Great Lakes Areas of Concern

Contents

Great Lakes Areas of Concern are specific locations within the Great Lakes basin identified for intensive environmental remediation under bilateral initiatives such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and domestic statutes like the Clean Water Act. These sites involve complex interactions among actors including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada, state and provincial agencies such as the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and stakeholders from cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, Toronto, Cleveland, and Buffalo. Designation, assessment, and delisting processes reference instruments and partners such as the International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (indirectly via basin coordination), and non-governmental organizations including the Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Commission, Environmental Defense Fund, and World Wildlife Fund.

Overview and Definition

The concept derives from the 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement agreed by Canada and the United States and operationalized through agencies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada, the International Joint Commission, and regional bodies like the Great Lakes Commission. Areas designated reflect legacy impacts from industrial centers including Detroit, Gary, Indiana, Toledo, Ohio, port cities like Duluth, Minnesota and Hamilton, Ontario, and tributary corridors such as the Cuyahoga River and St. Clair River. Criteria for designation evolved alongside laws like the Clean Water Act and programs such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and initiatives led by organizations like the Council of Great Lakes Governors.

Designation history traces to international diplomacy exemplified by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement amendments and to domestic policy instruments including the Clean Water Act and funding from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. Influential events and sites include environmental crises at Cuyahoga River fire of 1969, contamination cases near Saginaw Bay, and sediment studies by institutions like the United States Geological Survey and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Criteria incorporate impairment of beneficial uses identified in guidance from the International Joint Commission, scientific assessments by universities such as University of Michigan, Ohio State University, and the University of Toronto, and community input from municipalities like Port Colborne and Ashtabula.

Primary contaminants include legacy toxicants such as polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, mercury, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, tributyltin (in limited contexts), and persistent chlorinated pesticides documented in studies by United States Geological Survey and university programs at Michigan State University. Ecological impairments involve disruption of fisheries in areas affected by Asian carp vectors and invasive species concerns documented by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hypoxia events tied to nutrient loading analyses from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and habitat loss described by the Nature Conservancy. Human health advisories for fish consumption have been issued by agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ontario Ministry of Health, and state health departments for cities such as Chicago and Cleveland.

Remediation techniques applied across sites include sediment dredging projects overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, capping monitored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, habitat rehabilitation guided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and wastewater upgrades funded through programs linked to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Community-led restoration has involved groups like Alliance for the Great Lakes, Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, and local watershed councils such as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network. Innovative approaches have emerged from collaborations with academic centers such as Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research and technological firms partnering with municipalities like Milwaukee and Toledo.

Governance is multi-layered involving international coordination by the International Joint Commission, federal agencies including the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Environment and Climate Change Canada, state and provincial entities like the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and regional networks such as the Great Lakes Commission. Funding mechanisms have included appropriations for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, grants via the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and investments from philanthropic organizations such as the Cleveland Foundation and corporate partners in Detroit and Hamilton. Policy drivers encompass the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, U.S. statutes like the Clean Water Act, and provincial regulations in Ontario.

Monitoring relies on long-term data collected by the United States Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, provincial programs in Ontario, and academic partners like University of Michigan and University of Toronto. Measured outcomes include delistings from AOC status in cases such as Grand Calumet River segments and restored fish spawning areas near Hamilton Harbour, while persistent challenges involve climate-driven changes reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ongoing legacy contamination, urbanization pressures in metropolitan areas like Chicago and Toronto, and invasive species management coordinated with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Future efforts emphasize integrated planning with stakeholders including municipalities, indigenous governments such as the Anishinabek Nation and Saugeen Ojibway Nation, NGOs, and agencies to address cumulative impacts throughout the basin.