United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-556F)
EPA 503/9-90-010
September 1990
vvEPA
Great Lakes Environmental
Management Framework
An International Management
Model For Environmental
Protection
& ______ -"- - - " ' : --': -'-: '..- -: : «
Summary j
|The management framework for Great Lakes enyiron-j
mental programs has evolved from more than 80 years of "<
interstate and international cooperation to protect the I
ieaith and safety of people living in the Great Lakes ;
^Tegion. '. ' ' ."'.' ; ' .;. '//"" .. ",'.;.'-. ]
5. The framework focuses on ecosystem management
ttp restore areas of concern to a fuirrange of beneficial
I uses through cooperation-on a number of governmental
sand geographic scales. Flexibility in the formal Great
p-akes management framework has enabled the Great j
tLakes Water Quality Agreement to keep pace with the '
^accelerating need to address new pollution threats,
^especially in the area of toxic substances. The current;
^management framework provides a hierarchy of geo-^
fgraphic focuses, from basin-wide goals, to special clean-
p zones only a few acres in size. j
This fact sheet describing the management frame-
Jwork of the Great Lakes National Program Office will be
^especially relevant to the needs of policy makers and
ptaff involved in the early stages of organizing a National i
|Estuary Program Management Conference or a Citizens!
^Advisory Committee.
Introduction "~~ "----
The Great Lakes are the largest reservoir of freshwater
in North America, constituting over 20% of the world's
fresh surface water. Since the Boundary Waters Agree-
ment of 1909, the United States and Canadian gov-
ernments have formally cooperated to address problems
of water quality and quantity all along their common
border in the Great Lakes. This cooperation extends to
a management program designed to monitor and control
pollution and water quality on an international, basin-
wide basis.
The agencies with lead responsibilities for imple-
menting the coordinated pollution control program are
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Environment Canada. Within EPA, Section 118 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) with responsibility for
coordinating and reporting U.S. activity in support of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The International Joint Commission (IJC) is author-
ized by the Boundary Waters Treaty and the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement to provide independent, third
party oversight of the activities of EPA and Environment
Canada in the Great Lakes.
This fact sheet by the EPA Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection and the Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office describes GLNPO's management frame-
work for this program. Other fact sheets cover key
elements of the program in greater detail, including the
use of the "mass balance" concept for lakewide manage-
ment of major pollutants, and the multi-state (and interna-
tional) fish monitoring program for measuring toxic
chemicals in commercial and recreational fish species.
An earlier fact sheet describes the Great Lakes National
Program Office load management strategy for phos-
phorus.
Overview and Characteristics
The Great Lakes Basin contains 95% of the fresh surface
water in North America; total water in the lakes exceeds
5,500 cubic miles. The Great Lakes drainage basin
covers nearly 300,000 square miles in eight states and
two provinces. It also contains the industrial heartland of
both Canada and the United States, and is home to
nearly 40 million people 30% of the United States'
population and nearly 70% of Canada's. Economic
activity in the region exceeds $200 billion per year.
The pressure of population and industry has dimin-
ished water quality throughout the Great Lakes. Resi-
dents of the Great Lakes found their recreational, occu-
pational and economic choices restricted by the loss of
environmental quality, oiften the result of actions by
people living hundreds of miles awayjn another state or
country. Examples dating back a generation or more
include the infamous "burning rivers" (the Cuyahoga in
Cleveland and Buffalo River in upstate New York), the
destruction of commercial lake fisheries, and the 'pre-
dicted "death" through eutrophication of Lake Erie.
Fortunately, a mechanism for addressing environmental
issues of common concern throughout the Great Lakes
Basin was already in places. The evolution of this institu-
tional framework may serve as a model for other areas of
the country to follow into the twenty-first century.
-------
Historical Evolution
In 1909, the United States and Canada signed the
Boundary Waters Treaty to provide principles of law
governing uses of the international waters between the
U.S. and Canada. The Treaty also created an interna-
tional body (the International Joint Commission) to study
and regulate their use. In signing the Treaty, Secretary
of State Elihu Root stated:
""""We havelinlel^l^n'tnisf reaty, with the con-
sent of Great Britain, to create a commission
which will enable Canada and ourselves to
settle our own affairs to a very great degree
without going through the long and serious
circumlocution [of formal diplomacy],.
In 1964, as public awareness and concern grew about
the deteriorating water quality and environmental condi-
tions throughout the Great Lakes, the UC was asked to
recommend solutions for the most pressing problems.
As a result of these and other recommendations, in 1972
the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. This agreement provided the
basic framework operating today to address water qual-
ity issues in the basin. The goal of the 1972 Agreement
was to attain specified levels of water quality through the
control or reversal of eutrophication. To achieve this goal
the 1972 Agreement included a recommended program
to limit the discharge of phosphorus to the lakes through
proposals to ban phosphorus-containing detergents, and
to impose strict standards on the effluent of municipal
sewage treatment plants and industrial dischargers.
The agreement was revised in 1978, committing the
U.S. and Canada to restore the "chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem."
This ecosystem approach to management, and the for-
mal commitment to "zero discharge" of persistent toxic
substances are key elements of the current management
framework. An ecosystem perspective requires abroad,
systematic view of the interaction among the biological,
chemical, and physical components of the Great Lakes
Basin. The interdependence of life in the lakes and the
chemical/physical characteristics of the water are used
to define biological indicators to monitor water quality and
changes in the aquatic ecosystem. For example, herring
gull eggs are used as an indicator of toxic pollutants
accumulating through the food chain.
In 1983 the agreement was refined to include the
specification of levels of phosphorus in each major area
of the lakes, including the definition of differential load
reduction objectives for each area. This technically and
politically difficult step marked the transition of the Water
Quality Agreement from phosphorus discharge limits to
more complicated system-wide water quality manage-
ment and load reduction standards.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement under-
went major revisions to include specific management
tasks in 1987. This shift committed the parties to action
on managing toxicsit was a necessary complement to
the 1978 shift from phosphorus and eutrophication to a
broader focus on toxic chemicals. The main activities
endorsed by the program recommended in the 1987
agreement include:
Setting deadlines and establishing accountability for
the achievement of objectives;
Managing three lists of toxic substances, with vary-
ing priority, depending on actual or potential impact
on the environment;
Carrying out biennial reviews of the "Water Quality
Objectives;"
Identifying 14 categories of "beneficial use," which
represent the biological and human health goals to
be attained by the Water Quality Agreement;
Designating 42 Areas of Concern (based on Water
Quality Board nominations) and requiring "Remedial
Action Plans," to restore these areas to beneficial
uses; and
Requiring Lakewide Management Plans for critical
pollutants.
Great Lakes Environmental
Management Chronology
1905 International Joint Commission: Manage-
ment of Water Levels
1909 Boundary Waters Treaty: Study of Water
Quality Problems
1912 UC Recommendations for Water Treat-
ment Programs
1964 UC Study of Emerging Pollution Problems
1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
1978 Commitment to Restore Ecosystems.
1981 Designation of 42 Areas of Concern
1983 Specification of Phosphorus Loadings by
Water Body.
1987 Integration of Lakewide Management
Plans, Remedial Action Plans, and Point
Source Impact Zones. Designated Man-
agement Goals.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Coordination Responsibilities of the Great Lakes
National Program Office
Source: u.S. Progress In
Implementing The Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement
IJC and Advisory
Goups, particularly
The Water Quality Board
Science Advisory Board
Other Federal
Agencies (e.g., NOAA,
USCOE, USFWS, USDA,
USCG, USGS)
USEPA
Headquarters
Offices
Regions, II, 111, V
NOAA
USCOE
USFWS
USDA
USCG
USGS
National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration
U.S.Army Carps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Widlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Coast Gaurd
U.S. Geological Survey
Great Lakes
States
(MM, Wl, IL, Mi,
IN, OH, PA, NY)
Local Authorities
and Interest
Groups
being adopted for toxic pollutants in all of the Great
Lakes. In this approach, the net inflow of target pollutants
is measured for each lake. Input streams are then
analyzed to determine the most cost-effective control
tactics. Lakewide Management Programs can specify
different levels of loading and load reduction for different
parts of a lake.
There are Lakewide Management plans currently
under development for Lake Ontario and Lake Michigan.
The Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction
Strategyls an agreement among EPA Region V and the
states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin to
restore the multiple uses of Lake Michigan and to protect
human health and the ecosystem by achieving signifi-
cant reductions in toxic pollutants. The planning process
for the lakewide strategy will define the levels of pollution
and the mechanisms by which these reductions are to be
achieved.
The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan is an
agreement among Environment Canada, the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, U.S. EPA, and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. The
goals of the plan, expressed in ecosystem terms, seek
to protect the quality of lake water which provides safe
drinking water, nurtures fish fit for human consumption,
and provides a healthful environment for natural repro-
duction within the ecosystem of the most sensitive native
species, such as eagles and otters.
A strength of the Great Lakes environmental man-
agement model is its flexibility and adaptability to chang-
ing conditions and information. Therefore, as experience
is gained with the Lake Michigan and Lake Ontario
programs, and as the International Joint Commission
has the opportunity to reviewf uture proposals for Lakewide
Management Programs, details of the organization and
implementation of the Lakewide Management Programs
can be expected to evolve.
3. Areas of Concern/Remedial
Actions Plans (AOCs/RAPs)
Forty-two Areas of Concern were originally designated
by the Water Quality Board in 1981. Areas of Concern
are defined by significant degradation of one or more of
fourteen "beneficial uses," which are defined in the Water
Quality Agreement. These uses include: basic biological
activity; direct human consumption, such as eating fish
and using beaches; industrial water uses; or municipal
water supplies. Most Areas of Concern are harbors or
bays with substantial toxic pollution and sediments.
Remedial Action Plans are the most completely devel-
oped components of the Great Lakes management
framework.
For each Area of Concern, the affected states are
required to produce a Remedial Action Plan that must be
reviewed by the International Joint Commission. In
-------
GLNPO Cooperating Institutions
The International Joint Commission
Water Quality Board
Science Advisory Board
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
The Great Lakes National Program Office
Numerous Federal Agencies and Offices
NOAA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Food and Drug Administration
Army Corps of Engineers
USDA, etc.
Operating and Regulatory Agencies of Eight
States
Thousands of Local Governments and Special
Purpose Districts
1. International/Multi-Lake Programs
At its highest policy levels, the Great Lakes management
framework addresses two different functional needs:
(1) setting and monitoring attainment of water quality
standards, which is the province of the International Joint
Commission; and (2) coordinating participants and pro-
viding access to information generated by the program.
In the United States, the Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency performs this latter function, as formally estab-
lished by the Clean Water Act of 1987.
The International Joint Commission
The International Joint Commission (IJC) has six mem-
bers, three appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada
and three by the President of the United States. The
Commissioners of the IJC are assumed to be individuals
acting on their own (representing neither their respec-
tive institutions nor their home government) who come
togetherto make recommendationsio the signers of the
agreement. The Commission is responsible for over-
seeing the following:
Proposals for the uses of boundary waters;
Studies of problems referred to it by the United
States and Canadian governments; and
Arbitration of disputes over boundary waters.
In addition, the Commission reports to both nations on
progress toward the objectives and programs of the
Water Quality Agreement. There are two boards that
contribute to this monitoring and evaluation function:
The Water Quality Board, which is the principal
advisor to the IJC Commissioners. Members are
appointed by the Commissioners. The Board is re-
quired to include representatives nominated by each
nation and, each of the state and provincial gov-
ernments. Like the IJC Commissioners, members of
the Water Quality Board are charged to act inde-
pendently of their home government or sponsoring
institution, as members of an objective international
body.
The Science Advisory Board, which advises both the
IJC and the Water Quality Board on scientific find-
ings and research needs. The Science Advisory
Board is made up of senior scientists appointed by
the IJC.
Members of both boards serve without compensation.
Technical support and a secretariat is provided in the IJC
Regional Office in Windsor, Ontario.
Great Lakes National Program Office
Within the United States, the GLNPO leads efforts to
ensure compliance with the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement and coordinates the efforts of many federal,
state and local institutions with operational responsibili-
ties in the Great Lakes region. The diagram below
illustrates the relations among GLNPO and many of its
constituencies. The eight Great Lakes states, however,
have primary responsibility for implementing regulatory
and management programs for controlling water quality.
(In Canada, Environment Canada coordinates the Cana-
dian Government's participation in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. There is, however, no Canadian
institution comparable to the GLNPO.) The relationship
of the GLNPO to other institutions is summarized in the
diagram on the next page.
An important function of GLNPO is the design and
supervision of applied research and development pro-
grams, such as the Green Bay Mass Balance Study. This
project will provide analytical data and methods to sup-
port the dynamic lake pollutant models necessary for
designing and monitoring Lakewide Management Pro-
grams.
2. Lakewide Management Programs
(LAMPs)
The goal of Lakewide Management Programs is to re-
duce total pollutant loads. First developed in the 1970s
to reduce the phosphorus inputs, which were causing
eutrophication, this "load reduction" approach is now
-------
The Four-Level Program
The 1987 revisions to the Water Quality Agreement also
provide the conceptual basis for integrating many of the
environmental management strategies which had been
evolving in the Great Lakes. For the first time, GLNPO
had a consistent framework for identifying problems and
planning solutions, from the .macro level to individual
point sources of pollution. On an operational level, it will
take several years of experience to fully integrate 1987
innovations such as the "Point Source Impact Zones"
with the more established programs, such as the Areas
of Concern, which have been operational since 1981.
The diagram below sketches the conceptual integration
of the four levels of the Great Lakes environmental
framework.
The four elements of the Great Lakes management
framework cover the program at four distinct geographic
scales: basin-wide; lakewide; areas of concern; and
special impact zones. The heart of the Great Lakes
management framework for the Water Quality Agree-
ment is ecosystem management to restore areas of
concern to beneficial use through multi-level coopera-
tion.
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Agreement
(1972-1987)
Lake Michigan
Toxic Pollutant
Control/Reduction
Strategy (1989)
Green Bay
Area of Concern
Fox River Mouth
Point Source
Impact Zone
Possible -
Not Yet Operative
International
Joint
Commission
GLNPO
Wisconsin DNR
Department of Health
USFWS
EPA Region V. etc.
Wisconsin DNR
Department
of Forestry
Forest Products
Council etc.
-------
addition, the Remedial Action Plan will be incorporated
into each statewide water quality management plan.
Beyond identifying problems, sources, and causes, each
Remedial Action Plan must identify when specific reme-
dial actions will be taken to resolve the problems, and
who is responsible for implementing the actions.
Financing is an important element of the Remedial
Action Plans. In general, implementation is financed out
of established state resources or special bond issues for
infrastructure construction.
Most remedial actions needed to fulfill RAPs are
required under existing U.S. laws and regulations. The
RAPs give visibility to the actions and clarify accountability
for decision-makers and the public.
Of the 42 Areas of Concern, five are shared between
the U.S. and Canada, and 26 are entirely within the U.S.
portion of the Great Lakes Basin. Seven Remedial
Action Plans were submitted to the International Joint
Commission in 1988, six were submitted in 1989, and
seventeen are scheduled for submission in 1990.
4. Point Source Impact Zones
The last of the major environmental management tools
provided by the 1987 Protocol to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement is the designation of Point Source
Impact Zones areas of polluted water adjacent to
pollutant point sources. The agreement requires the IJC
to list these zones and to reduce their size and effect as
much as possible through the application of special
regulatory procedures to be designed by the affected
states. The Great Lakes National Program Office is
working with the states to establish consistent definitions
and methods of reporting Point Source Impact Zones.
Lessons Learned
Three elements of the environmental management
framework for the Great Lakes are important to its suc-
cess. These three principles may be useful to other
National Estuary Programs.
1. Independent Policy Setting and
Monitoring Board
The International Joint Commission is effective because
it maintains credibility as a neutral third party and be-
cause its functions are limited to measuring progress in
attaining the goals of the agreement. The support of its
secretariat, and the technical and scientific guidance of
the Water Quality and Scientific Advisory Boards are
necessary inputs to an informed decision-making proc-
ess.
2. Autonomous National Research
and Coordinating Organizations
The Great Lakes National Program Office is important to
the success of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
in the United States because it is an autonomous organi-
zation committed exclusively to working with federal and
state agencies to implement the Water Quality Agree-
ment. It conducts demonstration projects essential to
developing effective remedial programs and coordinates
environmental surveillance to measure progress. It also
coordinates applied research in cooperation with EPA's
Office of Research and Development, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration. The scientific and bureau-
cratic attributes are necessary and complementary: the
scientific and technical value of its research enhances
the Great Lakes National Program Office's management
capabilities.
3. Multiple Levels of Problem
Definition and Remediation
In the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the seem-
ingly redundant provision for "Lakewide," "Area of Con-
cern," and "Point Source" levels of problem definition and
remedial planning are important because pollution prob-
lems need to be addressed at dramatically different
scales. Analysts, program designers, and policy makers
need to be sensitive to these questions of scale if they are
to design effective and efficient control strategies.
For further information on the Great Lakes Manage-
ment Framework, contact the Great Lakes National
Program Office (312/353-3503) or the Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection, Technical Support Division
(202/475-7102).
------- |