funding resources and storm water incentives to accelerate both their planning process and their LTCP 

(or other comprehensive wet weather solution) implementation. Particularly given the recommended 45 percent local match to this 

federal grant program, local funding would significantly leverage this accelerated schedule. 

20 Elimination and the adequacy of treatment are defined by the Clean Water Act, the 1994 CSO Control Policy, and subsequent federal 

guidance.

21 This goal is intended to capture the intent of the U.S. Policy Committee’s 2002 Great Lakes Strategy goals, several of which are 

now outdated. For example: • “By 2003, U.S. EPA and States will assist local governments in establishing alternate funding vehicles 

to implement CSO/SSO abatement construction projects. Storm water permits will be in place for all phase II storm water discharges 

• By 2005, 100 percent of all CSO permits in the Great Lakes will be consistent with the national CSO policy. • By 2010, all sewer 

systems will be operated under LTCPs which will optimize performance and minimize discharges from SSOs. • By 2010, 90 percent 

of monitored high priority Great Lakes beaches will meet bacteria standards more than 95 percent of the swimming season.” See the 

Nonpoint Source chapter for goals and action items related to minimizing storm water runoff from urban and agricultural areas. See the 

Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxics chapter for more on preventing discharges of industrial and pharmaceutical wastes from municipal 

sewage treatment systems. 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

31

Goal: Achieve a 90-95 percent reduction in bacterial, algal, and chemical contamination at all local 

beaches. Steps to achieve this include: identify indirect pollution sources capable of adversely 

impacting Great Lakes coastal health; educate communities regarding their environmental impact; 

and remediate all potential indirect pollution sources through identification, estimation of relative 

contribution (based on historical data and sanitary inspection), and remediation of these sources. 

This will result in 90-95 percent of all Great Lakes public bathing beaches being classified as having 

“good” water quality.

Interim Milestones:

By 2005, the BEACH Act will be fully funded to continue routine compliance monitoring 

of coastal waters;

By 2006, real-time testing methodologies will be evaluated and trialed at Great Lakes 

beaches;

By 2006, coastal states will have complied with the BEACH Act requirements for public 

notification;

By 2006, a standardized sanitary survey form will be drafted;

By 2007, standardized sanitary surveys will be trialed at select coastal communities;

By 2008, states will add to their existing water quality monitoring programs a standardized 

tool for conducting sanitary surveys that will identify sources of contamination at the local 

level in those instances when bacterial indicator levels exceed published standards;

By 2009, real-time test methodologies will supplant existing test methods (which take in 

excess of 18 hours before results become available) under the BEACH Act of 2000; and

By 2010, regional predictive models will be available using local data and forecasts of 

water mass movements derived from the Great Lakes Observation System.

Goal: At the local level, individual contamination events will occur no more than five percent of 

available days per bathing season, sources of these contamination events will be identified through 

standardized sanitary surveys, and remediation measures will be in place to address these events.

Interim Milestones:

By 2007, coastal communities will have an education and outreach program in place for 

K-12, college, the general public, and coastal decision-makers, with assistance of the Great 

Lakes Sea Grant Network;

By 2008, enforceable city ordinances will be in place that call for the placement of signs 

regarding the health risk associated with bather shedding, provision of adequate sanitary 

facilities for bathers, availability and importance of proper boater waste disposal, and 

prohibition of practices that attract nuisance wildlife to which fines are attached for 

violations;

By 2008, use sanitary surveys to identify 90 to 95% of all indirect pollutant sources resulting 

in beach closures;

By 2009, begin to control, manage, and/or remediate pollutant sources identified through 

sanitary surveys; and

By 2020, nutrient loading will have decreased as evidenced by a decrease in nuisance algal 

blooms and ambient water concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous in coastal areas.

Goal: The quality of Great Lakes basin drinking water from coastal and tributary sources will be 

protected from chronic and episodic threats of chemical and biological contamination that pose 

unacceptable risk following conventional water treatment.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

32

Interim Milestones:

By 2007, amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) will be adopted to 

enhance flexibility in how State Revolving Funds may be used for infrastructure system 

improvements and the Clean Water SRF will be fully funded;

By 2007, Bioterrorism Act amendments will be adopted to require implementation of 

security measures that address potential resource/facility vulnerabilities;

By 2010, states will have strategies for protecting water quality for the intended use of 

public water supply; and

By 2010, all states and local municipal water supply systems will complete plans for 

infrastructure upgrades that address aging system deficiencies and integrate security 

measures for vulnerable resources/facilities.

III. Recommendations

Based on assessments that identify existing pollution sources and potential threats to water quality, 

multiple actions are available to remediate and prevent adverse impacts on human health in nearshore 

waters. These include control/abatement and remediation of direct and indirect pollution sources 

into coastal and tributary Great Lakes waters, and protection of drinking source water quality. The 

following actions are required to achieve the Coastal Health goals for a minimum risk to human 

health within the Great Lakes.

1) Eliminate to the extent provided by existing regulation inputs of untreated or inadequately 

treated human and industrial waste to Great Lakes basin waters through implementation of 

wet weather programs, including improvements to wastewater treatment systems. Conditions 

governing this recommended action are presented in Appendix C.

U.S. EPA and the States should fully implement, enforce, and report on their wet weather 

control programs to identify and correct deficiencies to ensure the requirements of the 

CWA are achieved in a timely manner.

As part of a 55/45 percent federal/local cost share, $7.535 billion22 in federal grants 

should be made available over five years. These monies would then support state and local 

resources in the amount of $6.21 billion, thereby raising $13.70 billion to fund wastewater 

treatment improvements.

•

•

•

•

•

•

22 U.S. EPA’s Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2000 Report to Congress (www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm) 

breaks down costs by watershed and need category. For the Great Lakes watershed, the total cost for need categories I-V is 13.75 

billion in January 2000 dollars. This total includes I. Secondary Wastewater Treatment, II. Advanced Wastewater Treatment, III-A. 

Infiltration/Inflow correction, III-B. Sewer replacement/rehabilitation, IV-A. New collector sewers and appurtenances, IV-B. New 

interceptor sewers and appurtenances, and V. Combined sewer overflow correction. [However, the CWNS Report to Congress states 

that its estimated cost to control CSOs (Needs Category V) is based on “capturing 85 percent of the flows that enter the combined 

sewer system during wet weather events.” Furthermore, this cost is only for “providing those flows with the equivalent of primary 

clarification, solids and floatables disposal, and disinfection of the effluent.” (CWNS 2000 Report to Congress, page 3-8). To the extent 

that implementation of CSO controls exceeds 85 percent capture and/or provides treatment for those flows equivalent to more than 

primary clarification, solids/floatables disposal, and disinfection, this level of funding will be inadequate. Future estimates of the needed 

funding must be increased to reflect the actual levels of CSO capture and treatment undertaken in the Great Lakes watershed.] The 

Coastal Health team’s recommendation is derived by allocating $13.70 billion of this total to support a federal grants program, and the 

remaining $50 million of this total to support the three Great Lakes U.S. EPA regions ($10 million) and the eight Great Lakes States 

($40 million). To put this figure in some context, the Report found that the estimated total cost of the upgrade projects necessary to 

meet the objectives of the CWNS is $181 billion. The Coastal Health team independently derived the 55/45 percent federal/local cost 

share for the grants program, resulting in a federal cost of $7.535 billion over five years. On an annual basis, the team’s recommendation 

calls for $1.507 billion in federal grants per year for five years. Although this amount is essentially all new funding, a small fraction may 

be supplied by the State Revolving Fund (SRF). According to NRDC, $393 million is budgeted for the Great Lakes States’ SRF in 2005, 

and $260 million budgeted for 2006. The portion of this budget that goes to communities actually within the Great Lakes basin is a 

much smaller amount. If the SRF continues at its current level, it could represent an approximate $100 million (estimated) in existing
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

33

$10 million23 should be made available over five years to the three U.S. EPA regions to 

review and upgrade their Great Lakes wet weather programs—including the CSO Control 

Policy, NPDES permit issuance and enforcement, and storm water management–to 

ensure that issues are addressed comprehensively.

$40 million24 should be made available over five years to the Great Lakes States to 

administer a new grants program, review, and upgrade all of their wet weather programs 

(including NPDES permits and enforcement), and implement anti-degradation rules in 

relation to sewage system expansions.

Rationale: Direct sources of contamination affecting coastal health are those that originate from 

a single, identifiable, fixed point such as rivers, streams, sewer pipes, septic systems, or a point of 

industrial discharge. Aging or overburdened sewage infrastructure, which can release raw sewage to 

source waters in urban areas through sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) or CSOs, still exist in many 

Great Lakes municipalities where storm and sanitary systems remain co-mingled (see Appendix 

A). Substantial reduction of the discharge of untreated sewage into the Great Lakes will reduce 

health risks for bathers and bacteria load in drinking water supplies. Given the potential impact 

on human health, overflows of untreated human and industrial waste into Great Lakes waters 

must be controlled through comprehensive solutions that may include structural controls such 

as separating storm and sanitary sewers, constructing storage capacity or controlling infiltration/

inflow; non-structural controls such as land use planning and aggressive use of best management 

practices to allow no net increase in storm water run-off; and regulatory controls such as issuing, 

updating, and enforcing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

Cost: $13.75 billion in new funds over five years, with $7.54 billion provided by the federal 

government and $6.21 billion provided by non-federal partners.

2) Identify indirect pollution sources capable of adversely impacting Great Lakes coastal health 

and, upon identification, promulgate and enforce regulations, provide public education, 

promote research, and initiate remediation to reduce the impact of these sources.

These may include, but are not limited to, bacterial loading from foreshore beach sand 

and submerged sediments, avian/animal deposition, algal blooms (can appear during 

dry weather, but are caused by nutrient loading during wet weather and aquatic invasive 

species), bather shedding, and untreated onboard boater waste.

State and local public health agencies provide public education and/or incentives to 

reduce impacts from nutrient-loading, household and industrial products, attraction of 

nuisance wildlife, improper discharge of onboard boater waste, and bather shedding.

Request that the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network make this an education/outreach priority 

for the region and a component of a Great Lakes Centers for Ocean Science Education 

Excellence (COSEE) program through NSF.

State and local governments promulgate and enforce existing regulations which take action 

against boaters who discharge waste to the nearshore or open waters of the Great Lakes.

Require regulations regarding the availability of adequate toilet and shower facilities based 

on projected bather density to receive BEACH Act grant funds.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

funding that could be subtracted from the team’s recommended total on an annual basis. The CWNS 2000 Report states that “the needs 

must have existed as of January 1, 2000, to be included in the CWNS 2000.” Therefore, the costs contained in the report do not have 

an implied timeframe or end date. The Coastal Health team, accordingly, recommends that the full cost of addressing these needs be 

provided over a five-year period. The CWNS is repeated and updated every five years. When the January 2005 data are published, the 

Coastal Health team’s recommendations should be updated to reflect the most recent data.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

34

Assess extent of contaminated sediments, especially in Areas of Concern, that contribute 

to water quality concerns. (Addressed in AOC/Sediments chapter.)

Research to clarify sources and transport of biotoxins (i.e., botulism) through foodweb.

Rationale: Indirect sources of contamination are sources whose origination cannot be traced to 

a single point such as a storm drain or sewer outfall (see Appendix A). The effects of indirect 

sources of contamination are diffuse and, therefore, determining their origin may require intensive 

investigation. For example, determining a correlation between increased bacterial level density at 

the bathing beach and various coastal processes, predominating weather conditions, and natural 

and human sources is often difficult. Remediating contamination sources responsible for indirect 

pollution water quality failures will reduce human health risks, increase availability/access to Great 

Lakes recreation, improve ecosystem health, promote sustainable practices, decrease economic loss 

(millions of dollars are lost each year due to beach closures), and increase commercial benefits.

Cost: Depends on indirect pollution sources identified at individual beaches based on annual 

sanitary surveys (see Appendix E). The costs associated with conducting educational campaigns 

and initiating remediation range between $20,000 and $1 million per source identified, based on 

the size of the population served, the extensiveness of the impact, and the need for infrastructure 

improvements. The cost would be shared between state and local agencies (possible through fines 

levied against offenders in some instances) and through the availability of federally approved loans 

or grant funding.

3) Standardize, test, and implement a risk-based approach25 to manage recreational water.

U.S. EPA to build the approach upon existing water quality monitoring programs and 

employ the latest technology for microbial assessment and standardized sanitary survey 

criteria, based on a holistic watershed assessment.

U.S. EPA to take responsibility for accelerating the process necessary for field testing and 

approval of real-time test methodologies.

Once these two tools are in place they can be tested at the local level, adopted by the 

federal government, and implemented at the state and tribal level.

Federal, state, tribal and local municipalities have begun to work together to standardize the 

microbial assessment of recreational water and these working groups can also standardize 

the sanitary inspection process.

Rationale: Beach and coastal assessment methods (microbial and physical) are the front lines of 

defense for determining when contaminant influxes are most likely to impact human health in the 

context of surface water encounters. Tools available to beach managers and authorities responsible 

for monitoring these water bodies should accurately reflect risk, provide timely notification to the 

public, and enable investigation of potential contamination sources (both direct and indirect) thus 

leading to remediation of these sources.

Cost: $2.0 million26 annually to the Great Lake states to standardize, trial, and implement a riskbased approach to beach/coastal assessment, a portion of which could be appropriated from U.S. 

EPA BEACH Act funds (assuming that they are re-appropriated at the federal level). $7.2 million 

for U.S. EPA to conclude and analyze data from National Epidemiological and Environmental 

Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) Water Study ($9.0 million of the total cost of $16.2 million 

has already been funded).

•

•

•

•

•

•

25 WHO, Annapolis Protocol, U.S. EPA National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants, June 2002, EPA 

823B02004.

26 Note that the dollar amount appropriated for BEACH Act funds to the eight Great Lakes states in 2005 was $1,965,460.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

35

4) Protect drinking source water quality.

U.S. EPA will establish ambient water quality criteria for parasites, pathogens, and 

disinfectant by-product (DBP) precursors for states to implement.

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) should be fully funded, and states 

should implement programs to assure that ambient water quality, following conventional 

treatment, does not pose an unacceptable risk to consumers.

States should work with public water systems to reduce vulnerabilities identified in the 

source water assessments.

Rationale: In addition to effective implementation and enforcement of existing Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA) and CWA requirements by EPA and the states, this action requires a combination 

of enhanced federal policy requirements to include ambient water quality criteria for parasites, 

pathogens and disinfectant by-product precursors, full federal funding and greater flexibility in 

how State Revolving Funds may be used. Ambient water quality criteria related to drinking water 

following conventional treatment are needed to support source water protection programs. Water 

quality criteria for pathogens, such as cryptosporidium, have not been promulgated under CWA 

authority, nor have criteria for DBP precursors been developed, while risk-based standards are 

being developed for finished water supplied by public water systems.

Cost: Fund the CWSRF at least to the level appropriated for FY 2004 ($1.35 billion nationally and 

$225 million to the Great Lakes States).

5) Use the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to improve drinking water infrastructure 

and support source water protection.

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) should be fully funded and increased 

flexibility should be given in how the funds may be used by the states and local municipalities 

for water infrastructure improvements.

States and local public water supply systems to implement and enforce infrastructure 

improvement plans that include security measures to address resource/facility vulnerabilities 

and critical infrastructure facilities governed under the Bioterrorism Act.

Rationale: Protection of drinking water quality by public and private water supply systems 

throughout the Great Lakes basin must be improved. In addition to effective implementation 

and enforcement of existing Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements by U.S. EPA and 

the states, this action requires a combination of enhanced federal policy requirements to include 

full federal funding and greater flexibility in how State Revolving Funds may be used to upgrade 

drinking water infrastructure, systems, and implementation of water infrastructure improvement 

plans with security measures for vulnerable resources/facilities to reduce chemical contaminant 

and bioterrorism risks to drinking water supplies.

Cost: Fully-fund the DWSRF at levels authorized by the SDWA ($260 million to the Great Lakes 

States) through 2010.

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

36

AREAS OF CONCERN/SEDIMENTS

I. Problem Statement

In 1987, the U.S. and Canada committed to restoring the most degraded portions of the Great 

Lakes basin. Working through the International Joint Commission (IJC), the Great Lakes states 

and provinces designated 43 Areas of Concern (AOCs), including 26 in U.S. waters and five in 

binational waterways. AOCs were identified based on 14 types of impairment, reflecting human 

uses—such as eating fish, drinking water and swimming—and ecological impacts, such as loss of 

diversity in aquatic life and destruction of fish and wildlife habitat. 

AOCs vary widely in geographic scope and extent of environmental problems. Some are confined 

to small harbors and others encompass an entire river watershed. Some are impacted primarily by 

one large contaminated sediment site and others face multiple sources of pollution and extensive 

loss of habitat. 

The most common sources of impairment are contaminated sediments; sewage treatment plant 

discharges and combined sewer overflows; nonpoint source runoff; runoff from hazardous waste 

sites; and habitat degradation and destruction. Many of the sources that impact the AOCs are 

addressed in the other chapters of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration report. Contaminated 

sediment is linked to impairments in all 31 U.S. AOCs. Due to the widespread, severe impacts 

of contaminated sediments, and because no other chapter covers them, this is the only pollution 

source this chapter will address. 

Though progress has been made in the AOCs, much remains to be done. Restoration of AOCs has 

historically been approached through an array of programs, most designed for other purposes and 

none adequately funded. This is particularly true for the remediation of contaminated sediments. 

In January 2005, the U.S. Policy Committee for the Great Lakes identified 75 remaining sites in the 

AOCs with a total estimated volume of nearly 75 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments. 

Depending on the remedy, total cleanup costs for these sites could range from $1.5 billion to $4.5 

billion. 

There are three primary barriers to achieving further progress in restoring the AOCs: 1) optimizing 

program administration and effectiveness; 2) addressing contaminated sediments (including 

disposal and destruction technology issues); and, 3) establishing final restoration targets to facilitate 

“delisting” of AOCs – formally removing them from the list of designated Areas of Concern in 

the Great Lakes.

Program Administration and Effectiveness

At its inception, the AOC program generated much 

enthusiasm as a comprehensive, ecosystem-based 

approach with a strong emphasis on community 

leadership and stakeholder involvement. Federal 

funding has supported much of the planning, 

restoration, research and monitoring conducted in the 

AOCs. The states, capably assisted by local advisory 

councils in most AOCs, played an important role in 

engaging stakeholders, advising federal agencies, and 

implementing many planning and restoration efforts.

By the late 1990s, however, progress in some AOCs slowed due to diminished funding and a lack 

of organized federal program direction. Consequently, state, tribal, and local efforts declined. In 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

37

2002, the General Accounting Office (GAO, now called the Government Accountability Office) 

produced a report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02563.pdf) documenting administrative 

problems in the AOC program. Since then, significant changes have begun to reinvigorate the 

program. However, there remains a need for more efficient processes and adequate, stable funding 

for federal, state, local, and tribal partners to carry out and achieve complete restoration and 

delisting of the AOCs.

Contaminated Sediment Issues

It is critical to address unstable and/or bioavailable concentrated deposits of contaminated 

sediments before they reach the lakes, where cleanup can be much more difficult and expensive. 

Many remediation projects are constrained by the complexity and cost of design and implementation, 

limited alternatives to contaminated sediment dredging and disposal, limited disposal capacity, and 

a lack of clear standards for beneficial re-use of some sediments. 

Delisting

Despite the time and effort invested in the AOC program, no U.S. AOCs have been delisted and 

there is no consistent way to track progress in restoring these waterways. Further, most impacts are 

not clearly aligned with existing federal water quality regulations, making it difficult to meaningfully 

document environmental improvements in the AOCs. AOCs need scientifically justified, measurable 

delisting targets that address AOC-specific conditions and are consistent with federal, state, local, 

and tribal regulations and policies. Research, remediation and monitoring needed to achieve these 

restoration targets must be identified, funded, and implemented. 

II. Goals and Milestones

The goal of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration is to restore all the U.S. Great Lakes AOCs. 

Milestones toward this ultimate goal include:

by the end of 2006, U.S. EPA should expand the existing U.S. EPA-State RAP Workgroup 

into a Federal-State AOC Coordinating Committee to better coordinate efforts and 

optimize existing programs and authorities to advance restoration of the AOCs;

by the end of 2007, Congress should revise and reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act;

by the end of 2008, delisting targets for each U.S. AOC should be developed collaboratively 

by federal, state, local, and tribal partners;

by the end of 2010, 10 AOCs should be delisted (restored to target goals); and 

by 2020, all known contaminated sediment sites in the AOCs should be remediated. 

Coupled with restoration measures identified in other chapters, this will facilitate complete 

restoration of the AOCs.

III. Recommendations

The following recommendations address obstacles to restoring the AOCs by:

addressing inefficiencies in the Great Lakes Legacy Act and increasing available funding 

to a level sufficient to reach the goal of cleaning up all contaminated sediment sites in the 

AOCs by 2020;

providing for the program capacity needed to develop measurable endpoints, design and 

implement remedial actions, and measure results;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

38

making better use of existing programs and funds through increased coordination at the 

federal, state, local and tribal levels; and

working toward better alternatives to removal and disposal of sediments.

1) Great Lakes Legacy Act Funding, Amendments, Reauthorization and Guidance

Over the next five years, the Administration should request and Congress should appropriate 

$150 million annually for the Great Lakes Legacy Act to remediate contaminated sediment 

sites in the AOCs. Continued funding at this level over an additional ten years will be 

needed to achieve the goal of cleaning up all known contaminated sediment sites in Great 

Lakes AOCs by 2020. 

The Great Lakes Legacy Act should enhance and accelerate the pace of sediment 

remediation in the AOCs by serving as the primary remediation authority or supplementing 

existing remediation programs addressing contaminated sediments (such as CERCLA, 

RCRA, state remediation statutes and WRDA § 312, among others). Congress should 

amend the Act to allow for more efficient implementation of the program, as follows: 

The “maintenance of effort” language in the Legacy Act should be dropped because 

it is not appropriate in the context of sediment remediation where costs often vary 

widely from year to year and, as a result, it can lead to inadvertent disqualification of 

otherwise eligible and valuable projects. 

The life of appropriated Legacy Act funds should be extended beyond two years 

(as envisioned by the Legacy Act) to accommodate both responsible remediation 

and long-term monitoring of the effectiveness of implemented remedies, which is 

consistent with the 2002 Great Lakes Strategy. 

The current 35 percent level of matching funds/in-kind services required under the 

Legacy Act from the nonfederal sponsor at “orphan sites” should be adjusted to 25 

percent, or at a minimum, Legacy Act funds should be available for planning and 

design work with no match or reduced match, in order to “tee-up” projects and 

maintain momentum. 

The current limitation in the Legacy Act which requires exclusive federal agency 

project implementation precludes disbursal of funds to other entities to assume the 

lead in project implementation. This requirement restricts the efficient implementation 

of remedial work in some cases, and should be amended to allow direct disbursal 

of project funds, which would allow for greater flexibility in implementing the 

program. 

U.S. EPA should develop guidance to clarify and reiterate the Legacy Act’s original intent 

to permit potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to participate as the non-federal sponsor 

for projects funded under the Act. The guidance should confirm that PRPs are neither 

excluded from eligibility to serve as nonfederal sponsors nor absolved from their liability 

for remediation of contaminated sediments under federal and state remediation programs. 

The eligibility of PRPs to provide some or all of the nonfederal share of a Legacy Act 

package should be evaluated on its merits on a site-specific basis, in the context of the 

concept of “added value.” Examples of circumstances where PRP participation in Legacy 

Act project funding would provide “added value” include, but are not limited to, sites 

where an “orphan share” exists or where the remedy will be enhanced (such as where 

the scope—quality or quantity—of the remediation is improved, innovative methods are 

employed or the remediation will be accelerated). 

Rationale: Before the Great Lakes Legacy Act, there was no specific federal authorization for a 

contaminated sediments remediation program for the AOCs. The Act fills this gap and holds the 

•

•

•

•

–

–

–

–

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

39

potential for an accelerated sediment remediation program that builds on considerable preparatory 

work by federal, state, local, and tribal agencies and PRPs to evaluate contaminated sediments and 

to design and implement remedial options. 

Appropriations under the Legacy Act have lagged substantially behind authorized levels. U.S. EPA 

received $9.9 million in FY 2004 and $22.3 million in FY 2005, compared to authorized funding 

of $50 million annually for remedial activities. If Congress were to appropriate the full $50 million 

annually, the interim milestone of delisting ten AOCs by 2010 can be achieved. However, this 

spending level will not be adequate to reach the ultimate goal of remediating all contaminated 

sediment sites in the AOCs by 2020. Based on estimated volumes of contaminated sediments 

and depending on the remediation options selected, $150 million (on average) each year matches 

up with both resource needs and state, local, and tribal capacity to plan and implement remedial 

projects. 

2) AOC Program Capacity

The Administration should request and Congress should appropriate $10 million annually 

to the Great Lakes states and community-based coordinating councils in the AOCs; and 

$1.7 million to U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office for regional coordination 

and program implementation. 

Furthermore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan 

Program, authorized in Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, 

should be included in the President’s budget to enable the Corps to participate in the 

Federal-State AOC Coordinating Committee and to request funding for projects that 

advance restoration of the AOCs.

Rationale: Restoration of the AOCs is critical to the restoration of the Great Lakes, yet the 

Clean Water Act provides no specific regulatory authority or funding for the AOC program. The 

decline in program effectiveness in the late 1990s, which corresponds directly to declining federal 

financial support and the associated loss of federal, state, tribal, and local programmatic capacity, 

is testament to the need to build and maintain core capacity among the partners involved in AOC 

restoration. Current funding levels should be enhanced to the recommended levels to ensure 

adequate technical capacity at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels so that large-scale cleanup 

programs, such as the Great Lakes Legacy Act, are utilized effectively. 

To further enhance AOC program capacity, U.S. EPA and each state, in consultation with local 

AOC advisory groups, should establish cooperative agreements that outline their respective roles 

and responsibilities, priorities, anticipated outcomes, resource needs, staffing levels, and procedures 

for documenting and reporting progress. 

The core funding recommended above also will enable more rapid development of the delisting 

targets that are a necessary foundation of remedial projects. Federal, state, local, and tribal 

partners should collaboratively develop delisting targets for each U.S. AOC by the end of 2008, in 

accordance with the Delisting Principles and Guidelines adopted by the U.S. Policy Committee in 

December 2001. 

3) Federal-State Collaboration

The existing U.S. EPA/State RAP Work Group should be expanded to a Federal-State AOC 

Coordinating Committee to better coordinate efforts and optimize existing programs and 

authorities to advance restoration of the AOCs. 

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

40

Rationale: No single agency at any level of government has the legal authority or programmatic 

resources to fully restore the AOCs. Further, the current lack of a coordinating mechanism means 

existing resources are not used as effectively as they could be. A sustained, outcome-oriented 

collaborative process is needed to effectively consolidate existing resources available for restoring 

the AOCs. 

The Federal Interagency Task Force is charged under the Executive Order with coordinating the 

Great Lakes activities of federal agencies. While this is a valuable objective, much of the work 

to restore the AOCs is administered at the state, tribal, and local levels. Therefore, a broader 

collaborative framework is needed. The Coordinating Committee should act as a clearinghouse 

to move specific projects forward through technical assistance, data collection and sharing, 

identification of available resources, and joint work efforts. States should help local AOC councils 

and tribes access the support of the Coordinating Committee, plan and schedule restoration work, 

and identify nonfederal matching funds as necessary. 

4) Promote Development of Environmentally-Sound Sediment Treatment and Destruction 

Technologies, Beneficial Re-Use of Sediments, and Best Available Disposal Options.

U.S. EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the states, and the tribes should actively examine 

innovative approaches to the ultimate disposition of contaminated sediments as an alternative to the 

current practice of disposing of them in Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) or landfills. Congress 

should fully fund, at $3 million annually over the next five years, the research and development 

program authorized in Section 306 of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. This research will test and 

promote viable treatment technologies that allow for the separation, immobilization, neutralization 

or destruction of contaminants in sediments, in-situ or upon removal. A significant focus of this 

work should be on the development of technologies that produce no new contaminants and do 

not release contaminants to the environment. 

Rationale: While it undoubtedly improves the condition of waterways, the removal and transporting 

of contaminated sediments to a disposal facility simply relocates the contamination. Disposal 

facilities can be difficult and expensive to site and build, and the lack of adequate disposal capacity 

keeps cleanups from moving forward. Alternatives to disposal would address these issues. 

Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies should examine the feasibility of developing facilities where 

dredged sediments can be managed for disposal, treatment, destruction and/or beneficial re-use 

at a single location. Treatment technologies for decontamination and/or beneficial re-use of the 

dredged material at the facility should be included in project costs. In order to increase limited 

disposal capacity, the Corps and state and tribal agencies should encourage local communities 

to “mine” existing CDFs to facilitate the environmentally-sound beneficial re-use of dredged 

materials. There should be early, broad public outreach in siting decisions regarding disposal or 

treatment of contaminated sediments.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

41

NONPOINT SOURCE

I. Problem Statement 

Water pollution from nonpoint sources is a substantial contributor to the impairment of waters 

across the Great Lakes basin. Nonpoint source pollution is present throughout the basin, in many 

forms and with many interactions. The complexity of the pollutants and their presence in soil, water 

and air make pollution abatement for nonpoint sources particularly difficult to address. Strategies 

to date have failed to deliver widespread stream and lake restoration necessary for the protection 

and maintenance of the Great Lakes. This strategy recommends actions for mitigating stressors 

that cause nonpoint source pollution. 

Nonpoint source impacts vary greatly in frequency and severity across the Great Lakes. Impacts 

have been particularly severe in the coastal wetlands and tributaries that once buffered the Lakes 

from environmental damage. Other prime impact areas include western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, 

Green Bay, the coastal region of Ohio, selected Areas of Concern (AOCs), and selected tributaries 

or near-shore areas. Due to this variability, the tools and strategies required to address nonpoint 

source pollution must be tightly coordinated among partner agencies and organizations and must 

be geographically targeted. In addition to working directly to address pollutant stressors, effective 

reduction of nonpoint sources will also include integrating control strategies with local land use 

and smart growth issues. 

Nonpoint Pollution Stressors: Five nonpoint source pollution stressors – physical or chemical 

changes that occur within the ecosystem – significantly impact the biological components, patterns, 

and relationships in the natural system of the Great Lakes: these are nutrients, contaminants, 

pathogens, sedimentation, and altered flow regimes. These stressors enter the Great Lakes through 

three primary pathways: surface runoff, groundwater infiltration, and atmospheric deposition. 

Nonpoint source pollution in each of the five forms damages flora and fauna in the Lakes, threatens 

human health, reduces recreational opportunities, and increases the cost of treating drinking water 

and dredging our harbors and marinas. Actions against stressors have direct short-term costs, but 

often save money in the longer-term and sometimes make new sustainable growth possible. 

Existing Programs and Their Effectiveness: The total input of stressors from nonpoint source 

pollution today considerably exceeds that from point sources. Work on point sources approaches 

a point of diminishing returns; funding to increase point source control beyond 90 percent or 95 

percent is less effective than providing the same amount of funding to address nonpoint sources. 

Many governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, including universities and colleges, 

and the regulated community, are already at work at, or interested 

in, reducing nonpoint source pollution in the Great Lakes. The 

combination of federal, state, tribal, and local institutions and 

programs that is already actively involved in reducing nonpoint 

sources has resulted in many successful projects across the basin. 

However, despite these successes, pollution from nonpoint sources 

has led to a Great Lakes ecosystem that is deteriorating in health 

and quality. Existing programs must be coordinated for efficient 

tracking of results, evaluated routinely for effectiveness, and held 

accountable for achieving environmental outcomes. 

Monitoring: Water quality monitoring is an essential component of 

programs designed to protect and restore our water resources. Water 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

42

quality monitoring is needed so we can: set appropriate goals for water quality which promotes 

equitable water quality protection/restoration across the country; assist resource managers to 

effectively implement programs and help prioritize future efforts by collecting adequate water quality 

data and linking this information directly to relevant decision criteria; track the effectiveness of our 

programs; and reliably report on water quality changes; associate such changes with programmatic 

efforts, and establish the cost-effectiveness of our actions at appropriate spatial scales.

BMP Maintenance: It must be stressed that in order to be effective, BMPs typically require 

maintenance. Studies have shown that oftentimes BMPs are not maintained adequately. When 

implementation measures are being planned and put into practice, it is critical that this issue is 

adequately addressed.

There are three fundamental barriers to addressing nonpoint source pollution more effectively in 

the long-term: authority, funding, and coordination. 

Authority: The authorities in place are spread out over a variety of jurisdictions primarily through 

voluntary programs and their application and implementation is inconsistent. While they have high 

participation rates, they can only penetrate so far into the market responsible for the nonpoint 

stressors. 

Funding: Funding currently available to these programs is far less than is needed to achieve 

maximum penetration using voluntary measures. Current funding levels will not come close to 

reaching the levels of implementation needed to make a difference in the Great Lakes. 

Coordination: These programs and the agencies implementing them often are not integrated. In 

the few places where there is an integrated watershed-based effort, it is usually at the sub-watershed 

area or smaller. To be effective for the Great Lakes, agencies and programs at all levels—federal, 

regional, state, tribal, and local—must coordinate to accomplish efficient delivery and utilization 

of resources, targeting of critical areas, and monitoring of progress toward common objectives. 

II. Goals and Milestones 

Goal: Protect existing wetlands and restore wetlands in both urban and rural areas so that rivers, 

streams, and lakes across the Great Lakes region function as healthy ecosystems. 

Interim Milestones: 

By 2010, restore, recover, and protect a net increase of 550,000 acres of wetlands within 

the Great Lakes basin.27 

By 2015, restore, recover, and protect a net increase of 1,000,000 acres (450,000 additional) 

of wetlands within the Great Lakes basin. 

Goal: Measurably reduce at least hundreds of thousands of tons of sediment, pounds of 

phosphorous loading, and pounds of nitrogen loading in to the Great Lakes basin. 

Interim Milestones: 

By 2010, create 335,000 new acres of buffer strips within the Great Lakes basin. 

By 2020, create 1,000,000 new acres (665,000 additional) of buffer strips within the 

basin. 

•

•

•

•

27 These 550,000 wetland acres are the same acres recommended by the Habitat Strategy Team.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

43

Goal: Reduce the amount of sediment reaching the Great Lakes through installation and continued 

use of management practices on cropland, especially those that increase crop residue left on the 

surface. 

Interim Milestones: 

By 2010, have 2,000,000 new acres of Great Lakes basin cropland under appropriate 

residue management. This increase corresponds to 40 percent decrease in soil loss. 

By 2015, extend to 2,800,000 new acres (800,000 additional new acres) of Great Lakes 

basin cropland under appropriate residue management. 

Goal: Reduce livestock agriculture’s contribution to nonpoint source loading by 40-70 percent 

through comprehensive nutrient management planning (CNMP) and practice implementation. 

Interim Milestones: 

By 2008, 70 percent of all livestock farmers will attend education programming regarding 

nutrient management. 

By 2010, all acreage utilized for livestock production in a major phosphorous-impaired 

Great Lakes watershed in each Great Lakes State will be covered by certified CNMPs. 

By 2010, triple the number of certified CNMP providers in the basin that directly assist 

farmers. 

By 2015, 70 percent of all livestock production in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes 

basin will be covered by certified, phosphorous-based CNMPs. 

Goal: Improve flow regimes to meet sediment reduction goals and restore sustainable biological 

communities. 

Interim Milestones: 

By 2010, in all watersheds classified as severely or moderately impacted based on degree 

of altered hydrology and ecological sensitivity using scientifically defensible indicators: 

develop better understanding of baseline conditions (appropriate time frame, natural vs. 

human influences) and relationship between stressors and ecological endpoints (water 

quantity as stressor, effectiveness of BMPs, cumulative impacts); develop appropriate 

assessment criteria (numeric vs. narrative; relate to societal values); develop/refine new 

methods (decision support systems, monitoring technology); and apply most strategic 

remediation alternatives to foster goal of restoring natural flow regime. 

By 2015, restore/manage the hydrologic regime in ten select watersheds to restore 

sustainable biological communities and reduce excessive sediment loadings. 

By 2020, document improvements in: measurable changes in hydrology (reduction in 

peak flow and volume); measurable reduction in bank erosion and sediment loading; and 

measurable improvement in the health of the biological community in significant portions 

(stream orders 1-3) of ten urban watersheds and/or sediment loading into areas where 

these watersheds discharge to the Lakes. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

44

III. Recommendations 

In general, programs need coordination at a higher level and a focus on mitigating specific 

problem areas, such as Areas of Concern. Although agencies offer grants to states, tribes, and 

local groups to address these concerns, the grants are given without any overall, interagency focus 

or strategy. Effectively targeting and addressing problems will require not only federal agency 

budget enhancements, but also coordination of efforts and data so that agencies at all levels 

concentrate their energies on the same priority problems. To this end, the NPS Strategy Team 

suggests designating or establishing an organization to coordinate efforts, roles, and initiatives 

among federal, state, and local agencies and private organizations in the Great Lakes basin. 

1) Between $77 million and $188.7 should be provided annually over five years to fund 

restoration of 550,000 acres of wetlands.28 

USDA and U.S. EPA will form a task force that includes, at a minimum, USACE, 

USFWS, NOAA and other federal, state, tribal and local agencies. Agencies will work in 

partnership with other federal, state, and local agencies and organizations. 

Rationale: More than 50 percent and perhaps as much as 70 percent of historic Great Lakes wetlands 

have already been lost. This loss (through filling or draining) is primarily due to agriculture, urban 

uses, shoreline development, and resource extraction. These same causes continue to threaten the 

natural Great Lakes wetlands that remain in existence today. The loss of wetlands poses special 

problems for hydrological processes and water quality because of the natural storage and cleansing 

functions of wetlands. 

Wetland priority areas for the Great Lakes exist in many active ongoing plans. To appropriately 

address NPS issues, wetland conservation efforts should occur throughout the watershed in areas 

strategically selected to best impact water quality concerns. Immediately available priority areas 

with active partnerships and implementation teams include: several watersheds currently active 

under USDA’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs in the Saginaw Bay watershed, the 

Maumee River watershed, and the western and central Lake Erie watersheds (OH and PA), River 

Raisin and Macatawa watersheds (MI), and Eastern Wisconsin riparian areas, and areas noted in 

the National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuary Habitats. The proposed funding would help 

restore up to 550,000 acres over the five year period, with an estimated restoration cost of $1,000 

per acre. 

Cost: $110 million annually for five years. 

2) $335 million should be provided to restore 335,000 acres of buffers over five years:29

Funds will be used to create a new program to address education and installation of 

buffers in urban and suburban environments.

USDA, NRCS, and FSA will be the lead agencies and will work in partnership with other 

federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and organizations. 

Critical Geographies: Land areas draining to western and central Lake Erie, the Maumee 

River watershed, Green Bay, Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, nearshore waters of Lake 

Michigan, and AOCs. 

•

•

•

•

28 The cost for wetland restoration is the same as that identified in the habitat/species protection strategy team chapter and addresses 

restoration of the same 550,000 acres of wetlands over the five year period.

29 This level of funding and restored buffer acreage should be continued at the same rate over 15 years (until 2020) for a total of $1 

billion provided to restore one million acres of buffers.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

45

Rationale: Buffer strips include a variety of practices including riparian buffers, filter strips, grassed 

waterways, windbreaks, living snow fences, contour grass strips, cross-wind trap strips, field borders 

and other vegetative barriers. Vegetative buffer strips slow water runoff, trap sediment; enhance 

infiltration within the buffer while trapping fertilizers, pesticides, pathogens, and heavy metals; and 

reduce blowing soil in areas with strong winds. 

The anticipated results and benefits of increasing riparian buffer acreage will be improved water 

quality based on a measurable reduction of sediment load and of fertilizer, pesticide, pathogen and 

heavy metal contaminants, subsequently improving overall stream and riparian ecology for fish 

and wildlife habitat. A history of the program indicates that landowner willingness to participate 

exceeds program goals and that a state’s ability to increase its acreage goal is directly related to the 

availability of adequate funding. 

Cost: $67 million annually for five years. 

3) $120 million should be allocated by 2010 to achieve a 40 percent reduction in soil loss in 

ten selected watersheds: 

By 2015, an additional $48 million should be invested to reach a total of $168,000,000. 

USDA and NRCS to lead in partnership with other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies 

and organizations. Utilize EQIP as the lead federal program to provide financial and 

technical assistance. 

Critical Geographies: Land areas draining to western and central Lake Erie, the Maumee 

River watershed, Green Bay, Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, nearshore waters of Lake 

Michigan, and AOCs. 

Rationale: Although conservation tillage has been heavily promoted in many areas of the Great 

Lakes region, many farmers still choose to use conventional tilling methods, which plow crop 

residues into the soil. Keeping crop residues can assist in preventing erosion between planting 

seasons. Achieving a 40 percent reduction in sediment loss from croplands will result in greater water 

clarity, greater desirable aquatic plant growth, less algae, better fish habitat, and less sedimentation 

of bays and harbors. The 40 percent reduction is largely consistent with the percent reduction in 

sediment and phosphorus loads (where information is available) to meet designated uses. Based on 

a cost of $60/acre and a 2.5 ton/acre reduction in soil loss, this level of funding should lead to a 

40 percent reduction in soil loss in these watersheds. 

Cost: $24 million annually over five years. 

4) $106 million in funding should be provided to support the development and implementation 

of comprehensive nutrient and manure management on livestock farms:

This includes $96 million to assist the approximate 12,000 farms with more than 50 animals 

(estimated cost of $8,000 per CNMP), $5 million for educational material development 

grants, and $5 million for increased technical assistance at NRCS.30

USDA and NRCS to lead in partnership with other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies 

and organizations. 

Critical Geographies: Phosphorous impaired watersheds and leading livestock producing 

counties. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

30 50 animals is the number used to derive 12,000 farms in accordance with the 2002 Agricultural Census. The number does not reflect 

a regulatory or statutory threshold for what defines an animal feeding operation; it is a value selected to ensure that resources go toward 

correction of problems on farms with greater nutrient management risk.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

46

Rationale: Manures and nutrients generated by livestock production facilities contribute to 

nonpoint source pollution in the absence of conservation planning. If poorly controlled, manure 

and nutrient products can contaminate surface and ground waters, cause odor problems, and 

serve as a source of infectious disease. Increased comprehensive management of nutrients and 

manure on livestock farms will greatly reduce livestock agriculture’s contribution to nonpoint 

source loading. 

The anticipated results and benefits of the recommendation will be a 40-70 percent reduction in 

nonpoint source contribution of phosphorus from livestock agriculture. This result is from the 

fact that farms with certified CNMPs apply 20-30 lbs of phosphorous less per acre than farms that 

do not have CNMPs and minimize nutrients leaving the farm through site-specific conservation 

planning. The actions would provide livestock farmers with financial and technical assistance to 

complete certified CNMPs, reward farmers that complete and maintain CNMPs, and increase 

market demand for certified CNMP providers. 

Cost: $106 million over five years. 

5) $18 million should be provided annually over five years31 to hydrologically improve ten 

urban watersheds of various sizes. 

Four federal agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. EPA have 

resources, expertise, and experience to assist in various aspects of any new federal 

initiative. USDA would modify/expand its focus to incorporate off-site impacts into 

their conservation programs. The CWA Section 319 funding for nonpoint source 

control programs would be used to address urban stream flow issues related to aquatic 

life impairments; however, traditional non-pollution abatement activities are the current 

focus. Lead agencies will work in partnership with other federal, state, tribal, and local 

agencies and organizations. 

Critical Geographies: The new program should focus on urbanized areas where runoff 

from development and the associated impairments directly affect natural waterways and 

their confluence with the Great Lakes or connecting waters. Likely candidates include 

smaller watersheds or sub-watersheds within the Duluth, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Gary, 

Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, and Buffalo metropolitan areas. 

Rationale: Alterations in the natural hydrology of surface and ground water in the Great Lakes 

basin, such as in the form of floods, droughts, reduced base flow, or altered timing of natural 

flow regimes, has resulted in changes to the structural and functional integrity of the physical, 

chemical, and biological elements in these ecosystems. Current federal assistance, regulatory and 

grant programs, and related state programs do not focus on in-stream flows in urban areas. A 

new, integrated federal initiative is needed to address flow regime issues in urban watersheds 

including infiltration and groundwater recharge. The anticipated results and benefits of protecting, 

conserving, and improving the hydrology of watersheds will be reduced infrastructure costs due 

to elevated stream flows and excessive sediment loadings, improved shipping capacity, increased 

public use, and improved aquatic ecosystem health. 

State and local governments should also review zoning and building codes, setback ordinances 

and planning efforts to ensure that they reflect the use of green infrastructure and low impact 

development. 

Cost: $18 million per year over five years. 

•

•

31 This level of funding should be continued at the same rate for a total of 20 years (until 2025). Including a higher proportion of dollars 

in the first five years for the upfront costs may make restoration efforts more likely to succeed. 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

47

TOXIC POLLUTANT STRATEGY 

I. Problem Statement 

While certain persistent toxic substances (PTS) have been significantly reduced in the Great Lakes 

Basin Ecosystem over the past 30 years, they continue to be present at levels that pose threats to 

human and wildlife health, warrant fish consumption advisories in all five lakes, and disrupt a way 

of life for many in the basin, particularly the life ways and culture of tribal communities.

PTS releases from contaminated bottom sediments, various industrial processes, and non-point 

sources, loadings from atmospheric deposition, contaminated groundwater, and continuous cycling 

of PTS within the Great Lakes themselves, all contribute to this ongoing problem. More recently, 

researchers have documented the presence of additional chemicals of emerging concern that may 

also pose threats to the Great Lakes. Characteristics of these substances, such as sources, releases, 

fate, transport, persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity, must be better understood. 

II. Goals and Milestones

To establish and maintain the chemical integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, as called for 

in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, this Strategy sets forth the following goals: 

Goal 1: Virtually eliminate the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances (PTS) to the 

 Great Lakes basin ecosystem.

Goal 2: Significantly reduce exposure to persistent toxic chemicals from historically contaminated

sources through source reduction and other exposure reduction methods.

Goal 3: Reduce environmental levels of toxic chemicals to the point that all restrictions on the 

 consumption of Great Lakes fish can be lifted.

Goal 4: Protect the health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat from adverse 

 chemical and biological effects associated with the release of PTS.

 Interim Milestones, Goals 1-4: 

By 2008, collect 1M lbs waste pesticides per year.

By 2010, 50 percent reduction in Basin-wide household 

garbage burning. 

By 2010, commence significant reductions in mercury 

emissions from coal-fired power plants.32

By 2015, full phase-outs of intentionally added 

mercury bearing products, as possible.33

By 2025, full phase-out of all PCB equipment in the 

basin.

By 2025, significantly reduce PTS inputs from 

international sources.

•

•

•

•

•

•

32 A consensus on the rate of reductions of mercury emissions from coal fired power plants was not reached. The Federal Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR) is published at http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/. Six of eight Great Lakes State Attorneys General have 

challenged the CAMR in federal court.

33 Examples include thermometers, thermostats, and manometers.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

48

Goal 5: Prevent the discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts.

 Interim Milestones, Goal 5: 

By 2008, include pollution prevention and energy efficiency (P2/E2) provisions in 

federal and state rule making.

By 2010, implement 200 P2/E2 projects for businesses in the Great Lakes States.

Goal 6: Protect the general public from toxic substances through effective outreach and 

 education, including protective fish consumption advice throughout the Great Lakes 

 Basin Ecosystem.

 Interim Milestones, Goal 6:

By 2007, commence basin-wide PTS public information campaign.

By 2009, adopt consistent Great Lakes basin fish consumption advisories.

Goal 7: Identify and fill the gaps in our scientific understanding that limit our ability 

 to effectively manage the risks of toxic substances found in the Great Lakes.

 Interim Milestones, Goal 7:

By 2008, initiate a central Great Lakes PTS database.

By 2010, a basin-wide surveillance program of chemicals of emerging concern at 

wastewater treatment plants will be established. At least 50 percent of the large inbasin WWTPs will participate in the program.

By 2010, implement a Great Lakes human PTS biomonitoring program.34 

By 2010, complete an intercomparison study of mercury and PCB models.35 

III. Recommendations

This Strategy seeks to comprehensively address PTS issues in the Great Lakes, to 1) reduce and 

virtually eliminate sources of current priority pollutants, 2) prevent new chemical threats from 

entering the basin, 3) develop a sufficient knowledge base to address toxic chemicals in the Great 

Lakes environment, 4) protect public health and engage the public to do its part in reducing 

PTS sources, and 5) address international sources. The recommendations below are guided by a 

number of important principles. Historically, collaborative efforts within the Great Lakes basin to 

address PTS reduction have served as a model for statewide, national, and international efforts. 

These efforts provide a strong foundation for further endeavors. In particular, the principles, 

tenets and concepts embodied in the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (Binational Strategy) 

are incorporated here as the starting point for the Toxic Pollutant Strategy. This strategy also 

builds on the efforts of the Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) to help implement lake-specific 

high priority chemical reduction efforts and on recommendations from Remedial Action Plans to 

address beneficial uses impaired by PTS in Areas of Concern.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

34 To be based on the PTS monitoring component of CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES).

35 Specifically, atmospheric fate and transport models on continental and global scales.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

49

Effective and meaningful PTS reductions require both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. 

Existing regulatory programs, particularly federal and state permitting and enforcement, must be 

adequately funded and implemented. Non-regulatory approaches can sometimes achieve results 

efficiently and are encouraged to the maximum extent practicable. New regulatory approaches must 

also be considered where necessary. Finally, significant amounts of PTS from both international 

and regional sources are deposited to the Great Lakes. Five key recommendations are presented 

below36 : 

1) Reduce and virtually eliminate the principal sources of mercury, PCBs, dioxins and 

furans, pesticides and other toxic substances that threaten the health of the Great Lakes basin 

ecosystem, through coordinated intergovernmental strategies.

Mercury37: Coal fired electric utilities constitute the largest remaining domestic source 

of mercury emissions. Utility sources must implement control measures to reduce these 

emissions. Mercury is still used in numerous products basin-wide. A basin-wide mercury 

product stewardship strategy should be developed to complete phase-outs of mercury 

uses, including a mercury waste management component, as practicable.

PCBs: Consistent with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, PCBcontaining electrical equipment should be decommissioned and properly disposed.

Dioxins and Furans: Uncontrolled burning of household waste constitutes the largest 

known airborne source of dioxins and furans to the Great Lakes. State, tribal and local 

authorities should address deficiencies in communities related to infrastructure for 

household waste collection, and/or enforcement to stop illegal burning. Agricultural waste 

burning should be addressed, as well. 

Cancelled Pesticides: State, tribal, and local waste pesticide collection efforts are very 

effective in reducing stockpiled sources of cancelled pesticides to the Great Lakes, but 

these programs are inconsistently supported. Each State should implement a robust and 

ongoing waste pesticide collection program. 

Rationale: Principal sources of priority pollutants continue to threaten the health of the Great 

Lakes and drive fish consumption advisories, and should therefore be systematically reduced and 

virtually eliminated:38 

Implementation: The Great Lakes Binational Strategy in a coordinating role, LaMP chemical 

committees, EPA, state environment and agriculture agencies; The Great Lakes Cities Initiative, 

Great Lakes municipalities, and industry.39

Costs40: $10M/yr - Burn Barrel Initiatives (all new), $3.4M/yr - Clean Sweeps ($2.0M/yr new).

•

•

•

•

36 Note that there is a matrix of all recommendations of the PBT Team included in the appendix. 

37 See appendix for information on mercury, PCBs, dioxins and furans.

38 A comprehensive list of priority pollutants, sources and reduction activities may be found in the 2004 Great Lakes Binational Toxics 

Strategy Annual Report.

39 The Binational Strategy engages a forum of Stakeholders from government, Industry and NGOs from the US and Canada that 

regularly gather to collaborate on toxics reduction projects, with a focus on priority pollutants such as mercury and PCBs.

40 Costs are presented as current plus new (new funding in parenthesis). Costs are fully itemized in appendix A. 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

50

2) Prevent new toxic chemicals from entering the Great Lakes basin: Target production, 

use and sound disposal of toxic chemicals across the Great Lakes basin through strategic 

deployment of pollution prevention and waste minimization programs.

To provide easier access and broaden dissemination of these programs to small and 

medium sized businesses, States should “bundle” technical assistance services, such as 

compliance assistance, pollution prevention (P2) audits, and energy efficiency (E2) audits, 

in “one-stop-shop” programs. 

Tax incentives and low interest loans should be utilized to promote investments in energy 

efficiency upgrades and pollution prevention projects.41 

Federal and state agencies should ensure that traditional regulatory programs, including 

enforcement, provide incentives to conduct pollution prevention and energy efficiency 

projects.

Rationale: Preventing new toxic substances from entering into the Great Lakes is as important 

to protecting ecosystem health as addressing current priority pollutants. Twelve federal agencies 

are responsible for chemical safety management pursuant to nearly 20 federal statutes, and 

subsequently promulgated regulations, and the United States is responsible through International 

Agreements (e.g., United Nations Environment Program, Prior Informed Consent)42 U.S. EPA’s 

many pollution prevention and waste minimization programs are described online at www.epa.

gov/p243. These programs should be aggressively marketed and made available to Great Lakes 

businesses, their suppliers and customers through technical assistance providers44. 

Implementation: U.S. EPA, State technical assistance providers, Manufacturing Extension 

Partnerships, city environmental departments

Costs: $16M/yr ($15.12M/yr new), $50M tax incentives/fund capitalization (all new)

3) Institute a comprehensive Great Lakes research, surveillance and forecasting capability to 

help identify, manage, and regulate45 chemical threats to the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. A 

Great Lakes basin-wide coordinated program that incorporates and augments current efforts 

should be created to better characterize links between PTS sources and exposure. The multiparty program should preferably be housed within an existing program or organization and 

call upon the combined resources of federal agencies, states, academia, the private sector, and 

our Canadian neighbors. To be successful, the effort should include:

Screening/long-term monitoring of PTS sources and concentrations in environmental 

media, including humans and wildlife, including: 

•

•

•

•

41 EPA should award assistance for states and other eligible entities to authorize or enhance low-interest revolving loan funds that can 

be coupled with technical assistance efforts to assist in the implementation of P2 and E2 measures for both private and public sector 

facilities.

42 United States National Profile on Management of Chemicals, January 1997, OPPTS, U.S.EPA.

43 EPA’s Sustainable Futures program promotes a number of innovative non-regulatory pollution prevention (P2) programs including 

the The PBT Profiler and Design for the Environment (DfE) which help industry screen out potential toxic substances and design 

safe non-toxic products, and the The Green Suppliers Network (GSN) and Environmentally Preferrable Purchasing which promote 

PTS-free alternatives in production and purchasing. The Resource Conservation Challenge promotes a number of innovative waste 

minimization programs such as The Plug-In To eCycling Program, Product Stewardship Partnerships and The WasteWise Partnership 

Program.

44 Providers include the Department of Commerce Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, State P2 technical assistance providers, and 

municipal environmental officials.

45 Regulations include development support for TMDL, criteria, and water quality standards and permit issuance. 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

51

a strategic review of TSCA-regulated substances and other federally regulated 

substances, using current pollution prevention models; and,

enhanced Great Lakes monitoring programs to include chemicals of emerging 

concern.

Research on chemical properties, exposure, and long term effects.46 

Modeling, including evaluation and enhancement of current models, to better predict 

environmental impacts of reduction actions at various geographic scales, and to examine 

exposure scenarios.

Information management, an easily-accessible, central Great Lakes PTS database for 

monitoring data, emissions and releases information, and research results, including a 

clearinghouse for toxicity data used to develop GLI criteria, and State GLI water quality 

standards. 

Rationale: To manage and assess regulatory and voluntary PTS programs, Great Lakes lawmakers, 

program managers, and stakeholders need accurate information. This requires a coordinated system 

which monitors PTS sources and environmental conditions, tracks reduction actions, projects 

future trends in exposure and effects, and uses this information for decision-making. For many 

PTS, past and existing monitoring and research have given us a good understanding of sources, 

transport, and exposure pathways. However, in order to make cost-effective decisions, improved 

understanding of relative contributions of different sources to human exposure is also needed. For 

example, local sources may have a greater effect on exposure in a community than in the basin as 

a whole.

Implementation: The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, federal agencies, states, academia. 

Cost: $5-10M/yr ($300K/yr current/balance new).

4) Protect human health through consistent and easily accessible basin-wide messages on fish 

consumption and toxic reduction methods and choices. 

With regard to PTS exposure, the Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force should 

create consistent advice on fish and wildlife consumption to citizens in the Great Lakes 

basin, especially to sensitive populations, and to health care professionals, in multiple 

languages. 

Current state advisory programs should be fully funded and implemented to adequately 

protect the entire basin. 

To help the public do its part to reduce the use and release of PTS, a basin-wide public 

education and outreach campaign that focuses on habits of individuals, households, the 

workplace, and schools, should be developed in coordination with existing messages and 

stakeholder groups.47,48 Take-back and waste collection programs should be promoted as 

well. 

Rationale: A consistent set of messages from federal, state, tribal, and local health and environment 

agencies is needed to protect the public from health effects of PTS exposure, and to provide the 

pubic with information about lifestyle choices which will help reduce PTS uses and releases to the 

Great Lakes. 

–

–

•

•

•

•

•

•

46 Expert program reviews of current regulatory and monitoring programs have defined some research needs. 

47 This would include high priority outreach topics such as backyard trash burning, mercury use reduction, energy conservation, 

personal care product use reduction, (non-toxic household cleaners, and reduction in household pesticide use. 

48 This outreach message should be conveyed through existing communication channels including lake stakeholder forums, human 

health networks, newsletters, conferences and other existing delivery mechanisms. A consistent outreach message could be included in 

the bienniel LaMP reports and/or the annual public-friendly lake brochures. 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

52

Implementation: Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force, National Sea Grant Program, 

state and tribal departments of public health, environment and natural resources, the GL Human 

Health Network, U.S. EPA, FDA.

Cost: $15.9M/yr ($11.7M/yr new)

5) Support efforts to reduce continental and global sources of PTS to the Great Lakes 

basin.

As a leader in management of toxic chemicals, the United States should ratify the 

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 

The United States should also support international PTS management and monitoring 

programs, in coordination with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 

and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and support capacity 

building and technology transfer programs, such as those administered by EPA’s Office 

of International Activities. 

In particular, federal support should be provided to efforts to reduce international sources 

of mercury, including funding and technical support for UNEP’s mercury efforts. 

Rationale: Significant amounts of PTS come to the Great Lakes through air deposition from 

sources well beyond the U.S. border. International toxics reduction and monitoring programs are 

therefore essential to the protection of the Great Lakes. 

Implementers: Congress, federal agencies, the Great Lakes Binational Strategy in a coordinating 

role.

Cost: $7.725M/yr ($6M/yr new)

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

53

INDICATORS AND INFORMATION

I. Problem Statement

The Great Lakes ecosystem, the largest freshwater system in the world, is a dynamic and complex 

interaction of biological, chemical and physical components that is not yet fully understood. The 

sensitivity of this system to human influence, however, has been repeatedly demonstrated in recent 

decades. Environmental degradation, caused by problems such as the introduction of invasive 

species, point source and non-point source pollution, and declining fisheries, has pointed to an 

urgent need for protection and restoration. Protection and restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem 

require a well-documented, collaborative strategy, access to the best scientific information available, 

and coordinated action. A successful restoration strategy for the Great Lakes must also include 

an informed decision making process based on consistent methods to measure and monitor 

key indicators of the ecosystem’s function. Such measurements need to occur before and after 

the initiation of restoration efforts at local and basin-wide scales. Once collected, information 

needs to be compiled and communicated consistently to inform the restoration process, decision 

makers and the public. These activities will provide resource managers, elected officials, and 

other stakeholders with the timely, accurate and cost-effective information necessary for making 

decisions concerning the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem so as to sustain 

healthy societies, economic activities and natural systems. Unfortunately, ecosystem monitoring, 

observation, research, indicator development and modeling efforts in the Great Lakes region are 

currently under-funded, lack comprehensive ecosystem approaches and exist only as piecemeal 

programs. 

Despite these drawbacks, the volume of data collected for the Great Lakes and their tributary 

watersheds has expanded considerably in recent years, coinciding with an increase in the complexity 

of issues that need to be addressed. The current lack of accessible, integrated information 

management systems limits decision-making abilities and application of adaptive management 

principles for the protection and restoration of ecological resources. Adaptive management requires 

one to identify priority issues, gather information, establish metrics, evaluate options, implement 

actions, track progress, reevaluate actions based on observed responses, communicate results and 

adjust both management approaches and monitoring activities. Although such capabilities are 

advancing within the Great Lakes basin, they exist only in piecemeal fashion and are have not been 

fully integrated for the comprehensive management of the Lakes. To further complicate matters, 

decisions made on one issue often affect other issues. Observing systems, monitoring programs, 

indicators, research, modeling and analysis, information management and communication must 

therefore be integrated into a holistic decision-making process. 

Observing systems, including sensors, stations, networks and field 

data collection are the primary means for gathering information 

on the chemical, biological and physical characteristics of the 

Great Lakes ecosystem. These observations are used in a host of 

monitoring programs to take the pulse of the Great Lakes, assess 

natural variability, drive ecosystem forecasting models, and assess the 

progress of restorations efforts. Current challenges facing observing 

and monitoring include: incomplete inventories of federal, state/

provincial and municipal observation and monitoring activities; 

insufficient spatial density of basic observations across the system; 

incomplete coverage over varying time scales (real-time to historic) 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

54

and over space (site-specific, watershed, and region-wide); a reluctance to adopt uniform or fully 

compatible monitoring protocols; and an inability to establish long-term financial commitments, 

all resulting in poor availability of information on condition and trends to managers and other 

stakeholders. Additional observation and monitoring are needed across the Great Lakes basin, 

including the open waters, coastal areas, tributaries and watersheds. Desired data collection efforts 

reach beyond measurement of the Great Lakes components and include such things as socioeconomic data, inventories of pollutant releases or hazard potential and satellite remote sensing.

Some of the observations required are essential indicators that provide information on the state 

of the Great Lakes and progress toward achieving goals. Continued efforts are needed to ensure 

the viability of an informative and scientifically-based set of indicators (e.g., the State of the Lakes 

Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) indicator suite) that are useful for management decisions and 

to inform the public. The SOLEC indicator suite has been refined over the last decade to be 

comprehensive yet practical and actionable. Several of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 

strategy teams have, however, identified that other indicators are needed to track progress on 

specific restoration areas both locally and across the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River basin. 

These will require additional research to develop realistic endpoints, cause-effect relationships, 

appropriate metrics and monitoring protocols. Indicators also need to be flexible enough to account 

for the unique conditions of each Great Lake, differences in temperature, trophic status, native 

biota, etc. In addition, indicators should be used in relation to realistic “end points” or desired 

results which are accepted by most stakeholders. When identifying end points, stakeholders must 

recognize that variability is the norm in natural systems; therefore, many targets and goals should 

not be expressed as discrete numbers but rather as a ranges of desired, natural levels. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy highlighted the need for “unbiased, credible and upto-date scientific information” to properly manage the human activities that effect the nation’s 

oceans coasts and Great Lakes. The Commission found that new scientific findings demonstrate 

the complexity and interconnectedness of natural systems and that management approaches have 

not been updated to reflect this complexity with responsibilities remaining dispersed among a 

confusing array of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Managers, decision makers, and 

the public require timely access to reliable data and solid scientific information that have been 

translated into meaningful products. The Commission urged Congress to double the federal 

research budget over the next five years and to fund and adopt an integrated observing system on 

a regional basis.

Research on the Great Lakes specifically provides the understanding necessary to make informed, 

scientifically-supportable decisions and actions, to assess the associated risks, expectations and 

timelines of management actions, to plan for effective observation and monitoring programs and 

to identify sensitive and meaningful indicators of ecosystem status. Restoration requires research to 

develop innovative approaches and monitoring to determine if restoration is successful in meeting 

targets and goals. The current funding level for Great Lakes research does not sufficiently support 

the level of research and development needed to address the host of ecological issues currently 

affecting the system to meet present-day demands. Any new restoration efforts will require 

coupled research and observations programs. Research has traditionally been focused on single 

issues. This focus must transition to an ecosystem approach with greater emphasis on predictive 

forecasting and adaptive management. Research should be directed towards improving the 

understanding of natural fluctuations and interactions of ecosystem components. Improvements 

in predictive capabilities are needed, particularly regarding the impacts of chemical, biological and 

physical changes on ecosystem structure and function. Development of such capabilities requires 

a comprehensive research coordination strategy across partnering institutions.
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

55

Information produced by research and observations must be made readily available to managers, 

decision-makers and the public. This will require information integration, management and 

communication. Integration and management of information are hampered by institutional 

management approaches restricting access by outside entities and policy constraints that restrict a 

user’s ability to discover the existence, location and characteristics of Great Lakes data. Data quality 

is also often not documented or communicated to data users. Coordination needs to be improved 

to ensure that critical decisions are made using the best available data. Standards for metadata 

(information about data) are required. Many institutions do not have the technological tools to 

implement data sharing protocols and applications such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

and remote sensing techniques. Legal and institutional constraints, such as proprietary data and 

security provisions, can also adversely affect information sharing. A lack of strong, formal data 

exchange partnerships among Great Lakes organizations underlies many of these constraints. 

Various methods are used to communicate information to those that require it, but coordination 

needs strengthening for the sheer breadth of information collected over the region. The lack 

of a coordinated message can make it difficult for audience groups to interpret and understand 

information. The audiences that require information are also diverse, requiring that complex 

information needs to be sufficiently repackaged to meet their needs. Some information, such as 

lake conditions and beach closings, requires rapid delivery. In addition, two-way communication 

needs to be promoted so that user needs are conveyed back to those producing the information. A 

comprehensive, two-way communication strategy has not been developed to address these needs.

II. Goals and Milestones

Goals: 

Stakeholders and decision makers will widely recognize and accept that physical, chemical, 

biological, socio-economic research and scientific information needs to be conducted/

collected and disseminated. 

A widespread network of monitoring / observing systems will provide a steady stream of 

data and scientific findings that are translated into practical information and products for 

decision makers, educators, and the public. This network must be continually improved 

to adapt to technological advances and emerging informational needs of Great Lakes 

managers and stakeholders.

Robust information gathering and integration tools will be made available to support 

scientifically informed decisions. Decision-support tools must be flexible, not constrain 

the user’s viewpoint, and offer enhanced abilities for multi-participant decision making. 

Predictive modeling tools should be applied to priority restoration issues and be spatially 

integrated to provide lake-wide assessments.

Great Lakes research programs will be conducted in a comprehensive, strategically 

coordinated manner and designed to meet user needs. Research should also be targeted at 

ecosystem level predictions.

Progress achieved in the design of the scientifically-verified set of indicators for the 

Great Lakes ecosystem will be exploited. Indicators need to be implemented to meet the 

distinct needs of all user groups. A formalized approach for refinement of existing and 

development of new indicators should be followed to respond to evolving science, user 

needs, and ecosystem conditions.

Standardized information management systems will be implemented by organizations 

within the region and connected through an integrated network of information systems. 

This should include application of appropriate information technology infrastructure 

and development of policies to share information across institutional and jurisdictional 

boundaries.

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

56

Communication efforts in the Great Lakes will deliver accurate scientific and technical 

Great Lakes information to fulfill the needs of the decision makers, stakeholder groups, 

and the general public. Communication avenues must also be two-way, conveying user 

needs to information providers. 

III. Recommended Actions

Each of the following recommended actions call for greater coordination within the Great Lakes 

region, including participation of numerous partners at the federal, state, local/municipal, Native 

American, and binational levels and partners from industry, academia, and public interest groups. 

Additional recommendations, further rationale and supporting information are contained in an 

appendix to the Information and Indicators strategy.

Recommendation 1: To provide accurate, complete and consistent information, the Great 

Lakes region must increase and better coordinate the collection of critical information 

regarding the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and other 

stakeholders need to implement the U.S. contribution to the Integrated Earth Observation 

System (IEOS) and the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) as part of the Global 

Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). Monitoring must be better coordinated 

through the existing Great Lakes management entities, both at a lake-wide and region-wide 

basis.

Rationale: Observing systems and monitoring programs are the primary means for gathering 

information on the chemical, biological and physical characteristics of the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

These programs are needed to take the pulse of the Great Lakes, assess natural variability, 

drive ecosystem forecasting models, and assess the progress of restoration efforts. Monitoring 

and observing systems require continued improvements to adapt to changing technologies and 

informational needs of Great Lakes resource management. Initial activities should be focused on 

implementing the Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS) as the regional component of IOOS. 

Efforts should be continued to establish IEOS within the Great Lakes region.

Concerted action to address lake-wide and basin-wide problems requires consistent and coordinated 

information collection across municipal, state and national boundaries. U.S. agencies must lead 

the way in expanding and coordinating ecosystem-based and issue-focused monitoring programs 

including protocols, scientific rationale, and integration of indicators. Such coordination should be 

done on a binational basis for each lake through the Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs).

Cost: $28 million for five years

Recommendation 2: To meet the information and management needs of Great Lakes 

restoration activities, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force should promote the continued 

development and implementation of science-based indicators, including implementation of 

indicators developed through the SOLEC process.

Rationale: Restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem must begin by setting clear and quantifiable 

goals and desired endpoints for critical Great Lakes attributes. A set of measurable and meaningful 

indicators is essential for determining progress in meeting these goals and in helping decisionmakers adapt their management actions in accordance with the ecosystems response. Highpriority, management-relevant indicators must be identified, scientifically developed and tested 

for each critical restoration issue. Current indicators should be extended to include watershed 

issues and enhanced to draw in more stakeholder and scientific involvement. As an established 

and successful binational effort, the SOLEC process needs to receive increased financial support 

and stakeholder participation to accomplish the goals of comprehensive regional assessments.

Cost: $4 million for five years

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

57

Recommendation 3: To support Great Lakes restoration activities with appropriate scientific 

foresight, planning and assurance of results, the overall federal research budget to the Great 

Lakes should be doubled over the next five years. In addition, adequate funds should be made 

available to support a Great Lakes Research Office as authorized in the 1987 Clean Water 

Act Amendments (33 U.S.C. 1268) to coordinate these research efforts. Finally, for all new 

appropriations in support of Great Lake’ restoration activities, at least 10 percent of these 

funds should be dedicated toward research to aid planning and assessment.

Rationale: Additional research is required to: a) set management goals and expectations; b) 

assess risks in management alternatives; c) identify the most cost-effective restoration strategies; 

d) evaluate connectedness to other components of the ecosystem; and e) evaluate progress in 

achieving management goals and expectations. Research needs to be focused on improving 

predictive capabilities regarding the lakes, particularly regarding the impacts of chemical, biological, 

and physical changes on ecosystem structure and function. Per the U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy, overall research funding should be doubled over the next five years to fix the observation 

that “chronic under-investment has also left much of [the region’s] infrastructure in woefully 

poor condition.” The Great Lakes Research Office (GLRO) would work in conjunction with 

existing institutional entities to coordinate a comprehensive research strategy with an emphasis on 

predictive ecosystem-based research organized to address existing and emerging ecological issues. 

Great Lakes research programs need to be funded in accordance with an established research 

strategy, emphasizing research integration in the decision making process. The GLRO would 

closely coordinate all activities with the IJC’s Council of Great Lakes Research Managers. Research 

should also be a fundamental and integral part of a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration 

program. At least ten percent of the restoration funding should be devoted to the effort. To 

support independent and localized investigations, increased support of university-based Great 

Lakes science is needed through increased competitive grants for Great Lakes research through 

the National Science Foundation and other federal and state programs. 

Cost: Overall doubling of current research funding (an annual increase of approximately $35 million 

within five years), plus 10 percent of any additional restoration efforts and $600,000 annually (or $3 

million over five years) would be used to support the research office.

Recommendation 4: To facilitate easy and accessible information exchange among all regional 

partners, stakeholders and decision makers and to create a consistent and comprehensive 

repository of Great Lakes data, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and all regional 

partners should augment the regional information management infrastructure (i.e. establish 

a network of networks), adopt standardized data management protocols and commit to open 

data availability.

Rationale: The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recognized that: “The data generated from 

increased research, enhanced monitoring networks, and new observing systems will be essential 

in improving our management of ocean and coastal resources. However, two major challenges 

face today’s data managers: the sheer volume of incoming data, which strains storage and 

assimilation capabilities, and the demand for timely access to the data in a variety of formats by user 

communities. Meeting these challenges will require a concerted effort to modernize the current data 

management system and will require greatly improved interagency planning and coordination.” In 

the Great Lakes, infrastructure is required to help turn data into useful information. Integrated and 

coordinated scientific and technical information is needed to adequately share results of ecosystem 

investigations with stakeholders. Long-term funding of an information management infrastructure 

to acquire and exchange timely, objective and accurate information is needed. The infrastructure will 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

58

facilitate two-way communication between scientists and stakeholders, also allowing stakeholder 

needs to inform the investigations. The information management infrastructure should mesh with 

and augment existing infrastructure, such as the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) and 

provide for sustainability of such a network as an independent regional asset. A workgroup of 

information management professionals is needed to implement the distributed network of servers 

and databases to support this infrastructure. The workgroup should include representatives from 

key stakeholders with recognized data stewardship expertise and would coordinate interagency 

and inter-jurisdictional partnerships and mitigate institutional and legal barriers. The workgroup 

would promulgate data standards, quality assurance protocols, metadata production and regionwide multi-server search and access capabilities. 

Cost: $2 million per year for five years

Recommendation 5: To coordinate and manage communication of scientific and technical 

information, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force should establish a communications 

workgroup composed of public affairs specialists from Federal, State, and regional entities 

and key industries. 

Rationale: Communications professionals from federal and state governmental agencies, 

environmental groups, regional and local organizations, Native American interests, relevant 

industry associations and academia would participate in the workgroup and provide oversight 

for the development and implementation of a comprehensive regional communications plan. 

The communication plan would include periodic reviews of audience needs and assess optimal 

methods of information delivery to decision-makers and the public. By sharing experience, tools 

and workloads, the workgroup would facilitate efficient and consistent delivery of Great Lakes 

information to disparate audiences and oversee small grants to regional and local organizations to 

enhance communications efforts. The workgroup should rely upon the expertise of established 

networks, such as the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network and the Great Lakes Information 

Network. 

Cost: $1 million per year for five years
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

59

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

I. Problem Statement

Sustainable development is an approach to achieving balance between economic, societal, and 

ecological needs that has not been fully integrated into all aspects of the use, development, 

restoration, and conservation of Great Lakes resources. Sustainability works from the bottom-up, 

and is rooted in the actions and decisions by individuals, private enterprises and local communities. 

State and federal governments play important roles in promoting sustainable behavior through 

guidance, outreach, and support to enhance the capability of local communities, as well as policy 

and funding decisions. 

Sustainable Development was examined with respect to six categories of services provided by the 

region’s ecosystems: land use and development; agriculture and forestry; transportation; industrial 

activities; water infrastructure, and; recreation, tourism, and fishery. An evaluation of current 

and future human activities in the Great Lakes Basin highlights trends that continue to draw on 

ecosystem services and economic competitiveness, including:

loss of natural and agricultural lands to development at rates far exceeding population 

growth;

leveling or decline in conservation tillage practices;

fragmentation of privately owned forest lands into smaller tracts and decreasing levels of 

active management on public forest lands; 

increased demands on ecosystems for recreation;

aging transportation infrastructure that impedes more efficient intermodal systems;

an aged water and wastewater infrastructure unable to handle current demands;

disconnected programs for planning and management of ecosystem services;

practices and policy disincentives that deter sustainability, and;

outdated perceptions of the region (“rust belt”) which fail to promote the potential of its 

sustainable ecosystem services. 

II. Goals and Milestones

The goal is a Great Lakes Basin where human activities support a strong and vibrant economy, 

meeting societal and cultural needs in balance with a diverse and resilient ecosystem. A sub-goal that 

is essential to this desired state is a Great Lakes community that has fully embraced and routinely 

applies sustainability in all decisions and actions. While the near-term actions recommended herein 

will have specific milestones, the adoption and use of sustainability as a guide to local and regional 

decision making will take time. As sustainability becomes embedded in the fabric of individual, 

corporate and governmental thinking, the return on that investment should continue indefinitely. 

III. Recommendations

This Team identified actions to promote sustainable development 

practices aligned with six categories of services provided by 

Great Lakes ecosystems. These include actions for all sectors of 

stakeholders, including federal, state, tribal and local governments, 

private business, industry and manufacturing, and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs). The complete set of these actions is provided 

in the full report of the Sustainable Development Team (Appendix) 

and are summarized by four major recommendations:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

60

1. Adapt and maintain programs that promote sustainability across all sectors;

2. Align governance to enhance sustainable planning and management of resources;

3. Build outreach that brands the Great Lakes as an exceptional, healthy, and competitive place 

to live, work, invest and play; and

4. Provide leadership for sustainable development through the implementation of Strategy 

recommendations.

Each of these recommendations will be discussed with examples of near-term actions that can 

deliver measurable results, most without substantial new financial requirements. 

1) Adapt and maintain programs that promote sustainability across all sectors

Among the most critical actions necessary to promote sustainability is to eliminate or modify 

existing programs that actually encourage non-sustainable practices. For example, some state 

and local tax laws and federal infrastructure aid programs inadvertently encourage urban sprawl 

and should be modified to give preference or additional funding attention to those projects and 

communities that encourage and practice sustainable actions. Some federal agricultural price 

supports tend to discourage conservation tillage practices, and need to be amended, and some 

taxes and user-fees impacting transportation may not encourage the most efficient and sustainable 

modes. Near-term actions to address these program shortcomings are:

Action (a): States should incorporate sustainable criteria into sewer and water infrastructure 

loan and grant programs in the Great Lakes as a means of prioritizing those projects that pursue 

sustainable objectives. 

Timeframe: 2006 

Lead: Governors and state agencies 

Resources: Policy change; no new funding required

Action (b): Federal agencies should review existing grant, loan and subsidy programs applicable 

to the Great Lakes Basin and incorporate sustainable criteria to provide priority for those projects 

that pursue sustainable objectives. 

Timeframe: 2006 

Lead: Great Lakes Interagency Task Force 

Resources: Policy change; no new funding required

Other programs that have greater potential to promote sustainability, but are under funded or 

need to be modified for greater effect include funding and tax incentive programs for brownfields 

and sustainable recreation, and incentives for development of renewable energy technologies, 

energy efficiency, and pollution prevention.

Action (c): Local communities should re-use brownfields to revitalize lakeside and tributary 

waterfronts, with emphasis on public access and recreational opportunities. Federal and state grant 

programs should give increased funding priority for these projects.

Timeframe: 2006-2007

Lead: Local governments, with priority funding from federal and state programs

Resources: Target existing program funds

Sources: Federal and state funding programs including: USEPA, Brownfields Program; U.S. Dept. 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; US 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

61

Forest Service (USFS), US Dept of Interior (USDOI) and US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

Land and Water Conservation Fund; NOAA Coastal Brownfields and Portfields (with USEPA) 

programs, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan, Beneficial 

Use of Dredged Material and ecosystem restoration programs. 

An important tool in encouraging sustainable practices is to develop and apply specific metrics for 

sustainability, such as a set of standards for “green” marinas, sustainable forestry, or for sustainable 

urban, suburban and rural development. When creating and applying “green” standards and 

metrics, the integration of sustainable activities and cooperation within and among governmental 

jurisdictions is a key to success and should carry incentives. By recognizing preferred “green” 

practices with a “Contributing to a Healthy Great Lakes” label, the region can gain community 

support for sustainable practices.

Action (d): Conduct a review of examples of sustainable practices, evaluate their effectiveness 

and applicability to the Great Lakes Basin, and develop potential criteria for “green” certification 

and potential criteria for prioritizing proposals for funding programs. 

Timeframe: 2006

Lead: Great Lakes Commission; Great Lakes Regional Planning Group; Sea Grant/University; 

contractors 

Resources: $200,000 

Source: Federal and state funding programs including: USEPA, CEM funding through GLNPO/

LaMP; NOAA, Coastal Zone Management (CZM) grants and Coastal Estuary Land Protection; 

Great Lakes Protection Fund 

2) Align governance to enhance sustainable planning and management of resources 

While the Great Lakes ecosystems are not aligned by political boundaries, human management of 

ecosystem services is. Our ability to balance economic, societal and ecosystem needs is challenged 

by the disconnection between economic drivers and the planning and management of ecosystem 

services. For example, existing programs for local and regional planning of land use are disjointed 

from the programs for planning and management of transportation, and water infrastructure. 

Recommend actions to realign governance institutions to sustain ecosystem services and integrate 

the planning and management of these services. 

Action (e): Conduct a three-year demonstration project in three to four Great Lakes major 

metropolitan areas for development of a consistent, sustainable land use plan that uses best available 

new technologies to integrate with regional transportation plans and other public infrastructure 

plans including extensive public participation and local involvement. The regional 2040 framework 

plan of the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission provides a model.

Timeframe: 2006-2008

Lead: US Dept of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit 

Agency; state DOTs; Regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)

Resources: 10-20 percent of selected demonstration MPOs’ annual Regional Transportation Plan 

(RTP) funding.

Sources: Funding 50 percent from RTP funds and balance from a range of existing program 

(that may vary by state) including: USEPA (Clean Water, Brownfields, LaMP), NOAA/Sea Grant; 

HUD Community Development Block Grant program, and; US Dept of Commerce (USDOC) 

Economic Development Funds; USDA programs; Foundations. 

Activities to address the restoration of ecosystems should be integrated with activities that 

promote sustainable use of ecosystem services, especially where the uses and restoration are 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

62

linked. An ecosystem restoration plan that does not provide a path for economic development is as 

unsustainable as an economic development plan that fails to directly address ecological restoration 

and societal needs. The integration of restoration and sustainable use planning has been limited 

by the alignment of agencies along single purposes, and requires actions to promote integrated, 

multi-purpose planning.

Action (f): In order to start to address two critically inter-related issues, transportation and 

invasive species (aquatic and terrestrial), authorize and fund a comprehensive study that integrates 

long-term invasive species control and management with sustainable intermodal transportation for 

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin.

Timeframe: 2006-2009 

Lead: Congress

Resources: $20 million over four years

Sources: Federal funding programs of USFWS, USDOT and USACE

Another element of governance that is limiting sustainability is the capacity of local communities, 

watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and MPOs which are challenged to 

attract and retain staff knowledgeable on sustainable practices due to unstable base funding. 

These organizations provide critical training, technical assistance, and are regional advocates 

for sustainability are challenged to maintain their institutional knowledge. Recommend actions 

to enhance the capacity of local and regional organizations to inform, promote, and implement 

sustainability.

Action (g): Identify, expand, and enhance existing online clearinghouses to provide additional 

capacity for education and outreach, tourism projects and products, and local watershed planning 

initiatives 

Timeframe: 2006-2007

Lead: Great Lakes Commission/GLIN; Sea Grant/University 

Resources: $500K per year 

Source: Federal and state funding programs including: USEPA, CEM funding through GLNPO/

LaMP; NOAA, Coastal Zone Management (CZM) grants and Coastal Estuary Land Protection; 

Great Lakes Protection Fund 

Action (h): Enhance the capacity of local communities to apply sustainability through training 

and technical assistance provided with priority funding from multiple federal and state grant and 

assistance programs. 

Timeframe: 2006-2007

Lead: Watershed and regional councils, RAP groups, tribes, NGOs, soil & water conservation 

districts 

Resources: $2 million (ramping up to $8 million in five years); $100K per watershed per year

Source: US Dept Agriculture (USDA), Tech Asst Fund; USEPA, CEM funding through GLNPO/

LaMP, Sec 319 grants through States; NOAA/CZM and Coastal Estuary Land Protection grants; 

USACE RAP Support (WRDA Sec 401) program; HUD Community Development Block Grant 

program, Great Lakes Protection Fund; Foundations

Action (i): Initiate two new and maintain two existing watershed or regional partnerships with 

emphasis on rural, multi-ecosystem watersheds that incorporate sustainable criteria and local 

government capacity enhancing programs into a comprehensive strategic planning initiative. 
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

63

Timeframe: 2006-2007

Lead: Watershed and regional councils, RAP groups, tribes, NGOs, soil & water conservation 

districts

Resources: $100-250K per watershed per year

Sources: USEPA, Section 319 grants through states; state watershed planning programs

Action (j): Enhance the capacity of Great Lakes ports and marinas to implement best management 

practices in partnership with the outreach initiative of the American Association of Port Authorities 

(AAPA)

Timeframe: 2006-2007

Lead: Port authorities, state, local and private harbor and marina interests, AAPA

Resources: $300,000 annually

Sources: Federal and state funding programs, including USDOT and USACE 

Commitments to existing partnerships that bridge governmental alignments and promote 

sustainability should be renewed and sustained. One example is the state/federal partnership of 

the Great Lakes Dredging Team.

3) Build outreach that brands the Great Lakes as an exceptional, healthy, and competitive 

place to live, work, invest, and play

In order to gain the public support, both within the basin and nationwide, to accomplish the 

recommendations identified in the Strategy and promote the sustainability of the Great Lakes as a 

national priority, a combination of marketing and outreach is required. Specific objectives of this 

outreach and marketing are to educate users and consumers on sustainable alternatives available 

and the consequences of decisions, build a sense of ownership and pride in regional ecosystems, 

attract new residents and businesses to the region with abundant ecosystem services and a society 

where sustainability is practiced, and develop national support for the restoration and protection 

of the Great Lakes because of its ecological and economic importance to the country. 

Action (k): Develop and implement a marketing strategy for the Great Lakes targeted at a 

national audience that delivers messages of the region’s ecological and economic importance to 

the nation/world

Timeframe: 2006-2008 

Lead: Foundations and NGOs

Resources: $2 million

Sources: Foundations and public interest funds

Action (l): Create new awards to recognize excellence in sustainable development within the 

Great Lakes

Timeframe: 2006

Lead: Foundations, business sector associations, NGOs

Resources: undetermined, but may not be required

Action (m): Develop additional education and outreach modules on sustainability (such as WET 

and Water Riches curricula for water conservation) and promote their incorporation into school 

curriculum (K-12)
STRATEGY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

64

Timeframe: 2006-2007

Lead: State resource and education agencies and NGOs in partnership with local school districts

Resources: $2 million

Sources: State and federal funding programs, including: USEPA, Environmental Education grants; 

US Dept of Education grants; and state and local education funding programs 

4) Provide leadership for sustainable development through the implementation of the 

Strategy recommendations

This Strategy document presents both short- and long-term actions required to restore and protect 

the ecosystem services provided by the Great Lakes. However, there is another critical step in 

moving forward from this document to the implementation of the recommended actions. That 

is the formulation of an implementation plan which provides the specifics for prioritization and 

sequencing of actions. This plan must also evaluate alternative actions, develop more detailed cost 

estimates, and assign responsibilities to assure that funds and human resources are used efficiently. 

Sustainable development cuts across all other priority issues addressed in this Strategy, it is futureoriented, and represents a sound platform for integrating efforts to restore and protect the Great 

Lakes.

Action (n): Congress should authorize and appropriate funding for development of a phased 

implementation plan for the recommendations in the Strategy that provides a scientifically sound 

process for prioritization, sequencing, development of detailed cost data, evaluation of alternatives, 

and assignment of responsibilities, utilizing sustainable development as the overarching guide

Timeframe: 2006 

Lead: Congress

Resources: $6 million over three years

A final action that is essential for the successful implementation of the Great Lakes Strategy is 

providing leadership. The Collaboration, a partnership of federal, state, tribal and local governments, 

is the logical choice for overseeing of the development of the implementation plan as well as 

tracking and reporting on its application. This will necessitate some changes to the Collaboration’s 

charter and organization structure. It is also recommended that the Governors, Mayors and Tribal 

leaders provide leadership as the advocates for sustainable use, development and conservation of 

Great Lakes resources.

Action (o): The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration should amend its Framework to provide 

oversight of the development, approval, and application of a phased implementation plan for the 

Great Lakes Strategy using sustainable development as the overarching guide. The Collaboration 

should also monitor and report on the status of implementation.

Timeframe: 2006

Lead: Collaboration 

Action (p): The Governors, Mayors, and Tribal leaders of the Great Lakes should renew and 

expand their commitments to the sustainable use, development and conservation of Great Lakes 

resources and utilize the Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities 

Initiative as a proactive advocates for sustainable development.

Timeframe: 2006 

Lead: Governors, Mayors and Tribal leaders
About the Appendices

The Appendices to the GLRC strategy (included on the CD) contain supplementary materials used or 

developed in the course of preparing the Strategy Team Reports included in the final GLRC Strategy. 

For example, they identify many successful ongoing efforts that contribute to Great Lakes protection and 

restoration, as well as recommendations that may be utilized for future action. They also contain valuable 

reference materials and other supplementary information that are an important part of the strategic collaborative process. However, the materials in the Appendices are not necessarily products of consensus and 

might not represent the views of all strategy team members; and, unless otherwise indicated in a particular 

item itself, have not received official endorsement by the Executive Committee, or the entities who are 

members of the Collaboration.

Appendices

65