Great Lakes (North American)
Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
Jon MacDonagh-Dumler*, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, jonmacd@glc.org
Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
John Gannon, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
* Corresponding author
1. Introduction
shores of Lake Superior to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 2). The
lakes provide daily drinking water to two-thirds of the basin's
The North American Great Lakes constitute the largest system
40 million residents. Domestic and commercial uses of lake
of fresh surface water on the face of the earth (Figure 1) and
water consume nearly four trillion liters daily. Water dependent
are linked to the Atlantic Ocean by the St. Lawrence River. The
industries--such as heavy manufacturing, agriculture,
Great Lakes cover over 244,000 km2 of surface water; 520,000
recreation and tourism, and sport and commercial fi shing--are
km2 of drainage area; and a combined volume of nearly all multi-billion dollar-a-year industries (Table 1).
23,000 km3. Individually, the fi ve Great Lakes are among the
fi fteen largest freshwater lakes in the world. With more than
The profi le of the human geography and economy of the Great
17,000 km of shoreline, including its thousands of islands, Lakes region is quite signifi cant and serves to underscore
this ecosystem extends some 3,500 km from the westernmost
its numerous management challenges (Kling et al. 2003).
Figure 1. The North American Great Lakes Basin.

---

Residing within the political jurisdictions of the eight Great
Agriculture fi gures prominently in the Great Lakes region
Lakes states and province of Ontario are more than 60 million
producing more than 25 percent of the total value of U.S.
people with more than half of them located in the Great Lakes
agricultural products, which includes about half of the
drainage basin itself. This in-basin population comprises 20%
nation's corn and soybeans. Similarly, the Canadian side of the
of the U.S. population and 60% of the Canadian population.
Great Lakes basin produces nearly 25% of total agricultural
Population growth was nearly 9% in the Great Lakes states and
output with aggregate economic value in Ontario exceeding
over 12% in Ontario in the last decade. There are many major
all other provinces except Alberta. Forestry operations are
cities located on Great Lakes shorelines, including: Buffalo,
signifi cant in some locations but overall contribute less
Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Hamilton, Milwaukee, Toledo, regionally. For example, in the last decade the Ontario forest
Toronto, and Windsor.
products industry employed more than 90,000 people while
generating more than CAD15 billion. In 2000, Wisconsin alone
The regional economy is quite large and diversifi ed with employed 74,000 workers in pulp, paper, and wood products
manufacturing, services (including tourism and recreation), manufacturing which generated more than US$18 billion.
agriculture, forestry, and government sectors. The Great Lakes
binational region forms the industrial heartland of North More recently, diversifi cation into a variety of service sectors
America with total production in 2000 of nearly US$2 trillion,
has created one of the largest components of the regional
which is only exceeded by the gross domestic production of the
economy, which includes many tourism, recreation, and
United States and Japan. In 2000, Canada derived more than
environment-related enterprises. Water-related amenities
50% of the value of manufacturing shipments from Ontario
on and near the Great Lakes represent the major recreation
alone and, in the U.S., six of the Great Lakes states contributed
and tourism attraction in middle America. For example, more
greater than 25% to the total manufacturing value added. than two million tourists visited the Indiana Dunes National
Signifi cant industrial growth began about 1850 and relied Lakeshore and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
upon resource extraction through mining, harvesting timber
(Michigan) in 1999. In 2001, provincial parks in Ontario drew
and low-cost shipping on the lakes. For example, the huge
a total of more than 11 million visitors from Point Pelee (on
steel mills of Gary (Indiana), Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), and
Lake Erie) to Lake Superior. In addition, smaller inland lakes
Cleveland (Ohio) obtained iron ore from northern Minnesota
attract many in northern Michigan, Minnesota, Ontario, and
that was shipped down the lakes. These same commercial Wisconsin. And in winter, downhill and cross-country skiing,
shipping routes carried steel products to Detroit and Chicago
and snowmobiling draw large numbers of visitors. On the U.S.
for further processing into fi nished consumers goods, such
side more than 15 million people engage in fi shing, hunting, or
as automobiles and farm equipment. With this infrastructure
wildlife watching activities bringing in US$18.5 billion annually.
in place, the region maintains signifi cant shipping ports that
Similarly, travel and tourism in Ontario generated more than
serve large freighters carrying goods and commodities, such as
CAD20 billion in 2000.
grain, soybeans, coal, iron ore, from both in-basin and out-of-
basin areas of the U.S. Midwest and Canada. These shipments
More broadly, the Great Lakes region must be seen and
are worth billions of dollars; in addition, the businesses that
understood in terms of numerous competing socio-economic,
service this activity generate US$3 billion in yearly business
political and environmental characteristics and issues. All who
revenue and employ more than 60,000 people.
live in the region are stewards of a fi nite resource that must
Figure 2. North American Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System Profi le (Source: Based on GLIN (2003) and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Detroit District) information).
180
Great Lakes (North American)

---

be managed sustainably. In a certain sense, the residents 2.1
The "Resource Development" Era--circa 1780-1850
are also participants, directly or indirectly, in a very large
scale institutional experiment reconciling economic and Water resource projects were development oriented, with
geo-political boundaries with hydrologic ones. Though the transportation as a major emphasis and were generally
experiment began little more than a century ago, the successes
designed to overcome the limitations of the physical system,
and failures in governance and resource management that such as with the poor road system. In 1797, a rudimentary lock
are learned in the region will likely have global applications.
was constructed at what is now Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Therefore, the Great Lakes might also be described as the This project was followed by the Erie Canal in 1825; the
largest freshwater laboratory for institutional experimentation
Welland Canal in 1828; and the Chicago River locks in 1848.
on the face of the earth.
These projects had a single objective: structural development
and so comprehensive planning was the exception rather than
2.
The Evolution of Regional Governance
the rule during this era.
Experimentation with government institutions is an ongoing
2.2
The "Transition" Era--circa 1850-1900
process with a long and storied history for both Canada and the
United States. By way of proxy for both, the following outline is
Permanent, multi-jurisdictional institutions were established
provided to reveal the major features of evolving government
which had expansive water resources development
institutions that affected resource management; in this outline
responsibilities. For example, the Federal Rivers and Harbors
fi ve successive eras are described (Donahue 1996).
Act of 1852 created regional institutions for navigation
improvements, bank stabilization and fl ood control. Structural
Since the founding of the nation in the late 1700s waterways
changes and development of water resources systems largely
have provided vital transportation routes to compensate for a
characterized this era through federal legislation that created
lack of roads. The very fi rst commercial canal project was led
government institutions with broad powers. In the Great
by George Washington, the fi rst president. Competing state
Lakes region, health crises along with economic opportunities
interests between Maryland and Virginia initially indicated accelerated the development toward this new paradigm of
limits to state sovereignty and began to frame federal/state
resource management. For example, outbreaks of typhoid
relations.
and cholera in the late 1890s in Chicago resulted in a project
that reversed the fl ow of the Chicago River from Lake Michigan
southwest into the Mississippi River basin.
Table 1. North American Great Lakes Physical Features and Population.
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
Total
Elevationa (m)**
183
176
176
173
74
Length (km)*
563
494
332
388
311
Breadth (km)*
257
190
245
92
85
Average Deptha (m)**
147
85
59
19
86
Maximum Deptha (m)*
406
282
229
64
244
Volumea (km3)*
12,100
4,920
3,540
484
1,640
22,684
Water Area (km2)*
82,100
57,800
59,600
25,700
18,960
244,160
Land Drainage Areab (km2)*
127,700
118,000
134,100
78,000
64,030
521,830
Total Area (km2)*
209,800
175,800
193,700
103,700
82,990
765,990
Shoreline Lengthc (km)*
4,385
2,633
6,157
1,402
1,146
17,017d
Retention Time (yrs)**
191
99
22
2.6
6
Population (persons)
607,121
10,057,026
2,694,154
11,682,169
8,150,895
33,191,365
Straits of
Niagara River/
St. Lawrence
Outlet
St. Marys River
St. Clair River
Mackinac
Welland Canal
River
Notes:
a) Measured at Low Water Datum.

b) Land Drainage Area for Lake Huron includes St. Marys River; Lake Erie includes the St. Clair-Detroit system; Lake Ontario includes
the Niagara River.

c) Includes islands.

d) These totals are greater than the sum of the shoreline length of the lakes because they include the connecting channels (excluding
the St. Lawrence River).
Sources: Fuller and Shear (1995).
*
Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data, Coordinated Great Lakes Physical Data, May 1992.
**
Extension Bulletins E-1866-70, Michigan Sea Grant College Program, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 1985.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
181

---

2.3
The "Federal Leadership" Era--circa 1900-1950
largely as concerns of the states either singly or
collectively;
This era was characterized by strong federal legislation,
and consequently federally-dominated water management ·
The current downsizing and "re-invention" of the federal
institutions, an acceptance of comprehensive planning, and
government, prompted by effi ciency concerns and
much debate on the role of regional governance in the U.S.
budgetary constraints;
system of federalism (vis-à-vis sharing power over water
resources with the states). The 1920s and 1930s saw the ·
A "kinder and gentler" federal government that has
federal government embrace and dominate the practice of
tempered its regulatory emphasis with voluntary
comprehensive basin planning. For example, in the Great
compliance and partnership characteristics;
Lakes region the U.S. Federal Government negotiated the
International Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 with Great ·
A rising ethic of self determination, stewardship and
Britain. A new institution was created to implement the
collaboration among states; and,
terms of the treaty: the International Joint Commission which
refl ected the multi-objective, multi-jurisdictional emphasis on
·
Relentless efforts of "grass-roots" non-governmental
governance.
organizations to empower communities and individuals.
2.4
The "River Basin" Era--circa 1950-1985
Collectively, these infl uences have had a profound impact on
regional water resources management.
A fourth era emerged with still greater federal powers and
unprecedented institution building at the river basin level. 3. Sustainable
Use
Vulnerabilities
But it also asserted federal/state partnerships and state
stewardship responsibility for water resources through the "There are two basic and quite different bilateral Great
establishment of river basin commissions, such as the Great
Lakes issues: lake levels and water quality." In 2003, many
Lakes Basin Commission. It also emphasized environmental
Great Lakes managers and researchers would agree with this
protection and resource management, as opposed to statement, which was in fact published twenty years ago
development. The shift from federal dominance to state (Caroll 1983). Notwithstanding progress in addressing issues
empowerment also continued with the 1954 creation of of water quality and lake levels over the past two decades,
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a binational agency water quality and lake levels continue to dominate the Great
with strong state and provincial involvement, and the 1955
Lakes policy and management arenas. Anthropogenic and
creation of the Great Lakes Commission, an interstate compact
natural ecological processes that degrade water quality or
agency founded in both state law and Congressional consent
stymie its improvement and those that do or potentially can
legislation.
result in changes in the quantity of water sustained in each of
the fi ve lake basins and their connecting channels continue to
This era began to end in 1981 by an Executive Order of the
threaten the sustainable use of the Great Lakes.
President of the U.S., which dismantled the institutions
established under earlier federal legislation--the Water 3.1
Threats to Water Quality
Resources Planning Act. In addition, federal power over
water resources was becoming further entrenched with 3.1.1 Point
Source
Discharges
implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Historically, the primary threats to water quality came from
of 1972. Counterbalancing these developments, however, municipal and industrial "point source" discharges. Sewage
the Council of Great Lakes Governors was formed in 1982 from residences, shops and workplaces was discharged
indicating that, at least in the Great Lakes, there was a new
untreated or minimally treated into Great Lakes tributaries
state stewardship ethic emerging.
and the lakes themselves. Paper, steel, automobile and other
manufacturing industries that have historically dominated
2.5
The "New" Era--circa 1985-Present
the regional economy released their leftover chemicals and
sludges, into the land, water and air.
The present era of resource management has seen the
transition from a top-down, command-and-control, A suite of federal environmental legislation on both sides of
government-dominated approach to a bottom-up, partnership-
the border was part of a maturing environmental movement
based, inclusive one.
that began alongside other social movements in the 1950s
and 60s.
A number of developments, which have sometimes been
contradictory, appear to explain this transition. These On the U.S. side, major federal laws were established to
developments include:
control pollution from these point sources to the water directly
and indirectly from the air and land. These included the Federal
·
The "new federalism" philosophy of the Reagan Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (known as
Administration which viewed water resources issues the Clean Water Act), the Clean Air Acts of 1970 and 1977 and
182
Great Lakes (North American)

---

the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976. Canada
include oil and grease from automobiles, surface decay,
similarly passed federal environmental laws, including the pesticides and herbicides from home yard care, household
Canada Water Act of 1970, albeit with a very different approach
cleaning products and pet wastes. The threat of these
(Caroll 1983).
pollutants is exacerbated with high levels of impervious
surface that block infi ltration--one of nature's foremost
Programs to address point source discharges have met with
abilities to deal with pollutants.
relative success over the past several decades (particularly
in the area of phosphorous, but also due to sewage treatment
Agricultural Runoff. Agriculture is a leading economic activity
plants and other control measures), exposing the signifi cance
in all of the Great Lakes states and its footprint around the
and ubiquity of non-point sources of pollution (runoff and Great Lakes basin is signifi cant, representing 24% of the
air deposition) as well as historic contamination. Today, the
basin or 25% of the land base (Thorp et al. 1997). Although
biggest threats to Great Lakes water quality come from a seemingly more benign than industrial manufacturing, the
variety of non-point sources of pollution.
impacts from agricultural practices are more insidious and
can stake a signifi cant claim in the degradation of Great
3.1.2 Nonpoint Source Discharges from Land Use
Lakes water quality. The shift from agriculture to agribusiness
Activities
that also occurred during the middle of the 20th century
Urban Development and Runoff. One of the most signifi cant
was characterized by heavy use of chemicals and nutrients
land use issues in the Great Lakes region is the continuing
to fend off pests, resist disease and ensure the highest
growth of major metropolitan areas and sprawl of residential
possible yields. There was little-to-no regard to the impacts
areas and other development (Pebbles 2001). Since World War
of indiscriminate use of pesticides--in the home or on the
II, the human footprint on the land around the Great Lakes
fi eld--until the release of "Silent Spring" in 1962, the seminal
has been transformed by a major shift in land development
book which challenged and ultimately changed the way
patterns from high-density urban development to low-density
pesticides and other chemicals are used and managed in the
suburban development. This shift refl ects that of the nation
U.S. The impact of agriculture is related to the type and extent
at large and has happened at a rate unparalleled in American
of agricultural land uses and management practices. About
history. Over several decades, the Great Lakes went from being
65% of the basin's farmland is cropland (Thorp et al. 1997).
a region of distinct cities, towns and rural areas to one of
While cropland uses its share of chemical and nutrient inputs,
metropolitan areas dominated by suburbs comprised of strip
and contributes to soil erosion and sedimentation, there is
malls and segregated bedroom communities connected by increasing attention to threats from livestock operations.
vast amounts of wide-lane roads and boulevards.
Although livestock operations occupy a signifi cantly smaller
footprint, the growing concentration of animals per farm,
The causes and consequences of sprawling development are
inadequate manure management and the potential for
the subject of much discourse and debate. Several aspects of
waterborne pathogens from concentrated livestock operations
urban runoff contribute to it as a threat. One is erosion from
is a growing concern. Regulations have recently emerged to
construction activities that involves removal of vegetation, address nutrient management from livestock operations, but
soil compaction/grading and development. The impacts of their impact on ecosystem or water quality improvement is still
development are exacerbated by the extent of impervious cover
uncertain. While agricultural practices happen on the ground
that occurs with sprawling development patterns that result in
in the region, international trends in agricultural production
extensive impervious land cover in the form of roads, parking
and commodity pricing infl uence local practices.
lots, sidewalks and rooftops. Impervious cover threatens water
quality by preventing rain and snow from slowly fi ltering into
Farmland Conversion. Although agricultural practices can and
the ground and instead redirecting it rapidly and directly to
often do degrade water quality, agriculture also has attributes
drains and streams, increasing the frequency and severity of
that can contribute to and enhance ecosystem integrity. This is
fl ooding and erosion along the way and degrading stream and
an important consideration in light of other major competing
riparian habitat. Although all development results in some land uses, particularly urbanization. In contrast to urban
impervious cover, the low-density nature of sprawl results development where the impacts are essentially irreversible,
in the need for more roads, rooftops and parking lots to agriculture holds promise for practices that have stewardship
connect shops, homes and workplaces and house automobiles
and productivity in mind. Contour farming, conservation
necessary to get there. The "green" areas around these low-
tillage, the use of buffer strips, integrated pest management
density developments rarely compensate for the impervious
and other methods that reduce agriculture's negative impact
cover as the land is compacted, and where revegetation on the environment hold promise for agriculture as an industry
occurs, it usually involves lawns and selected ornamental that can preserve land and open space where the hydrologic
shrubs and trees that have much less water absorption and
cycle can occur unimpeded. The same cannot be said for urban
fi ltering capacity than the grasses, trees and shrubs that development. Once land is developed for roads or housing, it
existed on the land prior to development.
may change function or form, but it remains essentially urban.
Actively farmed orchards and crops allow water to fi lter into
Pollutants from urban and suburban activities that end up the land and provide cover for some animals, functions which
in runoff are as varied as the types of human activities. They
are enhanced by the practice of employing buffer strips or

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
183

---

conservation easements. Importantly, farmland left fallow will
Tunnel System. The system combines horizontal and vertical
eventually revert to a natural state with little-to-no long-term
circular shaft constructions; since its inception in 1994, it
consequences for ecological integrity.
is credited with preventing more than 227 overfl ows and
capturing about 152 million m3 of diluted wastewater (MMSD
The expansion of metropolitan areas referenced above goes
2002). While circumstantial evidence indicates that CSOs and
hand-in-hand with farmland conversion. This phenomenon is
SSOs continue to be a problem in other parts of the Great
particularly signifi cant in the Great Lakes Basin where nearly
Lakes, there is no basinwide assessment of the threat.
two-thirds of the farmland is located within 50 km of medium
and large cities (GLC 1996). As urban areas expand, surrounding
Contaminated Sediments. Contaminated sediments from
agriculture and open space lands pay the price. Farmland loss
historic economic activities are perhaps one of the unique yet
in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes Basin between 1982
most serious ecological threats to the Great Lakes. Even after
and 1997 was more than 1.6 million hectares, representing
serious cleanup efforts began in the late 1960s, little attention
nearly 49% of the total farmland loss for the eight Great was paid to the toxics concealed on the bottom of the lakes and
Lakes states during this period. The rate of loss is disparate
their tributaries. The fi rst priority was to stop the discharge of
across the region and the basin, since some jurisdictions (e.g.,
new contaminants, and little concern was paid to sediments.
states/provinces) have relatively small basin land areas (e.g.,
It was not until the early 1980s that environmental problems
Illinois) and others have less farmland in their portion of the
caused by sediment contamination began to generate interest.
basin (e.g., Minnesota). Whether looking at fi gures specifi c
Decades worth of heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals
to the basin or the broader 8-state, 2-province region (which
mixed with the particles of rock, soil, and decomposing wood
includes the St. Lawrence River basin), the trend of farmland
and shell have collected in the sediments of the rivers and
conversion over the last two decades is staggering. Between
harbors in the Great Lakes Basin. US EPA's Great Lakes program
1981 and 1997 more than 5.1 million hectares of farmland were
identifi es polluted sediments as the largest major source of
converted to other uses--a surface area larger than the size of
contaminants to the Great Lakes food chain, including each
lakes Erie and Ontario combined period (Pebbles 2001).
of the 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) designated under the U.S.-
Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (see below).
The urbanization and farmland conversion cycle places the Over 20% of the Great Lakes shoreline is considered impaired
agriculture at serious risk. Remedies must not only reduce because of sediment contamination and fi sh consumption
urban sprawl, but also maintain viable agricultural economies
advisories remain in place throughout the Great Lakes and
at the local and regional levels.
many inland lakes. On the U.S. side of the border, sediments
have been assessed at 26 Great Lakes locations and almost 1
Combined Sewers and Storm Sewer Overfl ows. Older urban
million m3 of contaminated sediments have been remediated
areas built with combined sanitary (household sewage and
over the past 3 years. However, the challenge is so great that
industrial wastes) and storm sewer systems allow untreated
sediment remediation is not yet complete at any US AOC
sewage to bypass treatment and go directly into surface (USEPA-GLNPO 2002). In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the
waters when treatment facilities are inundated during storm
Great Lakes Legacy Act, which authorizes US$270 million over
events. This "combined sewer overfl ow" is a serious threat
fi ve years from fi scal years 2004 to 2008. The Act authorizes
to water quality and the sustainability of coastal areas from
US$50 million per year for "Projects" which may include: site
ecological and socio-economic standpoints. Separate sanitary
characterization, assessment, monitoring, remediation, and/
sewer systems can also experience untreated discharges or pollution prevention, US$3 million per year for technology
related to wet weather events, known as "sanitary sewer research, and US$1 million per year for public information
overfl ows" or SSOs. These can be caused by excessive infl ow
programs.
and infi ltration, inadequate maintenance, and insuffi cient wet
weather transport capacity. SSOs and untreated CSOs can 3.2
Threats to Water Quantity and Lake Levels
contain pathogens that lead to beach closures and human
health concerns, as well as oxygen demanding substances The hydrology and water balance of the Great Lakes basin
that can lead to low dissolved oxygen levels. Untreated CSOs
has been altered by human diversions, regulatory structures,
discharges may also contain industrial pollutants (USPC 2002).
urbanization, dredging, fi lling and other human activities over
Toronto still has 71 CSOs that remain and is developing a Wet
the last 200 years or so. Major diversions have shifted some
Weather Master Plan and Wet Weather Flow Management fl ows from the Lake Michigan watershed to the Illinois River/
Strategy for the City that will include by-laws, policies, Mississippi River drainage system. Another diversion brings
projects, programs, a monitoring plan, an implementation water from the James Bay/Hudson Bay watershed into the
plan and funding mechanisms to eliminate CSOs and SSOs,
Lake Superior basin. Also, the International Joint Commission
and institute a number of other water quality improvement
oversees regulatory structures at the outfl ow of Lakes Superior
measures (Toronto 2003). Milwaukee is also meeting the and Ontario to help control water levels in those lakes. Various
challenge of reducing CSOs and SSOs. Since 1994, both large-scale proposals to remove water from the Great Lakes
sanitary and combined sewer overfl ows have been reduced
have been around for almost a century, but received little
from an annual average of about 70 to about 2.5 occurrences
attention. Heightened interest in Great Lakes basin diversions
largely due to the construction of Inline Storage, or the Deep
resulted in two policy responses in the 1980s. First, in 1985
184
Great Lakes (North American)

---

the Great Lakes governors and premiers signed a binational
More than 140 non-indigenous, or invasive, species have
good faith agreement known as the Great Lakes Charter, which
become established in and around the Great Lakes since
established a series of principles and procedures for managing
the 1800s (IAGLR 2002). Due in large part to increases in the
Great Lakes water resources. In 1986, the US Congress volume of shipping traffi c, the introduction of new invasive
included a provision in the Water Resources Development Act
species has increased dramatically over the past 50 years.
(Section 1109) that prohibits any new or increased diversion
More than 87 non-indigenous aquatic species have been
of Great Lakes water without the approval of the Great Lakes
accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes in the 20th
governors.
century alone. Once introduced, invasive species must be
managed and controlled, as they are virtually impossible to
Due to changes in regional leadership, uneven public interest,
eradicate.
and inconsistent support for water management programs,
the binational management framework called for in the Great
In a recent study, the U.S. General Accounting Offi ce looked
Lakes Charter never fully matured (GLC 2003). The defi ciencies
at economic impact of invasive species in the U.S., the
of the framework came to light in the late 1990s when an management plans of the National Invasive Species Council,
Ontario-based company was issued a permit to withdraw Lake
efforts of the U.S. and Canadian federal governments to
Superior water with the intent of establishing an overseas prevent introductions in the Great Lakes via ballast water of
market for bulk water export. The Great Lakes community ships, and, fi nally, coordination of Great Lakes management
was caught by surprise, renewing a fl urry of regional interest
efforts between the two countries (USGAO 2002). The study
and activity in water resource management. In 2001, Canada
found that current efforts are not adequate because: (a) some
amended its Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit bulk water
ships entering the Great Lakes carry residual water in their
removals from the Great Lakes and set in place a licensing
ballast tanks that later become mixed with, and subsequently
regime for dams and other public water works projects (GLC
discharged into domestic waters; and (b) ballast water
2003). Basinwide, the Great Lakes governors and premiers exchange procedures do not appear to be effective at removing
signed the Great Lakes Charter Annex in 2001 to reaffi rm their
or killing organisms in ballast tanks and there no standards nor
commitment to the 1985 Great Lakes Charter and set forth a
fully effective technologies available to ensure protection of
revised set of principles for Great Lakes water management.
Great Lakes waters.
The Great Lakes Commission engaged in a two-year basinwide
collaborative effort to assess Great Lakes water resource 4.
Policy, Legislative and Institutional
information and management and develop a framework for a
Responses
Water Resources Decision Support System (WRDSS) for the
binational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system.
Binational cooperation on the issue of water began well before
the U.S. national environmental movement of the 1960s with
The fi nal WRDSS report released in June 2003 (Toward a the 1909 U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty. The Boundary
Water Resources Management Decision Support System Waters Treaty established the International Joint Commission
for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System) provides a (IJC)-- a binational body to prevent and settle disputes over
detailed assessment of data and information needs--a critical
the use of waters shared by the U.S. and Canada and was
component for a completed decision support system--and a landmark in Canada-U.S. cooperation, paving the way
suggests next steps for a complete WRDSS. It is now up to the
for Great Lakes-specifi c efforts. The IJC is comprised of six
governors and premiers to take the necessary next steps for
commissioners, three U.S.-appointed and three Canada-
establishing the legal and institutional mechanisms necessary
appointed. It is supported by a complex organizational
for a functioning and effective Great Lakes water resources
structure of more than 20 boards and reference groups made
management framework and decision support system.
up of experts from the U.S. and Canada, including the Great
Lakes. While the treaty includes a provision to protect the
3.3
Threats to Ecosystem Integrity
boundary waters from pollution, it was not enough to address
the growing water pollution problems in the Great Lakes.
To be sure, activities and events that threaten water quality
and/or quantity are also threats to ecosystem integrity. In 1964 the two governments forwarded a reference to the
Fortunately, the Great Lakes region has benefi ted from an International Joint Commission (IJC) requesting it to determine
institutional and legal focus on water quality and quantity as
whether the Great Lakes were polluted and what could be done
part of ecosystem integrity. The variety of other ecosystem
to remediate them. An important outcome of the reference was
stressors and threats and responses to them lists in the the recognition that federal legislative efforts to address water
dozens, from soil erosion and sedimentation to air deposition
quality on either side of the border were inadequate to deal with
of toxic compounds, to oil spills and information gaps, the multijurisdictional complexities of the Great Lakes (and the
insuffi cient funding and institutional inertia. However, no St. Lawrence River basin) as a binational resource shared by
discussion of threats to the Great Lakes system would be valid
two federal governments, eight states, and two provinces and
without mentioning the ongoing threat and impact of aquatic
thousands of local governments. In 1972, the U.S. and Canada
invasive or nuisance species.
signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which calls
on the Parties (the U.S. and Canada) "to restore and maintain

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
185

---

the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of
the Great Lakes where benefi cial uses were threatened or
the Great Lakes ecosystem." Signed by President Nixon and
impaired. Though the Agreement is an executive agreement
Prime Minister Trudeau, the Agreement does not have treaty
between the two federal governments and does not have
status, but is a binational executive agreement that commits
treaty status, it has been incorporated into federal, state
Canada and the United States to specifi c actions to protect and
and provincial law on both sides of the border. Cleaning up
enhance water quality.
AOCs and developing Lakewide Management Plans to reduce
pollutant loadings for each lake with a binational shoreline
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement not only addressed
(i.e., not Lake Michigan), has become a major focus of
the water quality issue, but perhaps equally important, the
binational ecosystem management efforts in the Great Lakes
issue of multiple fragmented jurisdictions. To this end, the (Hildebrand et al. 2002).
Agreement established the IJC Great Lakes regional offi ce
(the only IJC regional offi ce) which has specifi c responsibilities
Complementary binational program responses have emerged
for providing technical support, coordinating programs and under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including:
monitoring implementation of the two federal governments
under the Agreement. The IJC has established a Great Lakes
·
A biennial ecosystem conference to report on the State
Water Quality Board and a Science Advisory Board to carry out
of the Great Lakes based on a series of established
its mandate under the Agreement.
ecological indicators;
Prior to 1972, the IJC investigations only held public hearings
·
A binational toxics strategy to address persistent toxic
on specifi c topics; otherwise, these were carried out in private
substances;
because only the governments could give permission to
release "internal communications" by boards and committees.
·
A framework to coordinate relevant federal, state and
Under the 1972 Agreement, public involvement increased;
provincial agency activity in cleaning up AOCs shared by
the Research Advisory Board (RAB) of the IJC sponsored a
Ontario and Michigan; and,
workshop to consider means to enhance public participation.
The RAB's Standing Committee on Social Sciences, Economic,
·
A program to eliminate point source discharges of
and Legal Aspects met in 1975 and established 17 public
persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances into Lake
advisory panels for the Pollution from Land Use Activities
Superior.
Reference Group study (PLUARG). The PLUARG study followed
up the 1964 Lower Great Lakes Reference on the lower Great
Canada and the U.S. have also been working cooperatively
Lakes and St. Lawrence River; the latter study led to the Great
on Great Lakes fi sheries issues since 1955 through the Great
Lakes Agreement of 1972. Eventually, PLUARG resulted in over
Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), which was established
100 published reports. Hundreds of citizens and local offi cials
under the Canada-U.S. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
were involved in the 17 advisory panels. The involvement of
The Convention is an international treaty that has been
the public during the course of PLUARG generated three long
incorporated into federal law on both sides of the border.
term results: (a) those involved brought diverse backgrounds
The Fishery Commission is focused on ways to improve and
and interests from across the basin; (b) local involvement perpetuate fi sheries resources of the lakes, develop and
developed the outline of a framework for the Remedial Action
coordinate fi shery research programs, and develop measures
Plan process; and (c) recommendations from the public to manage the parasitic sea lamprey (Great Lakes Panel
advisory panels shaped the decision agenda of the IJC itself
1996). The Fishery Commission's Strategic Vision for the First
(Botts and Muldoon 1983).
Decade of the New Millennium (2001 through 2010) focuses
on three areas: (a) Healthy Great Lakes Ecosystems; (b)
In addition, PLUARG enhanced scientifi c understanding of Integrated Management of Sea Lamprey; and (c) Institutional
nonpoint and land-based sources of pollution to the Great /Stakeholder Partnerships (GLFC 2001).
Lakes by showing that the problem originated from many
sources; in other words, Great Lakes water quality problems
The eight Great Lakes states themselves have been working
were an air problem, a land runoff problem, a contaminated
collaboratively on basinwide ecosystem management issues
site problem, and possibly a human health problem. It also
through the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) since 1955. The
provided the basis for the ecosystem concept of water GLC is an interstate compact agency founded in state and
resource management and stewardship which was eventually
federal law and comprised of state offi cials, legislators and
incorporated into the GLWQA.
governors' appointees from the eight Great Lakes states.
The GLC was established to guide, protect and advance the
The Agreement was revised in 1978 to establish more common interests of the eight Great Lakes states in areas
comprehensive and stringent water quality objectives with of regional environmental quality, resource management,
a greater ecosystem focus. It was amended again in 1983 transportation and economic development. The status of
and further in 1987, the latter amendment committing the Canadian provinces Ontario and Quebec (the latter is part of
two governments to develop and implement Remedial Action
the St. Lawrence River Basin but not directly part of the Great
Plans (RAPs) for 43 Geographic Areas of Concern (AOC) within
Lakes basin) was elevated from observer to associate member
186
Great Lakes (North American)

---

in 1999, refl ecting the GLC's anticipated evolution to a fully
Great Lakes Conferences and Journal of Great Lakes Research.
binational state-provincial agency. The GLC staffs over a dozen
Recognizing that scientifi c information is often too technical
issue-specifi c task forces and advisory committees to address
for decision-making, IAGLR is currently engaged in a project to
the variety of ecosystem priorities and special projects being
strengthen the connection between Great Lakes science and
undertaken by the Commission at any given time. Dredging,
policy with initiatives on urban nonpoint source pollution and
aquatic nuisance species, soil erosion and sedimentation, aquatic invasive species (see http://www.iaglr.org/scipolicy).
wetlands monitoring, oil spill prevention, air toxics and online
information sharing are just some of the ongoing task forces
In addition to these formal arrangements, it is important to
and regional initiatives managed by the GLC.
recognize the role of informality to the vitality and relevance
of Great Lakes research to resource management issues and
Also concerned with basinwide issues on the U.S. side is the
problems. A secondary benefi t of the conferences, workshops,
Council of Great Lakes Governors, a non-profi t organization
and task forces created by the above-mentioned and other
whose members include the governors of the 8 Great Lakes
formal institutional arrangements is the role they provide
states, which was formed in 1983 to coordinate stewardship
as a communication forum for researchers to get to know
of the region's economy and environment. Among the Council's
one another. Collegial relationships are developed and often
most notable cooperative binational ecosystem management
evolve into collaborative research between individuals who
initiatives is the 1985 Great Lakes Charter. The Great Lakes
share expertise, enjoy each other's company, and look forward
Charter is a good-faith agreement of the Governors and to working together. Another strength of Great Lakes research
Premiers in the basin to express their shared concern over
is that researchers often informally call meetings among
water supply and use issues, which sets up the Council to
themselves, outside of the formal institutional arrangements
oversee implementation of a binational process to review and without directives from program administrators. For
water use patterns and consider diversion and consumptive
example, when the zebra mussel invaded the Great Lakes in
use proposals under the terms of the Charter.
the 1980s, U.S. and Canadian scientists met and developed a
research needs document that later evolved into the work of
A series of programs to reduce discharges from point sources
Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel. More recently,
has allowed both countries to claim success with controlling
the informal Lake Erie Millennium Network was formed by U.S.
pollution from the most prominent sources. The region's and Canadian researchers and managers to develop research
simultaneous decrease in manufacturing (Testa 1991) that plans and share research results through conferences and
refl ected larger national and global economic trends might workshops on the rapidly changing Lake Erie ecosystem.
have resulted in fewer active industrial polluters. By the late
1990s the major threats to the Great Lakes water quality 5.1.2 Academia and Government
were not point source discharges, but non-point sources and
Research programs are conducted by academic institutions and
historic contamination.
State, Provincial, and Federal Government laboratories both in
the U.S. and Canada. There is no strict division of responsibility
5. Lessons
Learned
between academic and government research on the Great
Lakes. In general, academia is better adapted to conduct
5.1 Research
pure research and more quickly respond to new and emerging
issues. While government programs give more emphasis to
5.1.1 Formality and Informality
applied research focused on resource management, policy
Research on the Great Lakes has benefi ted from the lakes needs, and long-term research and monitoring. On the surface,
being binationally shared between the U.S. and Canada. there is a complementary and mutually reinforcing relationship
The formal agreements, including the Great Lakes Water between academic and government research on the Great
Quality Agreement and the Convention on Great Lakes Lakes. In reality, reductions in funding and personnel has
Fisheries, provide binational communication mechanisms for
resulted in academic and government research spending an
the development of research needs and recommendations. inordinate amount of time competing for shrinking Great Lakes
These functions are performed by the Science Advisory Board
science funds. Under these circumstances, the weaknesses
and the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers under in Great Lakes research coordination become more apparent,
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Board resulting in calls to strengthen the Great Lakes research
of Technical Experts under the Convention on Great Lakes agenda (Thomas and Cooley 1996; Krantzberg 1997; Matisoff
Fisheries. Research needs and future directions are developed
1999).
through panels, conferences, and workshops organized
by the Great Lakes Commission, or by funding agencies, 5.1.3 Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary
including the National Science Foundation (Johnson 2003), Much of Great Lakes research has been driven by environmental
the Great Lakes Protection Fund, or by private foundations.
crises. Research focused heavily on single issues including
The multidisciplinary International Association for Great eutrophication during the 1960s and 1970s; toxic contaminants
Lakes Research (IAGLR) performs an important function in in the 1980s; and invasive species during the 1990s (McNaught
communicating research results on the North American Great
1993). There will always be a need for more research emphasis
Lakes, and other large lakes of the world, through its annual
in some disciplines research, for example, more research

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
187

---

is needed into the economic valuation of environmental is required to advance scientifi c understanding and infl uence
benefi ts (Cangelosi 2001). The greater challenge facing the environmentally sustainable economic development of the
Great Lakes research community is to plan, coordinate, and
Great Lakes basin ecosystem in this new millennium.
conduct multidisciplinary research to better understand the
structure and function of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem in
5.2
Institutions and Governance
this new millennium. Environmental conditions in the Great
Lakes are rapidly changing and it is becoming increasingly 5.2.1 Institutional Arrangements for Advancing
diffi cult for research to provide information useful for guiding
Sustainability
Great Lakes resource management and policy towards Lake resource management in the Great Lakes basin, as
environmental protection, restoration, and sustainable uses
practiced by early European immigrants, focused on single
of the Great Lakes region. In particular, there is need for resource extraction activities, such as timber. Through
more multidisciplinary research interaction in the Great Lakes
successive eras, these practices have evolved to multi-
between limnology and fi sheries; water and watersheds; and
objective, multi-media and multi-disciplinary planning and
environment and economics. The Great Lakes community management that strives to balance environmental and
has been a leader in espousing an ecosystem approach to
economic prosperity goals (Donahue 1996). Innovation in
research and management but is still challenged to advance
ecosystem management is now guided by "sustainability"
the ecosystem approach from concept to practice (Christie et
concepts, such as that advocated by the Brundtland
al. 1985; Hartig et al. 1995).
Commission: a state at which today's society is able to meet its
needs without compromising the ability of future generations
5.1.4 Monitoring
to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Indeed, much has been
Environmental monitoring is extremely important for detecting
learned regarding environmental and economic sustainability
emerging issues, assessing the effectiveness of regulatory within the framework of Great Lakes institutions. There are
and resource management programs, assessing progress now recognized (presented below) critical actions which could
in restoration efforts and determining status and trends in help to ensure that further evolution within institutions is
ecosystem health. Yet, monitoring is often criticized for not
encouraged for the advancement of sustainable management
measuring the right parameters and for collecting too much
practices (Donahue 2002). These actions include the
data without suffi cient attention to synthesis and reporting.
following.
Many of the aforementioned lessons learned on Great Lakes
research also apply to monitoring.
Characterize the roles, relationships and gaps on the
"institutional ecosystem". Continued evolution of this
Governments and academia are both involved in monitoring
very complex system of institutions will be enhanced
in the Great Lakes with the majority conducted by the former.
through understanding the interactions of the multitude of
Formal binational monitoring agreements, such as the Great
government and non-government entities, organizations and
Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP) under the Great
other interests. Ongoing study of the roles and relationships
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, are necessary but have among these stakeholders is one of the essential elements to
faced serious shortcomings in implementation. In addition sustainable basin governance.
to formal monitoring plans, it is important to recognize more
informal data sets that have been maintained by academic
Creative use of informal institutional arrangements. As
and government scientists; such data sets become invaluable
noted earlier, much of the "institutional infrastructure" for
in monitoring and interpreting ecosystem changes often Great Lakes resource management has been created through
unrelated to the purpose for which the data were originally
laws, treaties, conventions, compacts and formal agreements.
collected. A shift in emphasis is well underway in Great Lakes
These formal institutions are costly to create and maintain.
monitoring from water and sediment chemistry (pollutants Other alternative relationships, in the form of non-binding,
and algal nutrients) to more integrative, multidisciplinary "good faith" agreements among the relevant parties should
approaches, including atmospheric deposition and biological
be carefully explored where advantages, such as fl exibility, are
indicators of ecosystem health (Gannon et al. 1986). Results
desirable.
of monitoring efforts in the Great Lakes are reported at the
biennial State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC; Design institutions that "learn". Once an institution has
see http://www.binational.net) for the environmental been established to address a crisis or problem it becomes
management community and at annual lake committee vulnerable to problems, such as irrelevance or ineffi ciency as
meetings for the fi shery management community (see http:
the problem is ameliorated or eventually solved. However, if
//www.glfc.org). Currently, there is considerable interest from
the institution is designed to "learn" and adapt to its changing
Great Lakes researchers and management to improve planning,
context then it is capable of responding to emerging issues,
integration, and coordination of Great Lakes monitoring to such as aquatic nuisance species, climate change, water
better understand the status and trends of ecosystem changes
export, energy transmission infrastructure, or the assertion
and responses to stressors. As for research, there is a history
of stewardship by First Nations and tribal authorities. Lake
of good binational communication and cooperation on Great
management institutions must be designed not only for
Lakes monitoring, but a new level of improved coordination
188
Great Lakes (North American)

---

a "crisis response" but also to "anticipate and prevent" programs are lacking performance benchmarks for their
emerging problems.
processes.
Translate regional governance lessons to other international/
Expand mechanisms of accountability among regional
global contexts. Great Lakes management institutions can institutions. To enhance effi ciency, effectiveness and
learn from the successes and failures of other regions of North
responsiveness of regional, multi-jurisdictional institutions,
America and the world (e.g., Baltic Sea). Science provides mechanisms of accountability should be expanded, including
a model for translation and sharing of knowledge on such the use of performance measures, benchmarks, and enhanced
issues as air deposition of toxic substances, the introduction
public profi le and interaction.
and spread of aquatic nuisance species, and the origins
and impacts of climate change. Applying this model to the
Incorporate an audit process into basin governance initiatives.
governance arena would be helpful.
Audit procedures that thoroughly assess management
program activities can realize two important benefi ts. First,
Integrate science and policy throughout lake management audits enhance effi ciency and effectiveness by identifying
institutions. Related to the recommendation just discussed,
and correcting problems with the program approach or
the science community appears to lack relevant knowledge
implementation. They also document accomplishments in
that could be applied to resolving policy issues. Moreover, achieving the priorities of resource managers and the public.
institutional managers appear to ignore or discount scientifi c
These procedures should be included in basin governance
evidence in establishing their policies. Thus, there is a need to
initiatives, including post-audits to identify lessons learned for
strengthen communications between scientists and decision
management future initiatives.
makers regarding relevant and helpful knowledge while also
providing feedback on solutions that do or do not work.
5.2.3 Research on Institutions and Governance
Moving the notion of sustainability along the path from concept
Develop an ecosystem view of the impact of institutional to application requires research on in the past, the nexus
change. As lake management institutions evolved in the between Great Lakes institutions and regional governance
Great Lakes basin they often did so in response to a crisis or
issues have not been examined closely. Progress on developing
singularly-focused objective. Other needs went unmet or were
sustainable approaches to ecosystem management requires
ignored. There is a need to carefully consider the Great Lakes
more attention to research on these problems including the
institutional ecosystem to achieve a more orderly, objective
following.
and reasoned approach that addresses long-term governance
needs.
Enhance understanding of the institutional and governance
relationships affecting the physical and socio-economic
Develop a clear, coherent and consensus-based understanding
dimensions of the Great Lakes ecosystem. A recurring
of "sustainability". As a concept, "sustainability" provides need of government policies is to integrate environmental
a point of reference for many decision makers in the Great
and economic goals in a manner that is sustainable for the
Lakes. While the broad defi nition provided by the Bruntland
ecosystem and also transparent in the design and operation
Commission is instructive, a coherent understanding is of institutions. The physical characteristics of the basin have
lacking which compromises its applicability and usefulness.
been extensively studied and incorporated into institutional
A consensus-based working defi nition is needed to inform design whereas socio-economic characteristics have not.
management and policy processes.
Further research into both the physical and socio-economic
dimensions, and how their characteristics translate into
5.2.2 Benchmarks and Audit Processes of Institutional
institutional practice, is clearly needed.
Performance
In order to gauge progress toward ecosystem management
Careful research of existing governance mechanisms, the
goals it is necessary to identify indicators, or benchmarks of
relationships among them, and their role in advancing
ecosystem health. For example, in 1993 the International Joint
ecosystem management goals. Any research program that
Commission established an Indicators for Evaluation Task would aim to strengthen or otherwise revise the roles and
Force (IETF 1996) to identify ecosystem indicators for assessing
responsibilities of institutions must not only examine those
progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The
already in place, it should identify unmet needs for new
IETF also extensively documented similar efforts by others institutions and characterize the differences between them.
(Appendix A of IETF 1996). In particular, the USEPA and The fi rst step is "mapping" the institutional ecosystem, as
Environment Canada have jointly sponsored and coordinated
recommended above.
the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC 2002)
that serves their agencies program needs as well as those of
Evaluate the contributions and potential roles of First
many resource managers throughout the basin. Clearly, these
Nations/tribal authorities. Current basin governance
efforts are fundamentally important to ensure that ecosystem
sometimes includes tribal authorities in a variety of planning
restoration and protection programs are properly focused and policymaking mechanisms. At the same time, First Nations
and effective. However, many institutions and government are increasingly asserting their role in these activities. Their

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
189

---

formal representation on basin institutions is presently limited
GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2001. Strategic Vision
at best, as is their status as signatories to basin agreements.
of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the First Decade of
Thus, it is clear that policy research on these emerging First
the New Millennium. GLFC: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Nations/tribal authority interests in basin governance is
needed.
GLIN (Great Lakes Information Network). 2003. Map courtesy
of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, Detroit,
6. References
Michigan. Available online at the GLIN Map Gallery: http:
//www.great-lakes.net/gis/maps/
Botts, L. and P. Muldoon. 1996. The Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement: Its Past Successes and Uncertain Future.
GLP (Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species).
Institute on International Environmental Governance, 1996. Biological Invasions: How Aquatic Nuisance Species
Dartmouth College: Hanover, NH. Available online at: http:
are Entering North American Waters, the Harm They Cause
//www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/glreport-3-e.html
and What Can Be Done to Solve the Problem. Great Lakes
Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Cangelosi, A. (ed.) 2001. Revealing the Economic Value of
Protecting the Great Lakes. Northeast-Midwest Institute: Hartig J.H., T. Copae-Arnold, T.S. Crockard, K. Fuller, J.E.
Washington, D.C. and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Gannon, S. Gerritson, N.L. Law, G. Mikol, K. Mills, L. New,
Administration, Washington, D.C.
A. Richardson, K. Seidel and M.A. Zarull. 1995. Practical
Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach in Great Lakes
Caroll, J.E. 1983. Environmental Diplomacy: An Examination and
Management. Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental
a Prospective of Canadian-U.S. Transboundary Environmental
Protection Agency, Wayne State University, and International
Relations. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Joint Commission: Detroit, Michigan.
Christie, W.J., M. Becker, J.W. Cowden and J.R. Vallentyne. 1986.
Hildebrand, L.P., V. Pebbles and D.A. Fraser. 2002. "Cooperative
"Managing the Great Lakes Basin as a Home." J. Great Lakes
ecosystem management across the Canada-US border:
Res. 12: 2-17.
approaches and experiences of transboundary programs in the
Gulf of Maine, Great Lakes and Georgia Basin/Puget Sound"
Donahue M.J. 1996. "A New Era for Regional Water Resource
Ocean and Coastal Management 45: 421-57.
Management: A Great Lakes Case Study." Paper presented
at the Wayne S. Nichols Memorial Lecture, The Ohio State IAGLR (International Association for Great Lakes Research).
University, Columbus, Ohio.
2002. Research and Management Priorities for Aquatic
Invasive Species in the Great Lakes. Available online: http:
Donahue, M.J. 2002. "Toward Economic and Environmental //www.iaglr.org/scipolicy/ais/index.php
Sustainability in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin: The
"CUSIS" Initiative." Tol. J. Great Lakes L., Sci. & Policy 4: 311-
IEFT (Indicators for Evaluation Task Force). 1996. Indicators
322.
to Evaluate Progress Under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. International Joint Commission: Windsor, Ontario.
Fuller K. and H. Shear (eds). 1995. The Great Lakes: An
Environmental Atlas and Resource Book. Third edition. Johnson, T.C. (ed.). 2003. The SOFIS Report: A Report of the
Government of Canada: Toronto, Ontario and U.S. Workshop on the Science of Freshwater Inland Seas. Technical
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Report, 2003-1. Large Lakes Observatory, University of
Program Offi ce: Chicago, Illinois. Also available online: http:
Minnesota: Duluth, MN.
//www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/gl-fact1.html
Kling G.W., K. Hayhoe, L.B. Johnson, J.J. Magnuson, S. Polasky,
Gannon, J.E., C.J. Edwards, T.B. Reynoldson and J.H. Hartig.
S.K. Robinson, B.J. Shuter, M.M. Wander, D.J. Wuebbles,
1986. "Indicator Approaches Used in the Great Lakes D.R. Zak, R.L. Lindroth, S.C. Moser and M.L. Wilson. 2003.
International Surveillance Program." IEEE Oceans 1986 Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region: Impacts
Conference Proceedings, p. 894-900.
on our Communities and Ecosystems. Union of Concerned
Scientists: Cambridge, Massachusetts and Ecological Society
GLC (Great Lakes Commission). 1996. An Agricultural Profi le
of America: Washington, D.C.
of the Great Lakes Basin: Characteristics and Trends in
Production, Land Use and Environmental Impacts. Great Lakes
Krantzberg, G. 1997. "Research Priorities for Great Lakes
Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Rehabilitation." J. Great Lakes Res. 23: 239-240.
GLC. 2003. Toward a Water Resources Management Decision
Matisoff, G. 1999. "A New Environmental Agenda for a New
Support System for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System.
Millennium." J. Great Lakes. Res. 25: 591-593.
Great Lakes Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
190
Great Lakes (North American)

---

McNaught, D.C. 1993. "IAGLR: Who Are We Today and How Did
Disclaimer
We Evolve?" J. Great Lakes Res. 19: 183-193.
The fi ndings, interpretations and conclusions expressed
MMSD (Milwaukee Municipal Sewage District). 2002. Deep
in this report are the views of the authors and do not
Tunnel Information. Available online: http://www.mmsd.com/
necessarily represent the views of The World Bank and its
deeptunnel/deeptunnel.asp
Board of Directors, or the countries they represent, nor do
they necessarily represent the view of the organizations,
Pebbles, V. 2001. Linking Brownfi elds Redevelopment and agencies or governments to which any of the authors are
Greenfi elds Protection for Sustainable Development. Great associated. Also, the colors, boundaries, denominations, and
Lakes Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
classifi cations in this report do not imply, on the part of The
World Bank and its Board of Directors, or the countries they
SOLEC (State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference). 2002. represent, and the organizations, agencies or governments to
SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, OH. Environment Canada: Ottawa,
which any of the authors are associated, any judgment on the
Ontario and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Chicago,
legal or other status of any territory, or any endorsement or
Illinois. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/solec/2002/
acceptance of any boundary.
index.html
Testa, W.A. (ed.). 1991. The Great Lakes Economy: Looking
North and South. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago: Chicago,
Illinois and Great Lakes Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Thomas N. and J. Cooley. 1996. "Improving the Effectiveness of
Great Lakes Research." J. Great Lakes Res. 22: 125-126.
Thorp S., V. Pebbles and R. Rivers. 1997. "Impacts of
Changing Land Use. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
Background Paper." In EPA 905-R-97-015d (ISBN 0-662-26034-
1). USEPA and Environment Canada: Chicago, Illinois and
Burlington, Ontario.
Toronto, City of. 2003. Wet Weather Flow Management
Master Plan. Toronto, Ontario. Available online: http:
//www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/wws/
wwfmmp/index.htm
USEPA-GLNPO (United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Offi ce). 2002. Key
Sediment Problem Areas in the Great Lakes Basin. USEPA:
Chicago, Illinois. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
sediment/gpra/index.html
USGAO (United States General Accounting Offi ce). 2002.
Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment
Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem. GAO-03-1. USGAO:
Washington, D.C.
USPC (United States Policy Committee for the Great Lakes).
2002. Great Lakes Strategy 2002: A Plan for the New
Millenium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Offi ce: Chicago, Illinois. Available online:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/gls2002.pdf
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development--
Brundtland Commission). 1987. Our Common Future. United
Nations, New York.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
191

---

---