Ecosystem Restoration in the Great Lakes: The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy

Ecosystem Restoration in the Great Lakes:
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
Updated January 30, 2008
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Ecosystem Restoration in the Great Lakes:
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
Summary
The Great Lakes are recognized by many as an international natural resource
that has been significantly altered over the past two centuries by human development.
Problems in the Great Lakes include poor water quality, degraded fish and wildlife
habitat, contaminated sediments, and non-native invasive species, among others.
Restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem has emerged as a top priority among a wide
variety of federal, state, and local stakeholders, and among several members of
Congress. In the past few decades, the U.S. Congress has enacted more than 30
federal laws specifically focused on restoring aspects of the Great Lakes basin.
Attention to restoration in the Great Lakes was heightened in 2004 with the
creation of a federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The purpose of the task
force is to provide strategic direction for Great Lakes policies on restoration and to
form a regional collaboration of stakeholders interested in restoring the Great Lakes
ecosystem. The latter purpose was accomplished with the creation of the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration in 2004. The Collaboration, which consists of over 1,500
stakeholders, recently released the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, a
plan for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Strategy is a series of
recommendations for actions and activities aimed at starting the restoration of the
Great Lakes ecosystem over the next five years. The Strategy encompasses eight
issue areas: aquatic invasive species, fish and wildlife habitat (habitat/species),
coastal health, contaminated sediments, nonpoint source pollution, toxic pollutants,
indicators and information, and sustainable development. The total cost of
implementing the Strategy is estimated to be $20 billion over five years.
Some have criticized the Strategy for being too costly, relying too heavily on
new sources of funding, and not establishing a governance structure to coordinate
implementation. Proponents of the Strategy contend that the estimated funding needs
for the Great Lakes ecosystem match the size and breadth of the ecosystem, and are
similar to those of other large-scale ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as the
Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. Further, they contend that one of the functions of
the Interagency Task Force is to provide governance, and to oversee and coordinate
restoration activities in the Great Lakes. This report summarizes the Strategy,
analyzes issues related to the Strategy and its implementation, and discusses federal
legislation related to restoration in the Great Lakes.

Contents
Background ..................................................1
Great Lakes Interagency Task Force...............................2
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy........................3
Aquatic Invasive Species....................................4
Habitat/Species ...........................................4
Coastal Health............................................4
Sediment Contamination....................................5
Nonpoint Source Pollution...................................5
Toxic Pollutant Strategy....................................5
Indicators and Information...................................5
Sustainable Development....................................5
Issues .......................................................6
Funding .................................................6
Governance ..............................................7
Setting Priorities..........................................8
Congressional Role........................................8
Conclusion ...................................................9
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Great Lakes Basin......................................2

Ecosystem Restoration in the Great Lakes:
The Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy
Background
The Great Lakes watershed is the largest system of fresh surface water in the
world. The watershed covers approximately 300,000 square miles and is shared by
eight U.S. states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and one Canadian province (Ontario). (See Figure 1.)
The Great Lakes have national and international importance because of their
abundant natural resources and relationship to the economies of both the United
States and Canada. The Great Lakes contain nearly 90% of the surface freshwater
of the United States and 20% of the surface freshwater of the world. The Great
Lakes basin also supports an expanding population and accompanying development.
An estimated 40 million people rely on the Great Lakes basin to provide jobs,
drinking water, and recreation, among other things.
The Great Lakes are recognized by many as an international natural resource
that has been significantly altered over the last two centuries. In the last several
decades, agricultural activity throughout the basin, and urban and industrial
development concentrated along the shoreline, have degraded water quality in the
Great Lakes, posing potential threats to wildlife populations, human health, and the
Great Lakes ecosystem. Development has also led to changes in terrestrial and
aquatic habitats, the introduction of non-native species, the contamination of
sediments, and the listing of more than 50 threatened or endangered species in the
basin. In response, the federal governments of the United States and Canada and the
state and provincial governments in the Great Lakes basin are implementing several
restoration activities.¹
The U.S. Congress has recognized the importance of the Great Lakes ecosystem
and has played a role in restoration efforts in the Great Lakes. Congress has enacted
more than 30 federal laws specifically focused on restoring aspects of the Great
Lakes basin. These laws have authorized several activities ranging from grant
programs that fund mitigation of toxic substances to restoration programs that
improve water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. Congress has not, however,
enacted legislation to authorize an overall detailed plan for restoring the Great Lakes,

¹ For more information on U.S. federal and state programs aimed at restoring the Great
Lakes, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and
Indicators for Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals, GAO-
03-515 (Washington, DC: Apr. 2003). Hereafter referred to as GAO, Great Lakes
Restoration.

such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan for restoring the Greater
Everglades ecosystem in Florida.
Figure 1. The Great Lakes Basin

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force
In 2004, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force was created by an executive
order.² Its purpose is to provide strategic direction on federal Great Lakes policy.
The task force is chaired by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and contains 10 agency and cabinet-level officers. The task force, in
collaboration with the Council of Great Lakes Governors, the Great Lakes Cities
Initiative, Great Lakes tribes, and the Great Lakes Congressional Task Force,
convened a group known as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.³ The
Collaboration includes representatives from Great Lakes states, local communities,
tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and other interests in the Great Lakes region.
The structure and goals of the Collaboration were established through the Great
Lakes Framework, which outlined three goals for the Collaboration.
² E.O. 12240, May 18, 2004.
³ The Interagency Task Force and the Collaboration are two different entities.

The first goal of the Collaboration was to create a workable strategy to restore
and protect the Great Lakes within one year of the creation of the task force.⁴ This
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy was released in December 2005.⁵ The
second goal of the Collaboration is to serve as a forum for addressing regional issues
related to the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. The third goal is to
create an oversight forum to coordinate the implementation of the Strategy.⁶
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
The Strategy is a series of recommendations for actions and activities aimed at
restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem. Recommendations from the Strategy are
intended to be implemented over the next five years and represent the highest
priorities for restoration, according to the strategy teams.⁷ The Strategy encompasses
eight issue areas: aquatic invasive species, fish and wildlife habitat (habitat/species),
coastal health, contaminated sediments, nonpoint source pollution, toxic pollutants,
indicators and information, and sustainable development.
Under each issue area, a description of the issue and recommendations for
addressing the issue are presented. Each recommendation contains several specific
activities and is justified by the Collaboration with its rationale. The activities range
from supporting existing programs to creating new ones, and in some cases,
identifying projects to be implemented in specific geographical locations (e.g., the
completion of a fish barrier in the Chicago Waterway system). An estimated cost for
implementing the recommendations over five years is provided after each set of
recommendations. The estimated costs represents the sum of federal and nonfederal
contributions. Goals and interim milestones are also provided for each issue area.
The implementation of the Strategy relies on existing authorities, programs, and
funding at federal, state, and local levels of government, as well as the creation of
some new actions (e.g., enacting new legislation). Further, the Strategy aims to
improve coordination among stakeholders and relies on the shared resources of all
collaborators, especially noting the role of tribes. According to the Strategy, the
coordinated use of existing resources should allow some of the recommendations to
be implemented, but other recommendations will require “modest additional funding,
and some [recommendations] will be impossible to implement absent substantial new

⁴ For more information, see [http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/collaboration/index.html], accessed
Jan. 30, 2008.
⁵ The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy (Dec. 2005), accessed at [http://www.glrc.us/], Jan. 30, 2008. Hereafter referred
to as the Strategy.
⁶ Framework for the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, accessed Jan. 30, 2008, at
[ h t t p : / / www.epa.go v/ gl npo/ col l a bor at i on/ f r a me wor k.ht ml ] .
⁷ More than 1,500 people representing federal, state, local, and tribal governments; non-
governmental organizations; and private stakeholders participated on eight issue-specific
strategy teams to develop recommendations for restoring the Great Lakes. The
recommendations with the highest priority for early restoration activities are presented in
the Strategy. Other recommendations for long-term restoration are listed in the appendices
of the Strategy.

expenditures.”⁸ The Collaboration emphasizes that the Strategy is not meant to chart
out the complete restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and that decisions to
implement activities affecting the Great Lakes should be guided by the Strategy.⁹
The following sections provide a summary of issue areas and recommendations
made in the Strategy.
Aquatic Invasive Species. The Great Lakes ecosystem is home to more
than 160 non-native invasive aquatic species. Economic losses from invasive species
(terrestrial and aquatic) were estimated at $5.0 billion annually in 2005.¹⁰ According
to the Strategy, existing measures to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic
invasive species (AIS) are inadequate. The goals of this issue area are to prevent all¹¹
new introductions of AIS and to control existing AIS in the ecosystem. This would
be accomplished by preventing the spread of AIS through canals and waterways, and
in the ballast water of ships, as well as by creating research and management
programs on AIS.
Habitat/Species. Development, agricultural expansion, toxic pollutants, and
invasive species have led to habitat loss and species declines in the Great Lakes
basin. In addition to providing ecosystem services (e.g., filtering water), habitat and
species support a booming recreation industry that is estimated to generate over $50
billion in economic activity annually.¹² The goals of this issue area are to improve
fisheries and restore wetlands, riverine and riparian habitat, and coastal and upland
habitat. The recommendations for this issue are to increase habitat conservation and
species management funding by $288 million annually through existing programs,
and through new authorizations where program gaps exist.
Coastal Health. Water quality in coastal areas of the Great Lakes is degraded
and has led to outbreaks of disease among humans (e.g., diarrhea), beach closings,
and drinking water advisories. The goals of this issue area are to eliminate inputs of
untreated or badly treated human and industrial waste into the Great Lakes; reduce
toxic contaminants at local beaches; and protect drinking water quality. The
recommendations include implementing wet weather programs¹³ and improving
wastewater treatment systems; regulating and researching pollution sources; and
managing waters used for recreation.

⁸ Strategy, p. 12.
⁹ According to the Strategy, additional actions for the complete restoration of the Great
Lakes are included in the appendices.
¹⁰ Strategy, p. 14.
¹¹ The Strategy notes that several invasions of AIS will be impossible to eradicate in the
Great Lakes, and that control rather than elimination of these AIS is the goal of the issue
area.
¹² Strategy, p. 23.
¹³ Wet weather programs employ mitigation strategies to reduce stormwater and sewage
overflow during periods of precipitation.

Sediment Contamination. In 1987, the United States and Canada identified

43 Areas of Concern (AOC) in the Great Lakes basin that represented the most¹⁴

degraded portions of the ecosystem. The most common reason for degradation in
AOCs is contaminated sediments. Contaminated sediments result from toxic
pollutants that settle out of the water column and deposit in sediment. Agitation of
underwater sediments can cause pollutants to be resuspended in the water column
and potentially enter the air or food chain. The goal of this issue is to restore all
AOCs in the United States through reauthorizing and funding programs under the
Great Lakes Legacy Act, and promoting the development of sediment treatment and
disposal technologies.
Nonpoint Source Pollution. Nonpoint source pollution has been identified
as one of the main contributors to impaired waters in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Nonpoint source pollution cannot be traced to specific sources and generally comes
from many diffuse sources (e.g., rainfall that moves over an area and picks up
pollutants before entering a river would be a nonpoint source of pollution). Point
source pollution can be traced to specific sources such as a wastewater treatment
plant or factory. Some of the primary nonpoint source pollutants in the Great Lakes
are excessive levels of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen. Reducing excess
sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen loading into the Great Lakes ecosystem and
improving flow regimes in waterways are goals of this issue. Recommendations
include restoring 550,000 acres of wetlands and 335,000 acres of buffer habitat (to
reduce excess nutrients); and reducing soil loss and waste flows into waterways.
Toxic Pollutant Strategy. Persistent toxic substances (PTS) have been a
problem in the Great Lakes for many years, and are released from contaminated
sediments, industrial processes, nonpoint sources, and atmospheric deposition. The
goals of this issue are to virtually eliminate the discharge of PTS into the ecosystem
and to increase scientific understanding of PTS. Recommendations include reducing
PTS such as mercury, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, and other new toxic chemicals from
the ecosystem; creating a program to conduct research, monitoring, and forecasting
of PTS in the Great Lakes; and increasing public education about PTS.
Indicators and Information. According to the Strategy, ecosystem
monitoring, observation, research, modeling, and indicator development are all
currently underfunded and lack a comprehensive ecosystem approach. The
overarching goals of this issue are to create a network of monitoring and observing
systems and to conduct Great Lakes research in a comprehensive and coordinated
manner. Recommended actions include continuing the development of science-based
indicators of ecosystem health; doubling research funding for the Great Lakes; and
coordinating scientific and technical information.
Sustainable Development. The Strategy acknowledges that development
in the Great Lakes should be balanced among economic, social, and ecological
factors. The goal of this issue is to foster the development of the Great Lakes basin
so that human activities support a strong economy that meets social and cultural

¹⁴ Twenty-six AOCs are in U.S. waters, 12 in Canadian waters, and 5 shared by both
countries.

needs, and is in balance with the ecosystem. To accomplish this goal, the Strategy
contains several recommendations that would enhance the sustainable planning and
use of resources in new and existing government programs, and promote the
livability of the Great Lakes to the public.
Issues
Funding. The amount and sources of funding for the Strategy are contentious
issues.¹⁵ The Strategy calls for an estimated $20 billion from federal and nonfederal
sources to implement all of its recommendations over the next five years. The most
significant portion of funding would be for the coastal health issue, at $15.3 billion.
Of this total, $13.7 billion in new funds is for wastewater treatment system
improvements (the anticipated federal share is $7.5 billion and nonfederal share is
$6.2 billion), and $1.3 billion for improvement of drinking water treatment facilities.
Some have asserted that $20 billion over five years is too high for restoring the
Great Lakes ecosystem, and cite funding totals for other large-scale ecosystem
restoration initiatives, namely the Florida Everglades, which has a total estimated
cost of $10.5 billion. Further, the Interagency Task Force, in its annual report, stated
that the Strategy should be funded from existing programs and use current funding
from federal and state governments to be implemented.¹⁶ According to the task force,
existing federal programs and state, local, and tribal programs that have activities
directly and indirectly related to restoring water quality in the Great Lakes spend
approximately $523 million and $100 million, respectively, on restoration activities
annually.¹⁷ No figures for federal spending were given for other aspects of the
ecosystem such as terrestrial habitat and shorelines.
Some proponents of the Strategy contend that some of the proposed funding
already is being spent on existing programs, and that the expansive size of the Great
Lakes ecosystem warrants a higher price tag than other large-scale ecosystem
restoration initiatives around the country. For example, some have estimated that the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay will require between $15 billion and $19 billion
to meet previously set restoration goals by 2010.¹⁸ Some proponents also contend¹⁹

that one of the main barriers to restoration in the Great Lakes is inadequate funding.
¹⁵ For FY2008, no funds were requested by the Administration specifically for the Strategy,
although funds for some existing programs cited by the Strategy were included.
¹⁶ Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, Report to the President on the Implementation of the
Great Lakes Executive Order (Oct. 28, 2005), accessed Jan. 30, 2008, at [http://www.epa.
gov/ gl npo/collaborati on/final_rttp_10282005.pdf].
¹⁷ Ibid.
¹⁸ Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel, Saving a National Treasure:
Financing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay (Oct. 2004) and The Chesapeake Bay
Commission, The Cost of a Clean Bay: Assessing Funding Needs Throughout the Watershed
(Annapolis, MD: Jan. 2003).
¹⁹ Testimony of Jan O’Connell, Director on the National Sierra Club Board, at House
Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Great
(continued...)

Separating the estimated new funding from existing funding is difficult because
data for spending under current federal, state, and other recommended programs in
the Strategy are not given for all components. (The exception is new funding for
wastewater treatment plants, which is proposed to be a 55:45 federal/local cost-share
in the Strategy.) Further, the Strategy does not provide or commit to a cost-sharing
plan among federal, state, and other entities, thus making it difficult to determine
where funding gaps may exist.
Governance. The Collaboration and Strategy were created partly to improve
coordination of ecosystem restoration activities in the Great Lakes among federal,
state, and local stakeholders. This focus was derived from the assertion that
restoration efforts in the Great Lakes suffer from inadequate coordination and a lack²⁰
of a comprehensive plan. The Interagency Task Force and the Collaboration are
viewed by some as entities facilitating the coordination of restoration activities;
however, some others contend that the Strategy does not address governance issues
that would increase coordination, limit overlapping efforts, and assign restoration²¹
responsibilities to all types of stakeholders. The Strategy itself does not propose a
specific governance structure or a plan for coordination. Questions such as who is
in charge, what are the federal and state roles in restoration, and how will the
implementation of the Strategy be governed are not specifically addressed in the
Strategy. On the other hand, coordination of restoration activities in the Great Lakes
is a stated function of the task force. In its annual report, the task force lists several
examples of where a coordinated response to an ecosystem issue was undertaken
successfully.²² Further, the executive committee of the Collaboration will be creating
plans for coordinating the implementation of the Strategy. According to the GLRC
Strategy Implementation Framework, the executive committee will remain intact and
serve as an administrative structure to implement the Strategy. The committee will
direct activities of the GLRC, implement mechanisms to promote accountability,
identify implementation issues, and facilitate coordination of restoration activities
among stakeholders.²³
In other large-scale ecosystem restoration initiatives, governance and
coordination have been addressed in federal and state laws. For example, in the
Everglades, governance is largely shared among the Department of the Interior, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state of Florida, and the South Florida Water
Management District (the nonfederal sponsor of Corps activities). Policies

¹⁹ (...continued)
Lakes Restoration: How? How Soon?, hearing, 109^th Cong., 2^nd sess. (Apr. 21, 2006).
²⁰ GAO, Great Lakes Restoration.
²¹ Testimony of Diane Katz, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, U.S. Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore^th^nd
and Protect the Great Lakes, hearing, 109 Cong., 2 sess. (Mar. 16, 2006).
²² Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, Report to the President on the Implementation of the
Great Lakes Executive Order (Oct. 28, 2005), accessed Jan. 30, 2008, at [http://www.epa.
gov/ gl npo/collaborati on/final_rttp_10282005.pdf].
²³ The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy Implementation Framework, accessed
Jan. 22, 2008, at [http://www.glrc.us/documents/GLRC_Implementation_Framework.pdf].

explaining how these stakeholders interact and how the plan to restore the Everglades
is implemented were required by federal law, and promulgated in programmatic
regulations.
Setting Priorities. The breadth and estimated cost of the Strategy have led
some to contend that implementing all the programs outlined in the Strategy would
not be financially feasible within the five-year time span the Strategy covers. Some
suggest that setting priorities for implementing programs within each element would
help decision makers choose which programs to fund, if funds are limited. Some
priorities discussed at a congressional hearing on the Great Lakes Strategy included
restoring and protecting near-shore and coastal waters of the Great Lakes, controlling
aquatic invasive species, and addressing the problems of nonpoint source pollution.²⁴
Congressional Role. Some have anticipated that the Strategy could be used
as a platform for introducing federal legislation for restoring the Great Lakes. There
are two main approaches to authorizing portions of the Strategy reflected in pending
legislation. One approach is to authorize a large grant program to fund various
aspects of restoration projects, and the other approach is to reauthorize existing
programs to increase their funding to support restoration activities.
The Strategy contains several projects or programs that could be funded through
grant programs targeting ecosystem restoration. One approach used in the 109^th
Congress would have authorized grant programs that could fund several
recommendations under the Strategy. They would have authorized $4 billion and $6
billion for restoration activities in the Great Lakes. These proposed authorizations
for federal funding could not be compared to the proposed funding needed for the
Strategy, because the Strategy does not specify sources of funding for each of its
categories.²⁵ Similar bills have not been introduced in the 110^th Congress.
A different approach to enacting portions of the Strategy into federal law would
be to reauthorize existing federal programs that the Strategy identifies for
accomplishing its goals and recommendations. For example, The Great Lakes Fish
and Wildlife Restoration Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-326) reauthorizes appropriations for
the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-537; as amended; 16 U.S.C.
§§941 et seq.) through 2012 and makes several amendments that will increase
reporting requirements and allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct
regional projects.
A third strategy would use both approaches by authorizing new programs within
the Strategy as well as reauthorizing existing programs to support the Strategy. In the
110^th Congress, this strategy is incorporated into bills that would also authorize and
prescribe duties for the task force, the executive committee, and the Collaboration
that go beyond the creation of the Strategy. For example, the task force would be

²⁴ For example, see testimony of Dr. Donald Scavia, Associate Dean, School of Natural
Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, House Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Great Lakes Restoration: How?^th^nd
How Soon?, hearing, 109 Cong., 2 sess. (Apr. 21, 2006).
²⁵ The Strategy would require $4 billion annually from federal, state, and other resources.

established within the EPA and would coordinate the implementation of the Strategy;
the executive committee would hold meetings and report on the progress of the
initiative; and the Collaboration would be responsible for developing a long-term
restoration and protection strategy and creating a forum for program oversight.
Conclusion
The Strategy envisions itself as the first step towards restoring the Great Lakes
in the near term. Its goals and recommendations reflect a five-year span and,
according to the Strategy, “do not represent all that needs to be done to completely
restore the Great Lakes.” The short-term outlook of the Strategy and its $20 billion
price tag generate questions regarding the process to completely restore the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Such questions include (1) What will it take to completely restore
the ecosystem? (2) How much will it cost and how long it will take? (3) What are the
federal and non-federal roles in the process? (4) How will the process be governed?
(5) How will success be measures and when will we know it is done? And, (6) How
likely is it that substantial increases will be made to current funding levels for
restoration, given the current budget environment? The answers to these questions
are not addressed in the Strategy, but may come from the collaborative process that
created the Strategy. The Collaboration is expected to continue to serve as a broad
forum to address issues related to restoration and protection of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.