stt toward a water resources management...water rich great lakes-st. lawrence river region has been...

Great Lakes CommissionGreat Lakes CommissionGreat Lakes CommissionEisenhower Corporate ParkEisenhower Corporate ParkEisenhower Corporate Park2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #1002805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #1002805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #1002805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #100Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791Phone: 734/971.9135Phone: 734/971.9135Phone: 734/971.9135Fax: 734/971.9150Fax: 734/971.9150Fax: 734/971.9150www.glc.org

The Great Lakes Commission is a binational public agency The Great Lakes Commission is a binational public agency The Great Lakes Commission is a binational public agency The Great Lakes Commission is a binational public agency dedicated to the use, management and protection of the dedicated to the use, management and protection of the dedicated to the use, management and protection of the dedicated to the use, management and protection of the water, land and other natural resources of the Great Lakes-water, land and other natural resources of the Great Lakes-water, land and other natural resources of the Great Lakes-water, land and other natural resources of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. In partnership with the eight Great St. Lawrence system. In partnership with the eight Great St. Lawrence system. In partnership with the eight Great St. Lawrence system. In partnership with the eight Great Lakes states and provinces of Ontario and Québec, the Lakes states and provinces of Ontario and Québec, the Lakes states and provinces of Ontario and Québec, the Lakes states and provinces of Ontario and Québec, the Commission applies sustainable development principles in Commission applies sustainable development principles in Commission applies sustainable development principles in Commission applies sustainable development principles in addressing issues of resource management, environmental addressing issues of resource management, environmental addressing issues of resource management, environmental addressing issues of resource management, environmental protection, transportation and sustainable development. protection, transportation and sustainable development. protection, transportation and sustainable development. protection, transportation and sustainable development. protection, transportation and sustainable development. The Commission provides accurate and objective The Commission provides accurate and objective The Commission provides accurate and objective The Commission provides accurate and objective information on public policy issues; an effective forum for information on public policy issues; an effective forum for information on public policy issues; an effective forum for information on public policy issues; an effective forum for developing and coordinating public policy; and a unifi ed, developing and coordinating public policy; and a unifi ed, developing and coordinating public policy; and a unifi ed, developing and coordinating public policy; and a unifi ed, systemwide voice to advocate member interests.systemwide voice to advocate member interests.systemwide voice to advocate member interests.systemwide voice to advocate member interests.

��

Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:

www.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss/

Toward aToward aToward aWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources Management

Decision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support Systemfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Water Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological Impacts

Toward a W

ater Resources Managem

ent Decision Support System for the Great Lakes-St. Law

rence River BasinTow

ard a Water Resources M

anagement Decision Support System

for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

Toward a W







Toward a W







Toward a W







Toward a W



rence River BasinStatus of Data and Inform

ation on Water Resources, W

ater Use, and Related Ecological Impacts

Status of Data and Information on W

ater Resources, Water Use, and Related Ecological Im

pactsStatus of Data and Inform















pactsPrepared by the Great Lakes Com

mission

Prepared by the Great Lakes Comm

issionPrepared by the Great Lakes Com

mission

May 2003

May 2003

ww

w.glc.org

Water Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological Impacts

Prepared by the

Great Lakes Commissionfor the Great Lakes States and Provinces

Supported by the Great Lakes Protection Fund

May 2003Printed on recycled paper

Preface and Acknowledgments- 5

PrefaceThis report presents the research, findings and

recommendations resulting from the project, Toward aWater Resources Management Decision Support System forthe Great Lakes (WRMDSS), supported by the GreatLakes Protection Fund and authored by the GreatLakes Commission and its collaborators. The objectivewas to compile and synthesize information on thestatus of Great Lakes water resources, current uses,and ecological impacts of water withdrawals. In sodoing, it lays the foundation for the development of aregional water resources management decisionsupport system that will facilitate scientifically sounddecisionmaking.

The Commission’s involvement in this projectreflects its long-term interest in Great Lakes waterresources management activities consistent with itsmandate to “promote the orderly, integrated andcomprehensive development, use and conservation ofthe water resources of the Great Lakes basin” (ArticleI, Great Lakes Basin Compact).

This report has benefitted from the significantinput and collaboration of numerous partners thatcomprised a Project Management Team (PMT), threetechnical subcommittees (TSCs) and a StakeholdersAdvisory Committee (SAC). The findings and recom-mendations of this report address data and informa-tion gaps and needs, and provide valuable informationfor guiding the next steps in the process of developinga decision support system. The recommendationspresented in the report were developed by the TSCsand the Great Lakes Commission staff, and receivedthe general concurrence of the PMT and SACmembers.

The Commission’s work, which began in August2000, has supported the ongoing efforts of the GreatLakes governors and premiers who, in 1999, estab-lished principles to guide development of a waterresources management framework for the region.These principles were further developed in 2001, afterthe commencement of the WRMDSS project, throughthe June 2001 signing of the Great Lakes CharterAnnex. This report provides regional leaders withmuch of the needed information for Charter Anneximplementation.

This report, and the project’s many associatedcomponents, provide a wealth of information aboutthe water resources and associated policies related tothe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. Report appendi-ces, which include technical reports generated by theproject, are attached in CD-ROM form and areavailable at www.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss.html.

AcknowledgmentsThe Great Lakes Commission gratefully ac-

knowledges the Great Lakes Protection Fund for itssupport of the Water Resources Management Deci-sion Support System project. The Commissionextends its deep appreciation to the individualsserving on the Project Management Team (PMT), itsthree Technical Subcommittees (TSCs) and theStakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC) for theirsignificant contributions of time, talent and ideas inthe conduct and successful completion of the project.Membership lists of these five groups are included inthe Appendix.

The Commission further acknowledges the workof the following individuals for their leadership andcontributions to the final report and other projectproducts: Richard S. Bartz, Ohio Department ofNatural Resources, who served as Project Manage-ment Team Chair; Wendy Leger, EnvironmentCanada, who co-chaired the Ecological ImpactsTechnical Subcommittee with me; Thomas Crane,Great Lakes Commission, who served as chair of theWater Withdrawal and Use Technical Subcommittee;and James Nicholas, U.S. Geological Survey, whoserved as chair of the Status Assessment of WaterResources Technical Subcommittee.

The Commission also extends its appreciation tothe Council of Great Lakes Governors and its Annex2001 Working Group, for guidance, input and support.

Gratitude and appreciation are also extended tothe principal staff members serving the project.Daniel Blake, Thomas Crane, Roger Gauthier andRebecca Lameka, led and coordinated project activities,authored various chapters and oversaw projectmanagement. Rita Straith managed report production,and Jon Colman, Stuart Eddy, Laura Kaminski,Christine Manninen, Victoria Pebbles, Marilyn Ratliff,Thomas Rayburn, Kevin Yam and Hao Zhuangcontributed their many talents to the effort as well.Finally, the Commission expresses its appreciation toWendy Larson, Dr. Joseph Depinto and Dr. JohnWolfe, project consultants from Limno-Tech, Inc.; andto Brian Neff, U.S.Geological Survey, all of whomcontributed significantly to research and writing.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.President/Chief Executive OfficerGreat Lakes Commission

Figures and Tables - 7

Figures

Figure 1-1 Project infrastructure schematic

Figure 2-1 Volumes and areas of the Great Lakes

Figure 2-2 Rates of isostatic rebound

Figure 2-3 Flows into and out of the Great Lakes

Figure 2-4 Inflows to the Great Lakes

Figure 2-5 Average groundwater and surface-runoff components of streamflow in the U.S. portion of theGreat Lakes basin

Figure 2-6 Outflows from the Great Lakes

Figure 2-7 Interbasin diversions

Figure 2-8 Intrabasin diversions

Figure 2-9 Lake Superior water level, 1860-1999

Figure 2-10 Long-term average monthly evaporation from Lake Superior

Figure 2-11 Lake Michigan diversion at Chicago, Illinois, 1970 to 1990

Figure 2-12 Potential uncertainties in flows to and from lakes Michigan-Huron

Figure 2-13 Flows into and from the Great Lakes

Figure 3-1 Timeline of Great Lakes water use data collection and reporting

Figure 3-2 1998 water withdrawals by category

Figure 3-3 1998 water withdrawals by jurisdiction

Figure 3-4 1998 consumptive water use by category

Figure 5-1 Proposed framework for ecological assessment of water withdrawals

Figure 5-2 Interconnectivity of five categories of models

Figure 6-1 Relationship between compensatory restoration and interim lost value

Figure 8-1 Conceptualization of nested watersheds

8- Toward a Water Resources Management Decision Support System for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

Tables

Table 3-1 Fulfilling Data Collection Commitments Under the Great Lakes Charter: Self Assessment byJurisdiction

Table 3-2 Summary of Water Use Reporting Programs by Jurisdiction

Table 3-3 Summary Characterization of Water Use, Permitting, Registration and Reporting Programs

Table 3-4 Consumptive Use Coefficients by Water Use Category

Table 3-5 Measured Processes for Consumptive Use Reporting by Facilities

Table 3-6 Jurisdiction Demand Forecasting Efforts

Table 3-7 Software Needs and Recommendations

Table 4-1 State/Provincial Water Conservation Programs and Drought Contingency Plans

Table 4-2 15 Suggested Water Conservation Measures

Table 5-1 Hydrodynamic/Hydraulic Models

Table 5-2 Hydrologic/Watershed Models

Table 5-3 Surface Water Quality Models

Table 5-4 Groundwater Models

Table 5-5 Ecological Effects Models

Executive Summary - 9

Toward a Water ResourcesManagement Decision SupportSystem for the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River Basin

The Great Lakes and Resource DemandsThe Great Lakes, their connecting channels and theSt. Lawrence River collectively comprise theworld’s largest body of fresh surface water, whichprovides the region’s eight states and two provinceswith an abundance of high quality fresh surfacewater. The Great Lakes system contains 6.5 qua-drillion gallons (24.6quadrillion litres) offresh surface water, 20percent of the world’ssupply. The Great Lakesinfluence and are insepa-rably linked to theregion’s environmentalhealth, economic wellbeing and quality of life,and play an importantrole in advancing andsustaining regional andnational economies. TheGreat Lakes ecosystem isfragile, and even minorphysical, chemical orbiological changes canhave individual and cumulative effects with lastingimplications for the conservation, protection anduse of the resource.

In many areas of North America (and beyond),water sources and associated ecosystems are beingstressed by withdrawals and diversions fromaquifers, lakes, rivers and reservoirs to meet theneeds of cities, farms, homes and industries. Thewater rich Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River regionhas been relatively immune from serious watershortages and other water supply problems. How-ever, as population and economic growth in theregion has occurred, in-basin water uses haveincreased and are projected to continue (Tate andHarris, 1999). Communities situated just outsideGreat Lakes basin surface water boundaries also

Executive Summary

have looked to basin water sources for their supply,as have communities far removed from the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River region. Implications ofthis increased interest present a significant chal-lenge for Great Lakes policymakers and resourcemanagers at the federal, state, provincial andmunicipal levels.

Water Resources Management DecisionmakingAs scientists, managers and policymakers gain anincreased understanding of the range and com-plexity of issues surrounding the region’s needsand demands for high quality fresh water, theyincreasingly rely upon data, information and

technology to informtheir research andanswer difficultquestions. Decisionsupport systems arebecoming an importanttool in the fields ofwater resourcesscience, planning andmanagement. Adecision supportsystem is a broadconcept that typicallyinvolves both descrip-tive informationsystems as well asstandard, prescriptiveoptimization ap-

proaches. It may be defined as “any and all data,information, expertise and activities that contributeto option selection” (Andriole, 1989).

The Great Lakes Commission and its projectcollaborators initiated a project, titled A WaterResources Management Decision Support System for theGreat Lakes, in August 2000 in response to theincreasing need for data and information to informstate and provincial decisionmaking on issuesinvolving the withdrawal, use and consumption ofGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River water resources.(This title was changed during the project toToward a Water Resources Management DecisionSupport System for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence RiverBasin.) This multi-year initiative has involved thecompilation and synthesis of information on the

Satellite image, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin

10 - Toward a Water Resources Management Decision Support System for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

status of Great Lakes water resources, currentwater withdrawals and uses, and the ecologicalimpacts of individual and cumulative water with-drawals.

The impetus for this project can be traced to astatement issued by the Council of Great LakesGovernors in late 1999 providing a set of prin-ciples for a stronger water resources managementframework for the region. Through this statement,which built upon the Great Lakes Charter of 1985and led to the development of the Great LakesCharter Annex in 2001, the governors and pre-miers agreed that a durable, simple, and efficientwater management regime is needed to protect theresource and retain decisionmaking authoritywithin the basin. The project was initiated prior tothe signing of the Annex, and subsequentlymodified to maximize its relevance to the activitiesof a Working Group charged with Annex imple-mentation.

Project OutcomesThis project has produced several major productswhich, singly and collectively, will strengthen waterquantity decisionmaking processes at the federal,state, provincial and municipal levels. Chapter oneprovides a report overview. Chapters two throughsix describe specific project activities and outcomes,Chapter seven examines information and communi-cations needs, and Chapter eight synthesizesproject work. Report findings and recommenda-tions provide valuable information for guiding thenext steps in decision support system development.Appendices, which include the full text of reportssummarized in this document, are attached in CD-ROM form and are available atwww.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss.html.

Presented below is a chapter-by-chapter summaryof the key project findings and recommendationsfor consideration by the region’s policymakers,resource managers and scientists. Once imple-mented, these recommendations can provide thebasis for a Water Resources Management DecisionSupport System (WRMDSS), and for accessing thedata and information needed to maximize its valuein promoting the informed use, management andprotection of the region’s valuable water resources.

Status Assessment of Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River Water Resources(Chapter Two):Chapter two summarizes the work of the StatusAssessment of Water Resources Technical Subcom-mittee. It describes the hydrology of the GreatLakes system, the process for measuring levels andflows, and the uncertainty associated with suchmeasurements. The chapter also recommendsimprovements to current monitoring activities thatwill enhance decisionmaking processes. In so doing,it helps lay the groundwork for a decision supportsystem that is applicable to a broad range ofvariables and geographic areas ranging from smallsub-basins (e.g., a single tributary) to the entireGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River system.

Although a significant amount of hydrologicmonitoring occurs in the Great Lakes basin, currentefforts target specific needs that may not fullyaddress the decisionmaking standard embodied inthe Great Lakes Charter Annex. Several agenciescollect Great Lakes hydrologic data and calculatelevels and flows, typically using different methods.Further, complete flow data are not available on abinational basis; coordination between U.S. andCanadian jurisdictions on its collection and analysisis inadequate. Problems include the diversity ofhydrologic data and information sources, inconsis-tencies in metadata, lack of compatibility withgeographic information systems for some data, andlimited accessibility to data on the Internet.

It is important to understand and consider thevariability of the hydrologic system and thelimitations of hydrologic measurement. All levelsand flows are variable in the short and long-termand at many spatial scales. Also, all measurementsand calculations are inherently uncertain. However,most reported flows are long-term averages at largespatial scales, and associated data uncertainties arenot reported and often not calculated.

Uncertainties associated with measurements oflevels and flows hinder the ability to assess ecologi-cal effects from withdrawals on a system-wide level.Even though the effects of a withdrawal on levelsand flows cannot currently be detected by measure-ments, existing models can accurately predict theeffects of withdrawals on connecting channel flows,lake levels, or hydroelectric production.

On a sub-watershed scale, streamflow and ground-water data are insufficient in many areas of thebasin to predict ecological effects of instream and


groundwater withdrawals. Only large-scalegroundwater or cumulative withdrawals are likelyto be detected in streamflow, but this ability de-pends on the scale of withdrawal relative to thescale of baseflow. Standard approaches are, for themost part, available to collect the hydrologicinformation needed to make decisions on instreamand groundwater withdrawals, but they have notyet been applied to all areas of the basin.

The contribution of groundwater to the hydrologyof the Great Lakes has only recently been morefully recognized. As a result, the complex dynamicsof groundwater recharge, flow, and discharge andthe implications of these factors relative to bothwater quantity and quality require special attention.

Inventory of Water Withdrawal andUse Data and Information(Chapter Three):Chapter three describes the outcomes of the workof the Water Withdrawal and Use TechnicalSubcommittee, including an assessment of stateand provincial water use data collection programs,the functionality of the Great Lakes RegionalWater Use Database, and consumptive use account-ing. The role of demand forecasting in regionalwater resources management is also examined.Commitments under the Great Lakes Charter areused as a yardstick to measure the progress made inwater use data collection and the contribution ofthat data to water resources management activities.

A number of findings can be derived from theassessment of state and provincial water use datacollection programs. Many aspects of currentstate/provincial programs, for example, must befurther developed and coordinated if regional watermanagement efforts are to be strengthened and thefull potential of the Great Lakes Charter andAnnex are to be realized. Most jurisdictions collectsome data at or below the Great Lakes Charterestablished 100,000 gallon (380,000 litre) per daythreshold, but the ability of several jurisdictions tocollect and report water use data for all water usecategories is lacking. About half of the members ofthe Water Withdrawal and Use Technical Subcom-mittee state that their jurisdiction is presently able

Chapter Two Recommendations

Monitoring/Modeling

1) Evaluate the adequacy of hydrologic/hydraulic monitoring systems, within thecontext of the Annex, after adecisionmaking standard is agreed upon.

2) Secure agency commitments to core, long-term, geographically distributed hydro-logic/hydraulic monitoring that will beneeded to implement the decisionmakingstandard.

3) Support the continued maintenance andenhancement of the Great Lakes water levelgauging network, and quantify and reportuncertainties.

4) Develop coordinated binational methods forevaluating groundwater flow directly andindirectly to the Great Lakes and theirtributary watersheds, using common datastandards and models.

5) Systematically evaluate the adequacy ofexisting tributary stream gauging to meetAnnex implementation needs and developcoordinated binational methods forcalculating streamflow for all ungaugedareas.

6) Develop coordinated binational methods,with measures of uncertainty, for calculat-ing over-lake precipitation and evaporationprocesses using existing remote sensingtechniques.

7) Develop coordinated binational methods,with measures of uncertainty, forcalculating and/or measuring flows,customized for each connecting channel, St.Lawrence River and diversion into/out ofthe Great Lakes.

8) Continue development and refinement ofsystemwide hydraulic routing models sothat effects of proposed withdrawals and theuncertainty of the effects can be predicted.

Information Availability9) Develop common data standards and

reporting practices for hydraulic/hydrologicdata and other information relevant to theAnnex, with emphasis on determiningwatershed impacts.

10) Ensure easy access to hydraulic/hydrologicdata for decisionmakers and other interestedparties via clearinghouse services, andconventional and electronic communicationstechnology.

Information Use11) Incorporate an understanding of hydrologic

variability and uncertainty at theappropriate temporal and spatial scales inthe decisionmaking process.


to fulfill the Charter data collection and reportingrequirements in terms of both legislative/regula-tory authority and implementation effort for mostwater use categories. The balance indicate that theirjurisdiction has relatively strong legislative/regulatory authority but weak implementationprovisions. Jurisdictions that have mandatoryreporting requirements built into their programsappear to be more effective than those that do not,due to the more stringent requirements and theavailability of enforcement mechanisms.

Progress has been made in the area of waterwithdrawal and use data collection and reportingsince the Great Lakes Regional Water Use Databasebecame operational in 1988. The database, however,has limited utility as a management tool because itdoes not include site-specific data and constraintsexist in the state/provincial data collection andreporting programs. Data is aggregated for mul-tiple facilities, estimated in many cases, reported atan annual interval and, in some jurisdictions,focuses solely on surface water. This level of dataquality is inadequate for identifying hydrologicalimpacts and associated ecological effects with theconfidence needed for demand forecasts and otherplanning activities.

The current status of consumptive use accountingis similar to that of water use data collection.However, the level of confidence is much lowerbecause the amount of water lost to the system isdifficult to determine. Consumptive use calculationsare inadequate for providing meaningful anddefensible consumptive use information becausethey are based on partially estimated water with-drawal and use data. Current evidence does notvalidate consumptive use coefficients, and jurisdic-tions do not generate comparable data with thecurrent variety of coefficients.

Demand forecasting is an essential water resourcesmanagement tool for informing water resourcesplanning activities at the regional, jurisdictionaland local levels. Forecasts generate crucial informa-tion on where water demand is likely to increaseand where financial and other resources may needto be applied to help address priority areas. Al-though demand forecasts are important, they oftenlack financial and programmatic support at thejurisdictional level. Without knowing what andwhere future demand is likely to be, planners andpolicymakers have difficulty developing and imple-menting effective and comprehensive water man-agement programs that include elements such aswater conservation and drought contingencyplanning.

Water Conservation in the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River Region(Chapter Four):Under the direction of the Water Withdrawal andUse Technical Subcommittee, water conservationinformation presented in Chapter four was gatheredthrough a survey of state and provincial programsand associated information on best managementpractices.

A commitment to “environmentally sound andeconomically feasible water conservation measures,”as stated in the Great Lakes Charter Annex, iscritically important if the region is to demonstratea capability to responsibly manage its own re-sources.

This growing emphasis on water conservationsignals a significant shift from past water manage-ment practices that viewed Great Lakes water as avirtually limitless resource that could accommodate

Chapter Three Recommendations1) Develop state/provincial legislative and

programmatic authority with adequatefunding and technical support to carry outthe water withdrawal and use data collectionand reporting commitments in the GreatLakes Charter and Charter Annex.

2) Evaluate the effectiveness of the GreatLakes Regional Water Use Database insupporting the decisionmaking process andrevise and upgrade as needed to make it amore useful planning tool.

3) Provide a more uniform and consistent baseof data and information through the state/provincial water use data collection andreporting programs to facilitate comparisonand evaluation.

4) Develop reporting requirements for incor-poration into state/provincial water use datacollection and reporting programs.

5) Improve state/provincial consumptive usereporting processes to ensure reliable andaccurate data.

6) Develop and apply uniform consumptive usecoefficients for each water use category untilsuch time that a better method of measuringconsumptive water use is available.

7) Develop and regularly pursue a uniformregional approach to demand forecasting inthe interest of strengthening jurisdictionaland regional planning processes.


all current and anticipated in-basin demands. Waterconservation is now considered a viable solution tocurrent shortages in some communities experienc-ing water supply problems, and as a means to lowercosts and provide ecological benefits in areas withabundant water. In particular, areas of uniqueecological and hydrological characteristics – andassociated sensitivities – will benefit from targetedwater conservation efforts.

Several Great Lakes states and provinces have theauthority to implement basic water conservationprograms, but these programs vary widely in scopeand content, and are usually part of a droughtcontingency plan. Many conservation programs arein place at the local level but programs and modelsto promote region-wide coordination are lacking.

Chapter four details 15 types of water conservationpractices ranging from financial incentives totechnological improvements, singly and in combina-tion.

shop) regarding potential ecological impacts thatshould be addressed in reviewing water withdrawalproposals, a literature search and analysis, and aninventory and assessment of existing computermodels with some relevance to assessing ecologicalimpacts from water withdrawals. The subcommitteealso examined, through a case study approach,various prospective definitions and applications ofthe resource-based decisionmaking standard aspresented in the Great Lakes Charter Annex.Research and data collection priorities to helpinform the decisionmaking process associated withnew or increased Great Lakes basin water with-drawals were then developed.

The Experts Workshop, drawing leading research-ers from more than a dozen relevant disciplines,yielded an excellent starting point for assessingpotential ecological impacts of water withdrawals.Many essential questions were identified that mustbe considered to fully assess these impacts. Thequestions vary in complexity, ranging from basicquestions about the location of the withdrawal toquestions related to potential cumulative impacts ofmultiple water withdrawals and other stressors. Theliterature review and model inventory “mined” alarge knowledge base to support this assessment.Selected past and ongoing research studies andexisting modeling tools provide useful resources toanswer some of the essential questions.

These project activities also highlighted gaps in ourknowledge and understanding of ecological im-pacts. The literature offers few practical approachesfor addressing questions related to cause-effectrelationships and cumulative impacts of changes inlevels and flows, but some studies may help guideestablishment of monitoring protocols and agendasfor scientific research. A key observation is that thelack of integrative modeling tools currentlyconfounds the assessment of cumulative ecologicalimpacts from multiple stressors. This is supportedby a primary outcome of the model review: nosingle model can, in and of itself, quantify the rangeof potential ecological impacts of a particular waterwithdrawal scenario.

The importance of assessing cumulative impacts washighlighted during the Experts Workshop given thespatial (i.e., watershed, lake, river, or whole basin)and temporal (e.g., immediate, multi-year) dimen-sions of any prospective water withdrawal andassociated ecological impact. Based on the researchof the subcommittee, the ecological impacts of awater withdrawal will be most clearly discernible atthe nearshore and sub-watershed levels, where

Chapter Four Recommendations1) Develop and apply water conservation

models that foster a coordinated regionalapproach and address the Charter Annexstandard of “environmentally sound andeconomically feasible.”

2) Establish an information clearinghouse topublicize best management practices pertain-ing to individual sectors of water use.

3) Develop and update state/provincial droughtcontingency plans to ensure adequateattention to water conservation.

4) Develop specific water conservation provi-sions as part of state/provincial watermanagement programs.

5) Undertake an economic analysis to identifythe financial benefits of water conservation,and use results to promote adoption of suchpractices at the local level.

6) Develop a regional information/educationprogram to promote the adoption of waterconservation practices.

Ecological Impacts Associated withGreat Lakes Water Withdrawals(Chapter Five)Chapter five examines the prospective individualand cumulative ecological impacts of water with-drawals based on the work of the Inventory ofInformation on Ecological Impacts TechnicalSubcommittee. This chapter presents a list of“essential questions” (aided by an Experts Work-


Resource Improvement Standard forWater Resources Projects(Chapter Six):Chapter six presents an analysis of the issues andpotential application associated with the “resourceimprovement” concept embodied in the Great LakesCharter Annex. This work, accomplished under thedirection of the Inventory of Information onEcological Impacts Technical Subcommittee,supports development of a new regional waterresources management decisionmaking standard, asoutlined in Directive #3. Elements of the “resourceimprovement” concept have been interpreted andapplied in many settings throughout NorthAmerica and, while these approaches inform theAnnex process, none fully meet the needs of theAnnex. Project research did point out that theAnnex decisionmaking standard requires “nosignificant adverse individual or cumulative im-pacts.” Hence, the term “mitigation,” as used in theAnnex’s “definition” section, pertains only toresource improvement measures that mitigateimpacts of existing withdrawals, not the prospec-tive impacts of the proposed withdrawal.

Development and application of the resourceimprovement standard will require further defini-tion and interpretation of Directive #3 terminol-ogy; transformation of the four associated prin-ciples into policy measures; and additional attentionto application issues, including assignment ofspatial/temporal scales and accommodation ofprospective cumulative impacts. Resource improve-ment measures should be directed toward a baselineand baseline conditions should be specified. Consid-eration must also be given to both the design of anappropriate methodology, and the data, informationand resource requirements to support the standardand its measurement. The resource improvementstandard should be specific enough to providescientifically sound guidance, yet flexible enough toaccommodate the inherent uniqueness of individualproposals.

Chapter Six Recommendations1) Develop precise definitions for terms in

Directive #3 of the Annex; guidance on theapplication of spatial and temporal dimen-sions of “resource improvement”; and ascience-based evaluation methodology thatpresents acceptable procedures for assessingwithdrawal proposals.

relatively small changes in water levels and flowscould affect the supported ecosystems.

Chapter Five Recommendations1) Review and refine the list of “essential

questions” to ensure comprehensiveness andfeasibility in a decision support framework.

2) Funding for research and developmentshould be directed at a) mining data fromexisting sources, and b) studies of bothqualitative and quantitative stress-responserelationships. Data and information gapsshould be identified and studies conductedto fill those gaps, with a particular focus onsub-watersheds.

3) Developing indicators and thresholds toinform the discussion of “no significantadverse individual or cumulative impacts”relating to ecological impacts from waterwithdrawals.

4) Synthesize and model the quantitativerelationships between water withdrawals/diversions in various types of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystems (large lakes,inland lakes, streams and rivers, groundwa-ter) and potential ecological impacts ofthose water withdrawals.

5) Develop linked model frameworks forselected water withdrawal scenarios bybuilding on the existing model inventory.

6) Intensify and enhance research that sup-ports more accurate predictions of regionalclimate change, population growth, demandforecasting and land use changes, and usethis information to help evaluate ecologicalsensitivities.

7) Improve data to assess and model ecologicalimpacts of water withdrawals at differenttemporal and spatial scales, particularly on anearshore and sub-watershed basis, whereimpacts are most discernible.

8) Improve understanding of variability anduncertainty in levels and flows to strengthenthe decision support system.

9) Monitor ecological and hydrological re-sponses to water withdrawal activities, with


Information and Communications(Chapter Seven):Chapter seven presents examples of a decisionsupport system (DSS) and communication tools thatcan assist in the decisionmaking process. Key pointsto consider when integrating data and informationinto a DSS are presented, and include the promo-tion, development and implementation of data andinformation standards; the variability of hydrologicand hydraulic data in density, resolution, scale andtemporal characteristics; and improvements incomputer modeling and associated visualizationtools. The chapter also offers an overview ofevolving technologies, such as Internet, real timedata, metadata and GIS that may contribute signifi-cantly to water resources managementdecisionmaking.

The chapter describes the primary function of aDSS: to support and promote decisions throughinformed discussion and debate where multiple andsometimes conflicting goals and interests areinvolved. Various information dissemination andcommunication tools that can be applied to aWRMDSS are presented, and include the Internet,intranet portals, online GIS, and conventionalcommunications (e.g., print, meetings and confer-ences).

Chapter Seven Recommendations1) Develop integrated Internet web pages to

facilitate data and information exchange,distribution and access.

2) Develop metadata to accompany allgeospatial and temporal data used in aWater Resources Management DecisionSupport System.

3) Incorporate a robust communicationsstrategy into the Water Resources Manage-ment Decision Support System, involving arange of interrelated tools such as Internettechnologies; email and online discussiongroups; and conventional communicationsincluding printed materials, meetings,conferences and symposia.

Pulling it All Together: ProjectSynthesis (Chapter Eight):The conclusion of this project activity signals thebeginning of the next critical step: implementingrecommendations in the interest of designing andoperating a decision support system for addressingwater resources data and information needs.Principal among these needs are: 1) the challengesof meeting present and future data and informationneeds; 2) issues of scale in assessing ecosystemimpacts of water withdrawals; 3) cumulativeimpacts occurring over space and time; 4) ground-water hydrology in the basin; and 5) the full rangeof ecological impacts associated with water with-drawal. Each is summarized below followed by aseries of concluding observations.

Meeting Present and Future Data andInformation NeedsA wealth of water use data and information on theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River system has beengathered over time, but its utility has been compro-mised because it lacks the breadth, focus andaccuracy needed to address current and futuremanagement challenges. A decision support systemfor water resources management needs to withstandthe “test of time”; it needs to be dynamic andflexible to adapt to ever-evolving demands placedupon it. Unanticipated stresses on the ecosystemare certain to arise, whether they be of a local (e.g.,coastal development, water use demand) or global(e.g., climate change) nature. Thus, a decisionsupport system “designed to learn,” coupled with arecognition that data and information needs willcontinually evolve, are prerequisites to betterinformed management efforts. Concluding observa-tions in this chapter reinforce these considerations,which were also affirmed at a project workshopexploring the range of data and information needsrelating to system hydrology/hydraulics, waterwithdrawal, ecological impacts and cumulativeeffects.

Appropriate Scales for Water ResourcesAssessmentThe issue of scale is a critical consideration in thedesign of a decision support system for waterresources management. Decisionmakers, for ex-ample, are confronted with a fundamental question:“How sensitive is the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver system to the ecological impacts of waterwithdrawal, and at what level can these impacts beassessed?”

2) Continue and improve case study analysisand “scenario testing” to explore applica-tions of a resource improvement standard.

3) Conduct a more thorough study of theresource improvement concept.


in only selectedareas. Expan-sion of tribu-tary streamgauging andnetworks forgroundwaterand climatemonitoring, aswell as waterwithdrawal dataon a sub-watershed scale,will be criticalif a WaterResourcesManagementDecisionSupport Systemis to supportinvestigationsin areas whichhave been heretofore “data poor.” Also, a needexists for a basin-wide groundwater flow model.

Ecological impactsThe need to consider ecological impacts associatedwith water withdrawals has placed new demands onscientists and resource managers who have tradi-tionally approached water resources projectsprimarily from a hydrologic/hydraulic standpoint.As our understanding of the complexities of theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River system haveimproved, concerns have been expressed withregard to the ecological effects of water withdraw-als, particularly in the nearshore zone and at thesub-watershed level, where biota appears morelikely to be impacted by water withdrawals. Also,the cumulative ecological effect of a withdrawal (orseries of withdrawals) incrementally over time andspace offers an added challenge.

Another consideration is that water withdrawalsmay be only one of many factors, or stressors,present in a given watershed. The impact of asingle withdrawal (or even a series of withdrawals)may not be readily measurable in many cases but,combined with other stressors, (i.e., land-usechanges, pollutant loads) the total impact may beboth measurable and significant.

Cumulative effectsAny water withdrawal will have an incrementalcumulative effect on the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver ecosystem over space and time. An individualwithdrawal will have a greater ecological and

This question was addressed in detail over thecourse of the project, with the finding that anysuch impacts will be most discernable at the sub-watershed level. This suggests the need for reevalu-ation of current data gathering and analysispractices, which have historically focused on amacro-scale (i.e., lake basin and systemwide) andemphasized physical (i.e., levels and flows) impactsas opposed to broader ecosystem impacts (i.e.,habitat, biological resources).

Using hierarchical, or nested, watershed designs tosupport water management decisionmaking is oneapproach that provides opportunities to analyzeconditions at multiple scales of resolution. Eachscale is important in understanding the system andthe relationship between water supply, withdrawaland ecological impacts.

Understanding the sensitivities tied to the varyingcharacteristics of watersheds will be important indeveloping informed water resource managementdecisions. Size, shape, slope, elevation, density ofchannels, channel characteristics (depth/width),vegetation, land use, soil type, hydrogeology, lakes,wetlands, artificial drainage, water use and ecologyrepresent some of the important characteristics ofa drainage basin. Additionally, at the global scale,climate change may cause alterations to the levelsand flows of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Riversystem. These natural and anthropogenic factorswill influence the ecologic and hydrologic sensitivi-ties of watersheds. A categorization of watershedsin terms of their sensitivities may be a first steptoward providing the context within which watermanagement decisions are made.

Groundwater Data and InformationGroundwater discharges directly into the GreatLakes and connecting channels, and also contrib-utes to tributary stream flow in many portions ofthe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system. Suchdischarges are critical ecosystem elements in thatthey provide base flows, moderate water tempera-ture and help maintain water quality during periodsof low flows.

Aside from a growing recognition of its impor-tance in the hydrologic cycle and contribution toecosystem health, much is unknown about theregion’s groundwater resources. Historically, therole of groundwater in the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system, particularly its relationshipto surface water, has been poorly understood andinadequately studied. On a sub-watershed scale,groundwater data to assess the likely effects of in-stream and groundwater withdrawals are available

Grand Haven, Michigan


hydrological impact locally than further down-stream. An individual withdrawal, given persistenceover time, will impact conditions first within its ownwatershed and then further downstream. Multiplewater withdrawals from any given Great Lakes maynot have measurable ecological impacts on thatparticular lake, but their cumulative ecologicaleffects may be magnified on the lower St. LawrenceRiver. The cumulative ecological effects will also bea function of multiple other factors, or stressors,that can range from local modifications (e.g., sourcewater changes, channelization, sediment loading) tolarge-scale changes (e.g., global climate informa-tion).

Assessing the cumulative ecological impacts fromwater withdrawals is a complex, challengingundertaking. It is clear from project outcomes (andfrom an Annex 2001 implementation standpoint)that a decision support system for water resourcesmanagement must have a cumulative dimension forecological and hydrological impacts and provide forthe necessary data and information to inform thedecisionmaking process accordingly. Mechanismsfor assessing these impacts with any degree ofprecision have yet to be developed.

Concluding ObservationsProject research has identified a significant amountof relevant water resources data and informationpertaining to water withdrawal and use proposalsand their impacts. However, there are equallysignificant inadequacies in data and information thatuntil addressed, will compromise the region’s abilityto make scientifically sound water resources man-agement decisions. The numerous recommendationsof this report address the need to improve thequality and quantity of this data and information.

This being said, some concluding points need to bemade regarding the importance of data and infor-mation to guide water resources managementdecisionmaking:

Existing laws, policies, programs andagreements at the state, provincial, federaland binational levels provide the contextwithin which a WRMDSS must be devel-oped and associated data and informationneeds determined;Understanding the uncertainties associatedwith available data and information can, inmany cases, be as critical as the informationitself;Data needed for decisionmaking on hydro-logic and hydraulic processes throughout thesystem have varied characteristics. For

instance, sub-watershed level analyses willlikely require denser spatial and temporaldetail than assessments conducted on theopen lakes or for the interconnecting water-ways;A pressing need exists to improve thecollection and reporting of accurate, consis-tent and uniform water withdrawal and usedata;Much is still unknown about the region’sgroundwater resources. Expansion oftributary stream gauging and groundwatermonitoring networks will be critical inaccessing the data and information needed tosupport a WRMDSS;Using hierarchical, or nested, watersheddesigns to support water withdrawaldecisionmaking is one approach that providesopportunities to analyze conditions atmultiple scales of resolution. Categorizationof watersheds in terms of their sensitivitiesis an important first step;Climate change effects could become theprimary stressor to levels and flows andwould influence demand forecasts, cumulativeimpacts assessments, and even future indi-vidual water withdrawal decisions. As such,understanding the magnitude and nature ofpotential climate change effects should be aresearch priority;Scientifically sound data and information arebeing collected under highly compatibleprograms and should be exploited to thefullest extent to reduce costs. The bestexamples are the binational monitoringprograms evolving to implement the State ofthe Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)indicator suite;Improving the base of data related to waterwithdrawal and use, surface water andgroundwater resources, and ecological/biological effects will require substantialcommitment on the part of all units ofgovernment;To be useful, the commitment to improve thisbase of data must be long-term, requiringdedicated support for programs over time;While data and information shortfalls arebeing resolved, regional water resourcesmanagement decisions will still need to bemade. Decisionmakers should evaluateprojects using the best available information,tools and decision support options, whilerecognizing their uncertainties. If there isreason to believe that a technology or activitymay result in harm and there is scientific


uncertainty regarding the nature and extentof that harm, then measures to anticipateand prevent harm may be necessary andjustifiable; andAn implementation plan for this report’srecommendations needs to be developed andimplemented in consultation with relevantstate and provincial officials. This shouldinclude prioritization and costing-out ofrecommendations and a strategy to conductneeded research and policy analysis toaddress and apply them as a WRMDSS isdeveloped.

ReferencesAndriole, S.J. 1989. Handbook of Decision Support

Systems. Philadelphia: TAB Books Inc.Council of Great Lakes Governors. 1999. A State-

ment on Protecting the Great Lakes: ManagingDiversions and Bulk Water Exports. 15 October.

The Great Lakes Charter Annex: A SupplementaryAgreement to the Great Lakes Charter. 2001.

The Great Lakes Charter: Principles for the Man-agement of Great Lakes Water Resources. 1985.

Tate, D. M. and J. Harris. 1999. Water Demands inthe United States Section of the Great LakesBasin, 1972-2021. GeoEconomics Associates.Unpublished background document preparedunder contract to the U.S. Section of theInternational Joint Commission.Washington,D.C. 61 p.

Chapter One - A Project Overview - 19

Chapter OneA Project Overview

IntroductionAs water resources scientists, managers andpolicymakers gain understanding of the range andcomplexity of issues surrounding the region’sneeds and demands for high quality fresh water,they are increasingly relying on data, informationand technology to answer difficult questions.Decision support systems are becoming crucialtools in the fields of water resources science,planning and management. Such systems, whichinclude both descriptive information and normative,prescriptive optimization approaches, link a combi-nation of decision analysis tools (e.g., maximization,cost-benefit analysis) and information componentsinto a decisionmaking process. The objective is tointegrate data, information and knowledge fromdifferent sources to facilitate informed decisions.Access to accurate and uniform data to informresearch and the decisionmaking process is there-fore essential.

The Great Lakes Commission and its projectcollaborators initiated a project, titled Toward aWater Resources Management Decision Support Systemfor the Great Lakes, in August 2000. The projectresponds to the increasing need for data andinformation on Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Riversystem water resources and the renewed attentionand commitment to water resources managementon the part of the governors and premiers. Thistwo-year initiative was planned and designed toensure that scientifically sound technical informa-tion on the status of Great Lakes water resources,current water uses, and ecological impacts ofindividual and cumulative water withdrawals anduses is available to regional decisionmakers.

Background on Great Lakes WaterResources Management andDecisionmaking

Historical OverviewFormal mechanisms for water quantity manage-ment within the binational Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system date back to the Boundary

Waters Treaty of 1909 between Great Britain andthe United States. The Boundary Waters Treatyestablished the International Joint Commission(IJC), a binational agency consisting of six commis-sioners; three each appointed by the president ofthe United States and the governor-in-council ofCanada. The IJC has quasi-judicial, arbitration andadvisory powers over U.S./Canada boundarywaters. The IJC’s judicial powers stem from itsauthority to approve all new “uses, obstructions anddiversions” which affect the levels and flows ofboundary waters or those crossing the boundary.The Treaty assigns the IJC the power to arbitratein all matters of difference arising between the twocountries that are referred by both to the Commis-sion. This power has yet to be used. The Treatyalso enables the governments to refer any matter tothe IJC for investigation and recommendations.

The IJC develops Orders of Approval for theregulation of outflows from Lake Superior (1914,1978, 1979) and Lake Ontario (1952, 1956). Admin-istration for the distribution of flows in the NiagaraRiver between the United States and Canada datesback to the provisions of the Niagara Treaty of1950, which explicitly recognizes intrabasin flowsthrough the Welland Canal and the New YorkBarge Canal. Outflows through the Lake MichiganDiversion at Chicago have been managed underSupreme Court oversight since 1905. During WorldWar II, diplomatic letters between the U.S. andCanada provided for diversion of flows through

The Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River governors and premiers signingthe Great Lakes Charter in February 1985


Long Lac and the Ogoki River from the AlbanyRiver watershed into Lake Superior.

Dating back as far as the mid-1850s, dredging, sandmining and/or encroachments in most of theconnecting waterways of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system have occurred episodically(and increasingly), and the impacts have beenlargely unremediated. This has led to significantmodification of channel efficiencies and regimechanges upstream. Each of these anthropogenicchanges to the water balance of the Great Lakeshas had profound effects on the storage and reten-tion of water supplies in one part of the system oranother, outweighing cumulative impacts ofdiversions, withdrawals or consumptive uses withinthe region. The term “water-balance” is a measureof the amount of water entering and leaving asystem and any associated changes in storage ofwaters in a lake system. Frequently, decades ofquality controlled water level data distributedacross the lakes are required to infer the effects ofthese altered regime changes in the magnitude of afew centimeters. These facts illustrate that accuratedecisionmaking requires a long-term and thoroughcommitment to data collection, information man-agement and retrieval.

Various large-scale proposals to remove water fromthe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system (orbring water into the system) have been aroundalmost a century. Many of the early proposals didnot generate significant attention because they wereconsidered economically and/or environmentallyunviable. In the late 1970s, due to apparent height-ened interest from regions outside the basin todivert and use Great Lakes water, the Great Lakesgovernors and premiers began to consider theimportance of a regional approach to managing thesystem’s water resources. In 1983, this interestculminated in the appointment, by the governorsand premiers, of a Task Force on Water Diversionand Great Lakes Institutions. This task force wasestablished to address ongoing concerns aboutfuture management of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system and the perceived signifi-cant economic and environmental consequences tothe region from large-scale diversions. The reportof the task force, in January 1985, addressed threemain areas: the need for regional action in the areaof water management; the need to protect theresource; and institutional capabilities and needs.An outcome of this study was the Great LakesCharter of 1985, a series of principles and proce-dures for the management of Great Lakes waterresources.

One of the central themes of the task force’s 1985report was that the best defense against outgoinginterbasin diversions and intra-regional conflictsover water use is for the region to develop aneffective, comprehensive program to manage itswater resources. The report states, “developing sucha program, of which a common base of data is afirst step, will entail a major long-range commit-ment on the part of the Great Lakes states andprovinces.” The task force also concluded “it isimportant to begin this process now, while publicconcern is high and political will is strong.”

The Charter calls for the development of a WaterResources Management Program to guide thefuture development, management and conservationof the water resources of the basin. The followingelements are included:

• An inventory of the basin’s surface andgroundwater resources;

• An identification and assessment of existingand future demands for diversions (bothinterbasin and intrabasin), withdrawals andconsumptive uses and the ecological consid-erations of these uses;

• The development of cooperative policiesand practices to minimize the consumptiveuse of the basin’s water resources; and

• Policies to guide the coordinated conserva-tion, development, protection, use andmanagement of the water resources of thebasin.

Since the signing of the Charter, the managementframework has been slow to evolve due to changesin regional leadership, public interest that haswaxed and waned, and inconsistent financial,programmatic and legislative support of water

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River governors and premierssigning the Great Lakes Charter Annex in June 2001


management programs, particularly those involvingdata collection and reporting.

Implementation of Charter principles has also beencompromised by numerous other factors:

• The lack of scientifically sound data andinformation on water withdrawals, diver-sions and consumptive uses;

• The lack of scientific understanding of, andthe limited ability to measure the variouscomponents of the Great Lakes hydrologicsystem that contribute to the developmentof a water balance;

• The lack of understanding of how indi-vidual, collective and cumulative withdraw-als, diversions and consumptive uses impactthe Great Lakes ecosystem;

• The lack of priority attention given toimplementation of the Charter;

• Insufficient legislative and programmaticauthority to implement Charter require-ments;

• The lack of financial support necessary tocarry out Charter requirements;

• The failure to consistently bring differentinterests and disciplines together to addressthe complex issues surrounding waterresources management; and

• The tendency for the region to be reactive,rather than proactive, when faced with thedecisionmaking demands of a water with-drawal or export proposal.

Passage of Water Resources Development Act(WRDA) of 1986 added another dimension to theissue. Section 1109 of WRDA prohibits any new orincreased diversion of Great Lakes water withoutthe unanimous approval of the Great Lakes gover-nors. This section, while adding significant legalauthority to the governors’ ability to protect GreatLakes water resources from outside interests, alsoaffected the process for cooperative water resourcesmanagement decisionmaking laid out by theCharter. By giving the governors veto power overnew diversions of any size, Section 1109 counter-acted the Charter trigger level provision thatrequires prior notice and consultation only fordiversions that exceed 5 million gallons per day(mgd) (19 million litres per day) average over athirty-day period. Section 1109 did not specify anyconsultation requirements, although a case-by-caseconsultation process has been used for those fewdiversion and consumptive use proposals that havebeen evaluated since 1986. Section 1109 also

created a new dynamic with the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence provinces, which are not subject to U.S.law and, therefore, have no legal standing in theWRDA decisionmaking process.

The need to revisit regional water resourcesmanagement decisionmaking was rekindled in 1999,following a thwarted proposal by an Ontariocompany (Nova Group) to secure a permit towithdraw Lake Superior water with the intent ofestablishing an overseas market for bulk waterexport. This event triggered passage of Regulation285/99 of the Ontario Water Resources Act,stipulating that “no person shall use water bytransferring it out of one of Ontario’s three waterbasins” (section 3(2)). In addition, the IJC com-pleted a study requested by Canada and the UnitedStates and released the corresponding report,Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes, inFebruary 2000. The report concludes that theecological integrity of the Great Lakes needsprotection, especially in light of the uncertainties,pressures and cumulative impacts from waterwithdrawals, consumption, population growth,economic growth and climate change. In December2001, Canada amended its Boundary Waters TreatyAct to prohibit bulk water removals from the GreatLakes and other boundary waters and to set in placea licensing regime for boundary waters projectssuch as dams and other works.

Addressing the precedent-setting nature of theproposal and the region’s response to it, the Councilof Great Lakes Governors issued a statement in1999 outlining a set of principles to guide thedevelopment and maintenance of a strengthenedwater resources management framework for theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River system. Thisstatement refocused regional discussion on theseissues and led to the development of the GreatLakes Charter Annex, signed by the governors andpremiers on June 18, 2001. The statement reaf-firmed the governors’ and premiers’ commitment tothe 1985 Charter, and outlined the following set ofprinciples for a water management regime:

• “It must protect the resource. Resourceprotection, restoration and conservationmust be the foundation for the legal stan-dard upon which decisions concerning waterwithdrawals are based.

• It must be durable. The framework fordecisions must be able to endure legalchallenges based upon, but not limited to,interstate commerce and international trade.It must be constitutionally sound on a bi-


national basis, and the citizens of the Basinmust support this framework.

• It must be simple. The process for makingdecisions and resolving disputes should bestraightforward, transparent and based oncommon sense.

• It must be efficient. Implementation of thedecisionmaking process should engageexisting authorities and institutions withoutnecessitating the establishment of new andlarge bureaucracies. The decisionmakingprocess should be flexible and responsive tothe demands it will confront.

• It must retain authority in the basin.Decisionmaking must remain vested inthose authorities, the Great Lakes governorsand premiers, who manage the resource on aday-to-day basis.”

In signing Annex 2001, the governors and pre-miers reaffirmed their commitment to the broadprinciples set forth in the Great Lakes Charter, butalso acknowledged the need to re-examine thestrength and adequacy of Charter provisions,particularly regarding the legal foundations uponwhich current regional water management authori-ties rest.

Annex 2001 is a non-binding agreement that servesas a blueprint for water management programs tobe developed over a period of several years. Annexobjectives were developed on the basis of state andprovincial experience with water management, andwere influenced by the Great Lakes Charter andSection 1109 of WRDA 1986. The Annex alsoreflects the governors’ 1999 statement on watermanagement, findings from the February 2000International Joint Commission reference studyreport on water export, and a study commissionedby the governors on Great Lakes and internationalwater law. That study was supported by the GreatLakes Protection Fund and completed in May 1999.

Annex 2001, through a series of six directives,commits the Great Lakes governors and premiersto the following:

• Developing a set of binding agreements;

• Developing a broad-based public participa-tion program;

• Establishing a new decisionmaking standardfor reviewing proposed withdrawals;

• Consulting with the premiers of Ontarioand Québec on proposed diversions of GreatLakes water under WRDA 1986;

• Developing a Water Resources ManagementDecision Support System;

• Additional commitments associated withimplementing the Annex.

The Resource and its Ecological/EconomicAttributesThe eight states and two provinces that constitutethe binational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Riverregion are blessed with an abundance of highquality fresh surface water. The Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system contains 6.5 quadrilliongallons (24.6 quadrillion litres) of fresh surfacewater, a full 20 percent of the world’s supply and 95percent of the supply in the contiguous UnitedStates. The magnitude of the resource has fosteredthe perception of a seemingly inexhaustible supplyof fresh water that can accommodate all currentand projected uses. In reality, the system’s waterresources are finite, intensively used and ecologi-cally fragile.

In recent years, renewed interest and attention hasbeen focused on Great Lakes water resourcesmanagement and water supply issues. This interesthas been generated, at least in part, from proposalsfor increased in-basin water use and out-of-basindiversions to nearby communities and beyond.These proposals have raised concerns that currentmanagement principles may not provide for sustain-able use of the basin’s water resources, and haveprompted studies and policy discussions at the state,provincial, regional and federal levels.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River systemrepresents a complex ecosystem with attributes thatare related to and dependent upon one another. Thenearshore zone is particularly important from botheconomic and ecological standpoints and is alsowhere the impacts from water withdrawals are mostdiscernable. Even minor chemical, physical orbiological changes that might have no immediatemeasurable impact from a systemwide standpointmay be important when viewed from a nearshore orsub-watershed perspective. Also, cumulativeimpacts from single or multiple withdrawals willoccur over time and space, and may even be seen ona systemwide scale.

The Management OpportunityThroughout North America, many aquifers, lakes,rivers and reservoirs are being stressed by with-drawals and diversions to meet the needs of cities,farms, homes and industries. The Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River region has historically been largelyimmune from serious, prolonged water shortages


and water supply problems. However, as other partsof the continent experience water supply shortages,the Great Lakes are increasingly viewed as a sourceof high quality freshwater to serve their needs. Theneeds of communities within Great Lakes jurisdic-tions that lie just outside Great Lakes basin bound-aries have also become a major policy issue. Impli-cations of this interest present a significant chal-lenge for policy officials.

While in-basin demand for Great Lakes water hasremained fairly constant over the past decade,uncertainty associated with long-term trends inlake level fluctuations, potential increases in waterdemand due to population and industrial growth,and regional consequences of global climatechange and other factors, has challenged the regionto compile and collect the data and informationnecessary for informed decisionmaking.Policymakers and scientists must also increase theirunderstanding of how small, localized changes tothe quality and quantity of Great Lakes waterresources impact the larger ecosystem, particularlywith regard to long-term and cumulative effects.

One major challenge to scientists and managersis to answer the questions, “how sensitive is thesystem to impacts associated with cumulativewithdrawals?” and “at what level can thoseimpacts be ascertained?” The ability to ad-equately respond to these questions is compli-cated by several factors. For example, the systemis no longer entirely natural. Changes, primarilyfor navigation and hydropower productionpurposes and improvements, have permanentlyaltered the flow regime. Dredging, diversions(both incoming and outgoing) and the construc-tion of locks, dams and controlling works havecreated changes that are orders of magnitudegreater than any changes that might occur fromsmall-scale withdrawal, diversion or exportprojects. In addition, anthropogenic changes to thenatural hydrologic/hydraulic regime have occurred(to a lesser extent) through consumptive uses andrelated resource demands since settlement began inthe region. These issues require scientifically sounddata and the formulation of socio-economicallyviable and environmentally responsible policies.This will be fundamentally important in providinga sustainable future for the region.

Project Background and ScopeIn early 2000, in response to the Great Lakesgovernors’ 1999 statement on water management,the Great Lakes Commission and numerous projectcollaborators were invited to prepare a proposal tothe Great Lakes Protection Fund. The proposedproject entailed an inventory and assessment ofavailable water resources information, along withrelated work, that would yield a framework for aWater Resources Management Decision SupportSystem (WRMDSS) for the Great Lakes. Theproposal was approved in June 2000.

The focus of the initiative evolved over time,influenced by Annex deliberations that began in late2001. Additional tasks were subsequently added tothe work plan to address issues that include areview/evaluation of consumptive use coefficients;an examination of water conservation programsand associated elements; and an examination of the“resource improvement standard” concept embodiedin Annex 2001 and its prospective application.

This final project report addresses the status andavailability of data, information, models and otherresources required to support the development of aWRMDSS. It includes an assessment of waterresources data compiled to support a water balancefor the Great Lakes; water withdrawal, diversionand consumptive use information; and a descriptionof models and resources related to the ecologicaleffects of water withdrawals. Further, state andprovincial water resource management programsand practices are characterized and, to the extentpossible, evaluated with regard to requirements ofthe Great Lakes Charter. Report products and

Billboard off an interstate highway in Michigan shows heightenedawareness of the need to manage Great Lakes water resources


information also include an evaluation of data andinformation gaps and needs, with an eye towarddata and information requirements to fully supportAnnex 2001 implementation.

The project scope addresses the importance ofscale (both geographic and temporal) in the assess-ment of data and information availability, require-ments and needs. The ability to discern impacts andthe importance of those impacts will vary depend-ing on where a potential withdrawal or diversion isoccurring within the system. For example, the data,information requirements and models used to assessthe impacts of a water withdrawal from the GreatLakes themselves will vary significantly from thedata, information and models required to assess awithdrawal at the sub-watershed level. The waythat this issue is presented and addressed variesthroughout the report and is a function of thedifferent project element work plans. Some projectelements focused on the larger, systemwide dataand information requirements, while other ele-ments, such as the ecological impacts component,focus more on the importance of discerningimpacts at the sub-watershed level. Any decisionsupport system will likely have to accommodate thedifferent spatial and temporal scales that could beassociated with water withdrawal and use.

It is important to note that data and informationrequirements are just one component of a decisionsupport system. Many other components, such asthe legal foundation, decisionmaking process andinstitutional frameworkmust be addressed aswell. Thus, this projectrepresents one veryimportant piece ofwhat is necessary toinform the next step indeveloping and design-ing an actual decisionsupport system forGreat Lakes-St.Lawrence River waterwithdrawal projects. Itmust be augmented bywork in other areas as aWRMDSS is designed,tested and imple-mented.

Project Process and AccomplishmentsThe Great Lakes Commission and its collaboratorsare providing the data, information and a needsassessment to assist the governors and premiers inthe design and implementation of a WRMDSS.This initiative has also produced several majorproducts, which, singly and collectively, willstrengthen water quantity decisionmaking andmanagement processes. Five project elements werepursued as follows:

Detailed Project Design and Infrastructure(Project Element One)The Great Lakes Commission established a formalproject administrative structure, identified manage-ment team responsibilities, and defined the role andresponsibility of project stakeholders. The adminis-trative structure provided for a Project Manage-ment Team (PMT), a Stakeholders AdvisoryCommittee (SAC), a Project Secretariat (GreatLakes Commission staff) and three technicalsubcommittees (TSCs) (see Figure 1-1). The PMT,with representatives from each of the ten GreatLakes states and provinces and the U.S. and Cana-dian federal agencies with a major water resourcesrelated role or mandate, provided overall leadershipand direction in the design and conduct of allproject elements. The SAC, comprised of policy andtechnical experts from other regional and federalagencies as well as citizen, environmental, andindustry groups, provided valuable information and

Figure 1-1Project infrastructure schematic


advice on the project. The TSCs, comprised ofexperts on topical areas, contributed to work onProject Elements Two through Four: a StatusAssessment of Water Resources; an Inventory ofWater Withdrawal and Use; and an Inventory ofInformation on Ecological Impacts.

Status Assessment of Water Resources(Project Element Two)One of the baseline activities of this effort was thecompilation of data and information on the GreatLakes hydrologic system and the completion andupdate of a water balance. This approach involvedassembling data and information associated withboth ground and surface water resources based onhydrologic variables such as precipitation, runoff,evaporation, groundwater levels and connectingchannel flows. This assessment lays the ground-work for a WRMDSS that is applicable to a broadrange of variables and geographic areas rangingfrom small sub-basins (e.g., a single tributary) tothe entire system. An important component of thework for this element included a series of threeflows accounting workshops that examined con-necting channel flows, diversions and other inputsand outputs to the Great Lakes system. A criticalpart of the overall characterization and interpreta-tion of the available hydrologic data was to quanti-tatively and qualitatively identify uncertaintiesassociated with measures or estimates of thevarious components of the Great Lakes waterbalance.

Inventory of Water Withdrawal and Use(Project Element Three)An understanding of the demand for Great Lakeswater resources, such as the amount of waterwithdrawn and used on a daily, monthly or annualbasis, is valuable information for scientists workingon the water balance. It is also crucial in developingwater budgets at the watershed and sub-watershedlevel, and vital to the understanding of cumulativeimpacts associated with increases in demand overtime.

Every day, nearly one trillion gallons (about 3.75trillion liters) of water are withdrawn or usedinstream for industrial, municipal, agricultural,power generation and other purposes, according todata provided by the Great Lakes states andprovinces to a Great Lakes Commission-managedregional water use database. While these numbersinform the discussion of water use activities in theGreat Lakes basin in a broad sense, there have beenlong-standing concerns over the quality, quantityand compatibility of water use data provided by the

jurisdictions to the regional database. This lack ofhigh quality, comprehensive and uniform data hascontributed to the region’s inability to moveforward on important activities such as demandforecasting, conducting trend analyses and develop-ing water budgets at the watershed level. Recogniz-ing this area as one of critical need, the projectpartners have focused significant effort on docu-menting data gaps and information needs andproviding guidance to the states and provinces onways to improve water use data collection andreporting activities.

With the Great Lakes Regional Water Use Data-base as a foundation, the Commission staff, withoversight from the Water Withdrawal and UseTechnical Subcommittee, assessed the latest avail-able water use data as it relates to withdrawals, in-stream uses, diversions and consumptive use.Beginning in the late 1980s, the states and prov-inces, through their Water Resources ManagementCommittee and its Technical Work Group, estab-lished parameters for data collection and reporting.Data is compiled by each jurisdiction for ninecategories of use and presented in aggregate formon an annual basis, broken down by jurisdiction,lake basin and category of use. Technical subcom-mittee members used the 1998 water use reportprocess as an opportunity to evaluate data andinformation needs, methodologies for data collec-tion and reporting, and the database’s functionality.

Other significant work products include an evalua-tion of ways to improve the utility of and access towater use data by decisionmakers and other stake-holders; a detailed state/provincial water useprograms report; briefing papers on consumptiveuse and water conservation; and a scenarios processto evaluate water withdrawal and use data andinformation needs for decisionmaking. Research onwater conservation was pursued to support theAnnex’s directive for a decisionmaking standardthat includes water conservation measures. Al-though this topic was not part of the originalproject work plan, the PMT agreed that waterconservation can inform the decision supportprocess and, consequently, authorized the additionalresearch.

Inventory of Information on EcologicalImpacts (Project Element Four)The Great Lakes hydrologic system is dynamic andhighly complex. Levels and flows within the systemconstantly fluctuate in response to both natural andhuman-induced factors, and alterations to thissystem have an ecological effect that can be cumula-tive, occurring over space and time. Experts


generally agree that demands on Great Lakes waterresources are likely to increase and impacts on theGreat Lakes basin ecosystem likely will intensify.Enhanced understanding of ecological/biologicalimpacts (local and systemwide) associated withincreased water withdrawal and use will be key toformulating scientifically sound resource manage-ment decisions.

This project element includes three discrete activi-ties. The scientific literature on the ecologicalimpacts of water use and changes in levels andflows provided information on the status of currentknowledge. A descriptive inventory of models withprospective relevance to ecological impacts ofwater withdrawals complemented informationgathered through the literature search. The Com-mission staff also convened an “Experts Workshop”which brought together U.S. and Canadian scien-tists with policy and management officials todetermine how scientific understanding andmodeling capabilities can be incorporated into adecision support system. A third discrete projecttask involved a focus group approach to determin-ing the potential definitions and application of a“resource improvement standard” that might beapplied to water withdrawal and use proposals. Abriefing paper and one-day workshop helped informfuture discussion on this topic as called for inDirective #3 of the Annex.

Project Synthesis and Next Steps(Project Element Five)The many individual work products associated withthe project have been synthesized and presented ina manner that will ensure immediate use and benefitto the Great Lakes states and provinces and otherrelevant parties. A comprehensive series of findingsand recommendations associated with each of theproject elements and their products, as developedby the TSCs and agreed to by the PMT in consulta-tion with the SAC, was the primary focus of projectelement activity. This included identification ofgaps and unmet needs associated with the projectwork.

Many preliminary findings and recommendationswere derived from a project-wide “scenarios work-shop” that bridged the work of the technicalproducts by visualizing how water use proposalsmay be reviewed under decisionmaking mechanismsdeveloped through the Annex process. The work-shop also provided an improved understanding ofthe consequences of cumulative effects over timeand space and highlighted the need to address thistopic in future decisionmaking strategies.

Report FormatThis report provides a description of the results ofthe work done through the WRMDSS project andpresents findings and recommendations that haveresulted from that work. These findings andrecommendations are explicitly addressed withineach chapter, and then are brought together cohe-sively in Chapter eight.

This written report and the many supportingdocuments that have resulted from this projectprovide a wealth of information about the waterresources and associated policies related to theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. Along withthe various briefing papers and technical reports,the appendices include background information onGreat Lakes regional water resources management,annotated bibliographies, a summary project workplan, and a list of project participants. The projecttechnical reports and various appendices areattached in CD-ROM form and are available atwww.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss/.

ReferencesCouncil of Great Lakes Governors. 1999. A State-

ment on Protecting the Great Lakes: ManagingDiversions and Bulk Water Exports. 15 October.

Great Lakes Governors Task Force on WaterDiversion and Great Lakes Institutions. 1985.Final Report and Recommendations: A report tothe governors and premiers of the Great Lakesstates and provinces prepared at the request ofthe Council of Great Lakes Governors. January.



Great Lakes Commission. 2002. Annual Report ofthe Great Lakes Regional Water Use DatabaseRepository Representing 1998 Water Use Data.

International Joint Commission. 2000. Protection ofthe Waters of the Great Lakes: Final Report tothe Governments of Canada and the UnitedStates.

Ontario Regulation 285/99. Ontario Water Re-sources Act.

Treaty Between the United States and Great BritainRelating to Boundary Waters, and QuestionsArising Between the United States and Canada.11 Jan. 1909.

42 US Code Sec. 1962d. Water Resources Develop-ment Act (1986, amended 2000).

Chapter Two - Status Assessment of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Water Resources- 27

Chapter TwoStatus Assessment of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Water Resources

IntroductionIn June 2001, the governors and premiers of theeight Great Lakes states and two provinces signedan Annex to the 1985 Great Lakes Charter. TheAnnex calls for, among other items, hydrologic dataand information to support a new decision standardregarding proposals to withdraw water from theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. No currentmonitoring networks are designed with the specificpurpose of providing this decision support.

Great Lakes levels and flows are monitored bymany federal, state and provincial agencies, and aredone for a number of purposes, including floods,droughts, transportation, and regulatory issues.Monitoring is typically long-term and at the coreof agency missions.

This chapter, a product of Project Element Two(Status Assessment of Water Resources), summa-rizes Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River systemhydrology and explains how levels and flows aremeasured, discusses uncertainty in measurementsof levels and flows, and recommends improvementsto current monitoring that will provide support fordecisionmaking under Annex 2001. More detailedinformation is available from two other projectreports: The Great Lakes Water Balance: Data Avail-ability and Annotated Bibliography of Selected Refer-ences (Neff and Killian, 2003) and Uncertainty inthe Great Lakes Water Balance (Neff et al., publica-tion pending). Specific information on flows from1948 to 1998 can be found in Croley et al. (2001).

This decision support system project was proposedand initiated prior to the signing of the Annex inJune 2001. Most of the work on Project ElementTwo was designed to evaluate the extent, contentand accuracy of water resources data and informa-tion on a lake-wide or systemwide scale. Publica-tions resulting from Project Element Two focusedon levels and flows in the context of net basinsupplies to each Great Lake. This chapter buildsupon that work and also evaluates water resourcesdata and information in the context of Annex 2001.Emphasis is placed on relating the magnitude ofuncertainties associated with levels and flowswithin the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system

to those uncertainties associated with cumulativewithdrawals and their effects. This status assess-ment does not address hydrologic conditionsbeyond the international reach of the St. LawrenceRiver, even though impacts can occur downstream.

Physical SettingThe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system iscomprised of: 1) Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron,Erie and Ontario; 2) their connecting channels, theSt. Marys River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair,Detroit River and Niagara River; and 3) the St.Lawrence River, which carries the waters of theGreat Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. The system alsoincludes several man-made canals and controlstructures that either interconnect the Great Lakesor connect the Great Lakes to other river systems.

The Great Lakes basin, including the internationalsection of the St. Lawrence River above Cornwall,Ontario/Massena, New York, covers about 302,000square miles (782,000 square kilometers). It in-cludes parts of eight states and one province:Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Ontario. Fifty-nine percent of the surface area of the Great Lakesbasin is in the United States; 41 percent is inCanada. The Great Lakes basin is about 700 miles(1,100 kilometers) long measured north to southand about 900 miles (1,500 kilometers) long mea-sured west to east, at the outlet of Lake Ontario atCornwall, Ontario/Massena, New York. The St.Lawrence River below Cornwall, Ontario/Massena,New York is about 540 miles (870 kilometers) longand flows through the provinces of Ontario andQuébec.

Surface and groundwater flows are significantlyaffected by the surficial geology and topography ofthe Great Lakes basin, which is variable. Pre-Cambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks surroundmost of Lake Superior and northern Lake Huron, inwhat is known as the Pre-Cambrian Shield physi-ographic region. This area is very rocky and haslittle or no overburden. The remainder of the GreatLakes basin is in the Central Lowlands physi-ographic region and is covered mostly by uncon-solidated deposits from glaciers and glacial meltwa-ter. Thickness of the glacial deposits ranges from


less than one foot to more than 1000 feet (0.3 to 300meters). The topography in the Central Lowlands isgenerally flat and rolling.

In 1990, the population of the Great Lakes basinwas about 33 million. About 52 percent of theGreat Lakes basin is forested; 35 percent is inagricultural uses; 7 percent is urban/suburban; and6 percent is in other uses. Major industries in theGreat Lakes basin include manufacturing, tourism,and agriculture, valued at about $308 billion, $82billion, and $48 billion (U.S.) per year, respectively.

Hydrologic SettingThe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River hydrologicsystem is complex and highly dynamic. The LakeSuperior basin is at the upstream end of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River system. Lake Superiordischarges into Lake Huron by way of the St.Marys River. The St. Marys River has a long-termaverage flow of 76,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)(2,150 cubic meters per second (cms)). Lake Supe-rior outflows have been as high as 132,000 cfs(3,740 cms) and as low as 41,000 cfs (1,160 cms) permonth. Lakes Huron and Michigan are usuallyconsidered as one lake hydraulically, due to theirconnection at the Straits of Mackinac. Lake Huronis connected to Lake Erie by the St. Clair River,Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. Lake Eriedischarges to Lake Ontario through the NiagaraRiver. A small portion of water from Lake Erie alsoreaches Lake Ontario by way of the Welland Canaland the DeCew Falls power plant tailrace. LakeOntario discharges to the St. Lawrence River, whichhas a long-term average flow of about 242,000 cfs(6,870 cms) at Cornwall, Ontario/Massena, NewYork. Lake Ontario outflows have been as high as350,000 cfs (9,910 cms) and as low as 154,000 cfs(4,360 cms).

Dredging, control structures,locks, dams, hydroelectricfacilities, canals and diversionshave altered the hydrology ofthe Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver system. Of these,dredging and outflow controlhave been the most significant.Dredging has had a majorpermanent impact on waterlevels on the middle GreatLakes. Dredging in the St.Clair and Detroit rivers beganas early as 1855. Furtherimprovements were madeincrementally to deepen thesenavigation channels, with

major dredging projects occurring in the 1930s and1960s. In addition, sand mining occurred in the St.Clair River from 1909 through 1926 to supportlocal manufacturing. From 1880 to 1965, dredgingand/or sand mining in the St. Clair River caused apermanent lowering of Lake Michigan-Huron byabout 14 inches (35 centimeters).

Outflow control structures at the outlets of LakeSuperior and Lake Ontario keep the levels of theselakes regulated within a range that is smaller thanthe range of levels that would occur under naturaloutflow conditions. The outflow from Lake Superiorhas been affected by human modifications begin-ning in 1822, with subsequent expansions occur-ring over time. The current outflow control struc-tures have been in place since 1921. Outflows areadjusted monthly under the direction of theInternational Joint Commission (IJC) with anobjective of maintaining the water levels on lakesSuperior and Michigan-Huron in relative balance totheir long-term seasonal averages. The St.Lawrence Seaway and Power Project, opened in1960, incorporates outflow control structures toregulate Lake Ontario water levels, maintainhydropower operations, provide adequate depths forcommercial navigation, and protect the lower St.Lawrence River from flooding.

The surface area of the Great Lakes, their connect-ing channels and the St. Lawrence River coverapproximately 32 percent of the entire GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River basin above Cornwall,Ontario/Massena, New York. Figure 2-1 providesthe volume of each of the Great Lakes as well asthe areas of the land and lake components of theirindividual basins. For example, the total area of theLake Superior basin is 81,000 square miles (210,000square kilometers). The surface area of LakeSuperior itself is 31,700 square miles (82,100

Figure 2-1 Volumes and areas of the Great Lakes


square kilometers), or 39 percent of its entire basinarea. In contrast, the surface area of Lake Ontario,7,340 square miles (18,960 square kilometers), isonly 23 percent of the Lake Ontario basin.

Clearly, the proportion of a lake’s basin area that islake surface area directly affects the amount andtiming of water that comes into a lake as precipita-tion directly on the lake’s surface and as runofffrom its tributary streams. It also affects the amountof water lost through evaporation from its surface.

The Great Lakes basin climate varies widely due toits long north-south extent and the effects of theGreat Lakes on nearshore temperatures and precipi-tation. For instance, the mean January temperatureranges from -2o Fahrenheit (-19o Celsius) in thenorth to 28o Fahrenheit (-2o Celsius) in the south,and the mean July temperature ranges from 64o

Fahrenheit (18o Celsius) in the north to 74o Fahren-heit (23o Celsius) in the south. Precipitation isdistributed relatively uniformly throughout the year,but does have variability west to east across theGreat Lakes basin, ranging from a mean annualprecipitation of 28 inches (71 centimeters) north ofLake Superior to 52 inches (132 centimeters) east ofLake Ontario. Mean annual snowfall is much morevariable because of temperature differences fromnorth to south and the snowbelt areas near the eastside of each lake. For instance, in the southern areasof the Great Lakes basin, annual snowfall is about20 inches (51 centimeters) whereas, in snowbeltareas downwind of lakes Superior and Ontario,snowfall can be as high as 140 inches (355 centime-ters). Wind is also an important component of theGreat Lakes climate. During all seasons, the pre-dominant wind directions have a westerly compo-nent. In fall and winter, very strong winds arecommon on the Great Lakes in nearshore areas dueto temperature differences between the lakes andthe air moving over them.

Fluctuations in Great Lakes water levels are theresult of several natural factors and may also beinfluenced by human activities. These factorsoperate on a time scale that varies from hours toyears. The levels of the Great Lakes depend ontheir storage capacity, outflow characteristics of theoutlet channels, operating procedures of theregulatory structures, and the amount of watersupply received by each lake. The primary naturalfactors affecting lake levels include precipitation onthe lakes, run-off from the drainage basin, evapora-tion from the lake surface, inflow from upstreamlakes, and outflow to the downstream lakes. Man-made factors include diversions into or out of the

Great Lakes basin, consumption of water, dredgingof outlet channels and regulation of outflows.

Three types of water-level fluctuations occur on theGreat Lakes. Long-term (or multi-year) fluctuationsresult from persistent low or high water supplies.Seasonal (one-year) fluctuations of the Great Lakeslevels reflect the annual hydrologic cycle, which ischaracterized by higher net basin supplies duringthe spring and early summer, and lower net basinsupplies during the remainder of the year. Short-term fluctuations (lasting from less than an hour toseveral days) occur as water levels set-up (rise) orset-down (fall) due to wind and barometric pressuredifferences over the lake surface. Set-up is alsoreferred to as storm surge. While all of the GreatLakes are affected by these meteorologic-inducedphenomena, Lake Erie is particularly prone tomajor set-up/set-down events, occasionally causingmajor water level differences between Buffalo, NewYork, and Monroe, Michigan, of 12 feet (3.6meters) or more. Such large events are almostalways followed by seiches that can disturb waterlevels for two to three days. A seiche is the freeoscillation of water in a closed or semi-closed basin;it is frequently observed in harbors, bays, lakes, andin almost any distinct basin of moderate size. Windgenerated waves are superimposed on all threecategories of water-level fluctuations.

Short-term changes in outflows can occur as aresult of storm surge or seiches. If water levelsincrease at the outlet end of the lake, outflows cantemporarily increase. Conversely, if levels decline atthe outlet end of the lake, outflows will be reduced.The Detroit River descends nearly 3.0 feet (0.9meters) in the 32 miles (51 kilometers) that it flowsfrom Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie. This makes flowsthrough the Detroit River particularly sensitive towind set-up and seiche on Lake Erie. During timesof wind set-up at the west end of Lake Erie, theflow in the Detroit River slows dramatically.Researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration (NOAA), Great LakesEnvironmental Research Laboratory have docu-mented short-term flow reversals under wind set-ups at the western end of Lake Erie.

The flows in the outlet rivers of the lakes duringthe winter are often constrained by ice formationand occasionally by ice jamming, with the St. Clairand Detroit rivers being most affected. Ice boomsdeployed upstream of the Niagara River andthroughout the St. Lawrence River help stabilize icecover in these rivers, reducing ice retardation mostof the time. Ice conditions are a consequence ofprevailing climate conditions, and their severity and


exact timing are not predictable for any specificwinter. Plant growth in the rivers during thesummer also creates flow retardation, and variesfrom river to river. Plant growth is also variablefrom year to year, since it is affected by changes inwater temperatures.

Over time, water levels throughout the Great Lakesare affected by isostatic rebound, often referred toas crustal movement. Isostatic rebound is thegradual rising of the earth’s crust from the removalof the weight of the glaciers that covered the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River region during the last iceage. The phenomenon of crustal movement wasrecognized as early as 1869 (Clark and Persoage,1970). The rate of movement is not uniformthroughout the region and results in differentialrates of change between specific sites, as shown in

Figure 2-2 (USACE and GLC 1999). Generally, therates around lakes Superior and Ontario are greaterthan those around lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie.

The effects on water levels of differential crustalmovement can be visualized if the lakes are consid-ered to be basins that are tilting by a gradual risingof their northeastern rims. Generally, water depthsalong the southern or western shores relative to thelake’s outlet are increasing for a given average lakelevel as time goes by, while levels along the north-ern or eastern shores are becoming shallower. OnLake Superior, for example, the axis of mean

crustal movement runs from the internationalborder south of Thunder Bay, Ontario, through thelake’s outlet at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan andOntario. The average land-to-water relationshiparound the lake remains unaffected by crustalmovement under stable natural outlet conditions,but water depths recorded along its shorelineseither increase or decrease depending on theirlocation relative to this axis of movement. Thisdiscussion is important to the implementation ofthe Charter Annex because reductions of waterlevels caused by cumulative withdrawals in onelocation could be offset or exacerbated by localeffects of differential crustal rebound. An exampleof this situation would be the Cootes Paradisewetland complex on the western end of LakeOntario. A theoretical 4-inch (10 centimeter) dropin water levels in this area over a 35-year period

caused by cumulativewithdrawals would becompletely offset by anincrease in depth of thesame magnitude causedby differential crustalrebound.

Levels and FlowsWater levels of theGreat Lakes, and flowsinto and out of thelakes, are measured orcalculated at hundredsof locations throughoutthe Great Lakes basin.Although lake levels aremeasured directly, mostflows are based onestimates or measure-ments of other param-eters and are calculatedusing simple models.

Many agencies conduct the continuous and long-term monitoring necessary for maintaining acurrent understanding of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system. Funding sources formonitoring are diverse, ranging from federalgovernments to state, provincial and municipalagencies, and the private sector. For instance, inCanada, the national streamflow-gauging networkis funded and operated under cost sharing agree-ments between the Canadian federal governmentand the individual provinces and territories.Additional gauges are funded and operated byagencies such as power entities, municipalities andother federal departments. The U.S. streamflow-

Figure 2-2.Rates of isostatic rebound


gauging network has more than 100 differentsources of funding. The monitoring is continuousand long-term because levels and flows are highlyvariable temporally and spatially. Variations inlevels and flows can significantly affect navigation,hydroelectric power generation, drinking waterintakes, shoreline erosion, and other uses andconditions of the waters of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system.

LevelsThe water levels of the Great Lakes and connectingchannels are measured for numerous reasons.Instantaneous, daily, monthly and long-termaverage water levels are used to help meet regula-tory requirements, assist with commercial andrecreational navigation, operate hydroelectric powerstations, predict future water levels, and calculatechanges in storage in each lake.

Water levels are measured or gauged at over 100locations along the shore on the Great Lakes andtheir connecting channels by NOAA and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the UnitedStates and by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).NOAA operates 50 permanent and several seasonalwater level gauges along the Great Lakes shoreline,the connecting channels and the St. LawrenceRiver. The USACE operates 17 water level gaugeson the St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit and Niagararivers. Similarly, DFO operates 34 permanent waterlevel gauges on the Canadian side of the border aspart of its national network. Water levels atboth U.S. and Canadian gauges are measuredand reported to the nearest millimeter, al-though the sampling methods used by eachagency differ. Daily average levels calculatedby each agency, however, are consideredequivalent for calculation purposes. Water leveldata recorded by NOAA, USACE and DFO attheir respective gauge stations are availablefrom these agencies via the Internet. Powerentities and others operate additional gauges,principally on the Niagara and St. Lawrencerivers, to meet their specific needs.

Great Lakes levels are expressed in two ways,either as: 1) an elevation above sea level or;2)as an amount above or below Chart Datumon the lake or connecting channel where thegauge is located. Great Lakes water levels arecurrently referenced to the International GreatLakes Datum of 1985 (IGLD85). The impactof differential crustal movement on GreatLakes water levels requires that this datum beupdated every 30 to 35 years. IGLD85 is thesecond internationally coordinated Great

Lakes datum, replacing IGLD55. The IGLD isupdated by the Vertical Control-Water LevelsSubcommittee of the Coordinating Committee onGreat Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data.

The USACE and Environment Canada calculateand report lake-wide daily and monthly mean levelsfor each of the Great Lakes under the auspices ofthe Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes BasicHydraulic and Hydrologic Data. The lake-wideaverage water levels are calculated from selectedNOAA and DFO water level gauges on each lake,which account for short-term water level distur-bances and long-term effects of differential crustalmovement. The level of lakes Michigan and Huronare reported as a single number due to theirhydraulic connection. The daily and monthly lake-wide average levels are reported to the nearestcentimeter, which is considered adequate foroperational and public information purposes.Information on how to find and obtain lake leveldata is provided by Neff and Killian (2003).

FlowsFlows into and out of the Great Lakes includetributary streamflow (also referred to as basinrunoff), groundwater, precipitation, evaporation,connecting channel and St. Lawrence River flows,diversions and consumptive uses. Consumptive usesare a very small percentage of the total flows andare discussed in Chapter three. Figure 2-3 shows

Figure 2-3 Flows into and out of the Great Lakes


the magnitude of each hydrologic component foreach of the lakes.

StreamflowStreamflow is a large part of each Great Lake’sinflow, but the percentage varies from one lake tothe next. Figure 2-4 depicts the relative role ofstreamflow for each lake. Excluding inflows fromconnecting channels, which are discussed sepa-rately, streamflow is 46 percent of the inflow toLake Michigan-Huron and 67 percent of the inflowto Lake Ontario. This variability is primarily afunction of the land-to-lake surface ratio in eachlake basin.

Tributary streamflow is measured or gauged atseveral hundred locations throughout the GreatLakes basin. Gauged areas account for about 60percent of the land area of the Great Lakes water-shed. Streamflow in most gauged watersheds iscalculated from continuous measurements of waterlevel (or stage) and used to model a stage-dischargerelationship. The relationship of stage to dischargeis periodically checked and updated by directmeasurements of discharge at gauging locations. Afew gauging locations are not suitable for genera-tion of a stage-discharge relationship and, at theselocations, other types of measurements or modelsare employed.

Streamflow from ungauged areas is not typicallycalculated by monitoring agencies. However, NOAAdoes regularly calculate monthly mean streamflowfrom ungauged areas for calculations of net basinsupply. These calculations use a simple procedurethat relates ungauged streamflow to streamflow-drainage area ratios in nearby gauged watersheds.

Historical and current streamflow data can beobtained from agencies that collect, publish andarchive the data. The two principal sources of dataare the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Envi-ronment Canada. Information on how to find andobtain streamflow data is provided by Neff andKillian (2003).

GroundwaterThe amount of groundwater that dischargesdirectly into the Great Lakes, their connectingchannels and the St. Lawrence River is smallrelative to other flows into the Great Lakes and isnot measured. For these reasons, direct groundwa-ter discharge is typically ignored in water-balancecomputations and discussions of flows into and outof the Great Lakes. A summary of the availableliterature on this topic is included in Neff andKillian (2003). Locally, direct groundwater dis-charge to the Great Lakes may be important toaquatic ecosystems. However, a literature search did

not yield information on therelation of groundwater toaquatic ecosystems in theGreat Lakes proper, theirconnecting channels or the St.Lawrence River.

Groundwater also dischargesto the Great Lakes, theirconnecting channels and theSt. Lawrence River indirectlyby way of tributary streams.From the perspective of long-term water-balance calcula-

tions for the Great Lakes proper, this indirectgroundwater discharge can be ignored because it isa part of streamflow computations. From a watermanagement perspective, however, indirect ground-water discharge must be calculated because itsupports instream ecosystems by maintaining baseflows and moderating water temperatures. It alsoallows for computation of allowable point dis-charges during periods of low flow. In some cases,groundwater discharge may be a significant sourceof nonpoint source pollution in streams.

In much of the Great Lakes basin, indirect ground-water discharge is a large percentage of the totalamount of streamflow, as shown in Figure 2-5. Thepercentage of streamflow attributable to groundwa-ter is typically calculated by use of long-termstreamflow records and application of baseflow-separation models. However, these calculations arereliable only in areas where human factors such asflow regulation and wastewater discharge areminimal. Binational efforts are currently underwayto expand, and improve upon, earlier calculations byHoltschlag and Nicholas (1998).

Each aquifer that contributes groundwater to theGreat Lakes or their tributary streams has a“potentiometric surface,” which is a measure of thestatic head of groundwater in an encased well. Thispotentiometric surface is similar to the earth’s

Figure 2-4 Inflows to the Great Lakes (excluding connecting channel inflows)


surface in that it has groundwater divides that areanalogous to surface watershed divides. Unlikesurface water divides, groundwater divides are notstatic and may vary in response to groundwaterwithdrawals. Groundwater on one side of thedivide flows toward the Great Lakes; groundwateron the other side flows away from the Great Lakes.Only a part of the Great Lakes region and onlysome of the aquifers have mapped potentiometricsurfaces and groundwater divides. In the remainderof the region, the area that contributes groundwa-ter to the Great Lakes is unknown.

PrecipitationPrecipitation directly on the Great Lakes basin is alarge part of each Great Lake’s inflow as shown inFigure 2-4. The percentage varies from one lake toanother, and is largely a function of the land-to-lake surface ratio in each lake basin.

Precipitation is measured or gauged at hundreds oflocations in the Great Lakes basin. All of thesegauges are on land; precipitation over the lakesurface is calculated by interpolation of data fromthese gauges. Modern radar technologies aredeployed in the United States and Canada tocalculate precipitation over land masses. Thesesystems have the potential for estimating precipita-tion over lake surfaces as well but, heretofore, havenot been exploited for this application.

Historical and current precipitation data fromgauges can be obtained from agencies that collect,publish and archive the data. The two principal

sources of data are the National Climate DataCenter, in the United States and the NationalArchives and Data Management Branch, Atmo-spheric Monitoring and Water Survey Directorate,Meteorological Service of Canada. Historicalmonthly over-lake precipitation calculations foreach lake are available in Croley et al. (2001).Information regarding how to find and obtainprecipitation data is discussed by Neff and Killian(2003).

EvaporationEvaporation from the surface of the Great Lakes isa large part of each Great Lake’s outflow as shownin Figure 2-6. The percentage varies from one laketo another depending primarily upon the area ofthe lake surface as compared to the area of thewatershed draining to the lake. Much of theseasonal decline the lakes experience each fall andearly winter is due to the increase in evaporationfrom their surfaces when cool, dry air passes overthe relatively warm water of the lakes.

Evaporation is not measured directly; it is calcu-lated using a computer model developed by Croley(1989). Most parameters used to calculate evapora-tion (e.g., air temperature, wind speed, relativehumidity) are measured at on-shore locations. Sincethe early 1990s, satellite imagery and other remotesensing techniques have been used to calculatesurface water temperatures. Historical monthlyevaporation calculations for each lake are availablein Croley et al. (2001).

ConnectingChannels and theSt. Lawrence RiverConnecting channelflows are a large partof each Great Lake’soutflow. The percent-age increases down-stream through theGreat Lakes as shownin Figure 2-6.Increased dischargesare due to theadditional overlandand over-lake watersupplies to theimmediate upstreamlake.

Flows in all of theconnecting channelsand the St. Lawrence

Figure 2-5 Average groundwater and surface-runoff components of streamflow

in the United States portion of the Great Lakes basin


River have been altered by human activities since1855. Some of these flow modifications have notbeen compensated for, effectively causing a perma-nent change in hydraulic conditions (higher or

lower water levels) upstream of their locations.Major hydraulic regime changes occurred through-out the system when the navigation channels weredeepened to 25 feet in 1933-1936 and to 27 feet in1960-1962.

Connecting channel and St. Lawrence River flowsare measured or calculated using avariety of methods specific to each.Flows in the St. Marys River,Niagara River and St. LawrenceRiver are calculated as the sum offlows through power plants,selected river sections, shippinglocks, and other structures. Astage-discharge relationship is alsoavailable for the upper NiagaraRiver that is used for operationaland modeling purposes. Flows inthe St. Clair and Detroit rivers arecalculated from measurements ofstage using a set of stage-fall-discharge relationships. Theserelationships accommodate therange of vegetative growth and iceconditions that can occur in the St.Clair-Detroit rivers system.Periodic discharge measurements are used to verifyand update stage-fall-discharge relations and powerplant or control structure rating curves.

Historical connecting channel flows can be obtainedfrom the agencies that collect, publish and archivethe data. The Hydraulic Subcommittee of theCoordinating Committee on Great Lakes BasicHydraulic and Hydrologic Data regularly meets todiscuss and agree upon binationally accepted flowvalues. Binationally coordinated data from thissubcommittee are calculated and published, typi-cally in response to a reference from the IJC.

Information regarding how to find and obtainconnecting channel flow data is discussed by Neffand Killian (2003).

DiversionsDiversions account for only asmall portion of total GreatLakes flows. Diversions areeither interbasin, transferringwater into or out of the GreatLakes basin, or intrabasin,transferring water from oneGreat Lake to another.

There are three major and fiveminor interbasin diversions,listed in Figure 2-7, which usesa logarithmic scale so that

diversions of different orders of magnitude can becompared. The Long Lac and Ogoki diversions aremajor diversions that transfer water from theHudson Bay watershed to Lake Superior. The LakeMichigan Diversion at Chicago, Illinois, is a majordiversion that transfers water from Lake Michigan

to the Illinois River watershed. Minor interbasindiversions are Forestport, New York (out of LakeOntario), Portage Canal, Indiana (into Lake Michi-gan), Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin (out of LakeMichigan), Ohio & Erie Canal (into Lake Erie) andAkron, Ohio (out of and into Lake Erie).

Some intrabasin diversions – the Welland Canal,the New York State Barge Canal and the RaisinRiver Diversion – are measured and accounted foras part of the outflow of their respective GreatLake. The remaining intrabasin diversions –Detroit, London and Haldimand – are generally

Figure 2-6.Outflows from the Great Lakes (Note: Intrabasin diversions are included in outflows)

Figure 2-7 Interbasin diversions (logarithmic scale)


ignored in water-balance computations becausethey are relatively small compared to other flows asshown in Figure 2-8, which also uses a logarithmicscale.

Diversions are mea-sured or calculatedusing a variety ofmethods specific toeach diversion. Infor-mation on how to findand obtain flow data fordiversions is providedby Neff and Killian(2003).

Variability of Levelsand FlowsLevels and flows in theGreat Lakes basin arehighly variable, sug-gesting the need forcontinuous, long-termmonitoring. Factorsaffecting levels andflows are variations inclimate, diversions andoutflow regulation.Variation in climate, both temporal and spatial, isthe major factor affecting levels and flows, dwarfingthe other two factors.

Long-term variability in water levels results frompersistent low or high water supplies. Such variabil-ity caused extremely low levels on some lakes in1926, the mid-1930s and mid-1960s, and extremely

high levels in years such as 1952, 1973, 1985-86 and1997. The intervals between periods of high andlow levels, and the length of such periods, can varywidely over a number of years and only some of

the lakes may be affected. The rangesof levels on lakes Michigan-Huron,Erie and Ontario reflect not only thefluctuation in supplies from their ownbasins, but also the fluctuations of theinflow from upstream lakes.

The historical record for levels ofLake Superior from 1860-1999 isshown in Figure 2-9. This plotdemonstrates the long-term variabil-ity of water levels primarily affectedby climate variability. Lake levelsderived from the geologic record overthe last five thousand years indicatethat levels can be more variable thanthose of the past 140 years ofhistorical record.

Seasonal variability in water levelsreflects the annual hydrologic cycle,

which is characterized by higher net basin suppliesduring the spring and early summer and lower netbasin supplies during the remainder of the year.The maximum lake level usually occurs in June onlakes Ontario and Erie, in July on Lake Michigan-Huron, and in August on Lake Superior. Theminimum lake level usually occurs in December on

Figure 2-8Intrabasin diversions (logarithmic scale)

1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

600.0

600.5

601.0

601.5

602.0

602.5

603.0

Alti

tude

of w

ater

leve

l, in

feet

aov

e IG

LD

Figure 2-9Lake Superior water level, 1860-1999


Lake Ontario, in February on lakes Erie andMichigan-Huron, and in March on Lake Superior.Based on the monthly average water levels, themagnitudes of seasonal fluctuations are relativelysmall, averaging about 1.3 feet (0.4 meters) on lakesSuperior, Michigan and Huron, about 1.6 feet (0.5meters) on Lake Erie, and about 2.0 feet (0.6meters) on Lake Ontario. However, in any oneseason it has varied from less than 0.7 feet (0.2meters) to more than 2.0 feet (0.6 meters) on lakesSuperior and Michigan-Huron, from less than 1.0foot (0.3 meters) to more than 2.6 feet (0.8 meters)on Lake Erie, and from 0.7 feet (0.2 meters) to 3.6feet (1.1 meters) on Lake Ontario.

Seasonal variability in flows can be very large. Forinstance, long-term evaporation from Lake Superioris about -300 cfs (-8.5 cms) in June and about 10,000cfs (280 cms) in January and December, as shown inFigure 2-10. Cold winter temperatures in thenorthern Great Lakes also cause reduced winterstreamflow and substantial spring runoff frommelting snow and ice.

Short-term variability in water levels, lasting fromless than an hour to several days, is caused bymeteorological conditions. The effect of wind anddifferences in barometric pressure over the lakesurface create temporary imbalances in the waterlevel at various locations. Storm surges are largestat the ends of an elongated basin, particularly whenthe long axis of the basin is aligned with the wind.In deep lakes such as Lake Ontario, the water levelsurge rarely exceeds 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) but, inshallow Lake Erie, water level differences from oneend of the lake to the other of more than 16 feet

(4.9 meters) have been observed, followed by majorseiches causing water levels to oscillate and dimin-ish for several days. The range of fluctuations maybe large, but only minor changes occur in thevolume of water in the lake because, as the waterlevels rise at one end, they generally fall at theopposite end.

Generally, a lake’s outflow depends on its waterlevel; the higher the level, the higher the outflow.Accordingly, low lake levels are characterized bylow outflows. This self-regulating feature helpskeep levels on the lake within standard ranges, aslong as unremediated dredging or other factors donot modify outflow channels. Due to the size of theGreat Lakes and the limited discharge capacity oftheir outflow rivers, extremely high or low levelsand flows can persist for a considerable time afterthe factors that caused them have changed. Thus,many years can pass before the effect of changes inflows in the upper lakes reaches Lake Ontario.

Great Lakes water level data must be used appropri-ately, or analyses will be misleading. This is particu-

larly true where thelong-term impact ofdifferential crustalmovement on localwater levels may beimportant. Whileappropriate forwater-balancecalculations, using alake-wide averagelevel to analyzechanges over timein wetland areasaround a lake wouldlead to erroneousresults. For thisexample, moreappropriate datawould come fromwater level gaugesclose to the study

sites that are adjusted for local isostatic rebound.Similarly, use of monthly lake-wide average levelswould be inappropriate for most flood and erosionstudies.

In contrast to the effects of climate on levels andflows, the effects of diversions and outflow regula-tion are generally small. For instance, from 1970through 1990, the Lake Michigan Diversion atChicago, Illinois, ranged between 2934 cfs and 4055cfs (83 cms and 115 cms), a difference of 1121 cfs(32 cms) as seen in Figure 2-11. The difference

Figure 2-10 Long-term average monthly evaporation from Lake Superior


between the impact of a long-term withdrawal of2934 cfs and 4055 cfs through the diversion,theoretically, is a 0.07-foot (2 centimeter) change inthe water level of lakes Michigan-Huron and a 0.6percent change in the average flow of the St. ClairRiver. The regulation of outflows from LakeSuperior reduces the natural variability of waterlevels on lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron.Outflow controls in the St. Lawrence River likewisereduce the natural variability of water levels onLake Ontario.

Figure 2-11 shows the non-certified and certifiedoutflows through the Lake Michigan Diversion.Local authorities computed diversion flows priorthrough 1980 but, after that water year, diversionoutflows were computed and certified by theUSACE, in accordance with U.S. Supreme Courtdirectives.

Uncertainty in Calculations of Levelsand FlowsAll measurements and calculations have uncertaintyassociated with them. The term “uncertainty” isused within this chapter, not in a formal statisticalmanner, but as a means for quantifying errors andbiases associated with measurements, calculationsand estimates. In some cases, uncertainty in ameasurement or calculation may reflect the level ofaccuracy of state-of-the-art instrumentation orestimation methods used. In other cases, uncertainty

may be reduced by additional monitoring or by theapplication of more advanced instrumentation andestimation methods. The degree of uncertainty canvary as a function of the magnitude of the physicalprocess being measured, computed or estimated.For example, uncertainties may be greater or lesserat higher outflows than at average outflows for anatural system.

Uncertainty in calculations of levels and flows isclosely linked to Charter Annex issues. If part ofthe system is poorly understood (i.e., has highuncertainty), then it will be difficult to predict theeffects of a proposed withdrawal on levels andflows, and on the ecosystem. Conversely, if part ofthe system is well understood, then the effects of awithdrawal on levels or flows may be easier topredict and could be used to evaluate ecologicalimpacts.

There are no publisheduncertainty calculationsassociated with any of thelevels and flows of theGreat Lakes. The StatusAssessment of WaterResources TechnicalSubcommittee, therefore,used its best professionaljudgment to estimateranges of uncertainty forlevels and flows. Theseranges are presented inthis section for thepurpose of illustratinghow well the hydrology ofthe Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system isunderstood and to providebackground for recom-mendations. For consis-tency in comparisons,uncertainties for each typeof level and flow are

related to: 1) the average outflow through the LakeMichigan Diversion at Chicago, Illinois; 2) the levelof Lake Michigan-Huron; and 3) the average flowof the St. Clair River. Comparison between flowsassumes identical time periods (instantaneous,hourly, weekly, monthly, etc.). Comparison withlevels on Lake Michigan-Huron assumes persis-tence over an indeterminate time to achieve equilib-rium throughout the system. For additional detailregarding uncertainty in levels and flows see Neffet al. (publication pending).

Figure 2-11Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago, Illinois, 1970 to 1990


ated with this uncertainty is 5.3, 7.5, 1.7 and 1.2billion cubic feet (0.15, 0.21, 0.05 and 0.03 billioncubic meters), for lakes Superior, Michigan-Huron,Erie, and Ontario, respectively. The uncertainty andstorage figures for Lake Michigan-Huron equate toan inflow of 2,900 cfs (80 cms), assuming a 30-daymonth. This is about 90 percent of the LakeMichigan Diversion and about 1.5 percent of theaverage St. Clair River flow.

Gauged StreamflowAs noted above, streamflows are generally deter-mined by measuring water level elevations at astream gauge site, and then converting these levelsto flows using a stage-discharge relationshipestablished at the site based on field measurements.Uncertainty in gauged streamflow derives primarilyfrom the stage discharge relationship. Periodic fieldmeasurements are used to verify or update thisrelationship, which is used in the computation ofcontinuous, daily and annual flows. Some gauginglocations have a stable stage discharge relationship,whereas others do not. The accuracy of the rela-tionship is dependent upon natural factors thatcannot be altered, such as channel stability, andones that vary seasonally, such as vegetation andice. Since the stage-discharge relationships areestablished based on instream flow measurement,the accuracy of the relationship is generally lowerduring periods of very high or very low flows andwhen ice is present.

Uncertainty in gauged streamflow can range from 5percent to 15 percent. For an average-size streamthat has a long-term annual mean flow of 200 cfs, aperiod-of-record peak flow of 5,500 cfs, a period-of-record low flow of 3 cfs, and an uncertainty of 10percent, these flows may have uncertainties of 20cfs, 550 cfs, and 0.3 cfs, respectively.

Total gauged annual mean streamflow to LakeMichigan is about 30,000 cfs (850 cms). An uncer-tainty of 10 percent results in a potential uncer-tainty of 3,000 cfs (85 cms). This is about 94percent of the average outflow of the Lake Michi-gan Diversion and about 1.6 percent of the averageSt. Clair River flow. A flow of 3,000 cfs results in achange of 0.18 feet (5.5 centimeters) in the level ofLake Michigan-Huron after equilibrium is achieved.

Ungauged StreamflowUncertainty in ungauged streamflow derivesprimarily from differences between rainfall-runoffcharacteristics in a gauged watershed and anadjacent ungauged watershed. This uncertainty canbe reduced by employing an estimation method thatincorporates watershed characteristics, rather than

LevelsUncertainty in the calculation of lake level fluctua-tions derives primarily from adequacy of the gaugenetwork, accuracy of gauge datum and accuracy ofrecording equipment. An additional consideration isthe proper selection and averaging of water levelsrecorded at individual water level gauges forcalculation of lake-wide water level values. Thesecalculations must also account for the impact ofshort-term weather conditions and the long-termimpact of differential crustal movement.

A robust network of water level gauges is main-tained throughout the Great Lakes and theirconnecting channels. NOAA, USACE and DFOoperate more than 100 gauging stations throughoutthe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system.Instantaneous and hourly water levels at individualgauges are available to both the public and watermanagers on a real or near-real time basis throughthe use of voice announcing gauges, the Internet orphone interrogation. Daily and longer period lake-wide average levels are calculated based on selectedgauge networks. Reductions in the network haveoccurred or been considered in the recent past; itmust be adequately maintained and enhanced asneeded, to address current and anticipated datarequirements.

Water level data are referenced to an internation-ally coordinated Great Lakes datum, which isupdated periodically to compensate for the impactof differential crustal movement throughout thesystem. This work is completed by United Statesand Canadian federal agencies participating in theCoordinating Committee on Great Lakes BasicHydrologic and Hydraulic Data. Water levels aremeasured accurately, despite technical differences inthe sampling methods used by NOAA, USACE andDFO to generate hourly water level values.

The NOAA and DFO hourly observations areconsidered equivalent for calculation of lake-widedaily, monthly, yearly and long-term mean waterlevels. While hourly values generated at an indi-vidual gauge are reported to the nearest millimeter,the lake-wide daily, monthly, yearly and long-termperiod of record levels are generally reported tothe nearest centimeter only. Since the lake meanwater levels are adjusted averages of many indi-vidual stations, they have significantly greateraccuracy.

Uncertainty in Great Lakes levels may range from0.002 to 0.011 feet (0.06 to 0.03 centimeters). If theuncertainty for levels is 0.006 feet for each lake, forexample, then the amount of lake storage associ-


relying upon simple drainage area-runoff relation-ships. There is also uncertainty in using thestreamflow of the gauged watershed to calculatestreamflow in the ungauged watershed.

Uncertainty in ungauged streamflow cannot becomputed with precision, but exceeds the uncer-tainty of gauged streamflow. For an average-sizeungauged stream with a drainage area of 350square miles (910 square kilometers), a long-termannual mean flow of 200 cfs (5.7 cms), and anuncertainty of 15 percent, this flow may have anuncertainty of 30 cfs (0.9 cms).

Total ungauged streamflow to Lake Michigan isabout 9,000 cfs (255 cms). An uncertainty of 15percent results in a potential uncertainty of 1,350cfs (38 cms). This is about 40 percent of theaverage outflow of the Lake Michigan Diversionand about 0.7 percent of the average St. Clair Riverflow. A flow of 1,350 cfs results in a change of 0.08feet (2.5 centimeters) in the level of Lake Michigan-Huron after equilibrium is achieved.

GroundwaterThe amount of groundwater that dischargesdirectly into the Great Lakes and connectingchannels has not been calculated and is unknown.In fact, the subsurface areas that contribute ground-water flow to the Great Lakes or their tributarystreams have not been delineated. However, theamount of groundwater that discharges directly tothe Great Lakes is likely a small percentage of thetotal inflows for each lake.

Grannemann and Weaver (1999) roughly estimatedgroundwater discharge to Lake Michigan to beabout 2700 cfs (75 cms), or 3 percent of the lake’sinflows. A groundwater discharge to Lake Michiganof 2700 cfs is about 84 percent of the average forLake Michigan-Huron after equilibrium is achieved.

Groundwater that discharges to tributary streams –indirect groundwater discharge to the Great Lakes– is accounted for in streamflow calculations.Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the rela-tionship of uncertainty to lake-wide levels andflows. For predicting the effects of proposedgroundwater withdrawals on streamflow, however,the magnitude, timing and uncertainty of indirectgroundwater discharge, also called baseflow, mustbe understood.

Uncertainties in baseflow calculations have notbeen quantified; this is an area of ongoing research.Assuming that the uncertainty in the baseflowcomponent of streamflow is greater than theuncertainty of streamflow, it may range from 10

percent to 20 percent for a gauged stream. Anaverage-size stream that has a flow of 200 cfs (6cms), of which 70 percent is baseflow, will have apotential uncertainty in baseflow of 14 cfs to 28 cfs(0.4 cms to 0.8 cms). For comparison, a typicaldomestic well has a capacity of 0.002 cfs, a munici-pal or irrigation well has a capacity of 1 cfs, and amedium-sized community withdraws 10 cfs. Notethat these withdrawal amounts are smaller than theuncertainty associated with the flow of an average-size stream.

PrecipitationUncertainty in precipitation over the Great Lakesderives from: 1) measurement uncertainty at raingauges; 2) differences between precipitation overthe lakes and over the land, where rain gauges arelocated; and 3) the interpolation method used tocalculate precipitation over the lakes. Potentially,the use of weather radar (NEXRAD in the U.S. andthe MSC radar network in Canada) to calculateprecipitation over the lakes would do away with thelatter two sources of uncertainty, but introducesnew ones inherent to the weather radar technology.

Uncertainty in precipitation over the Great Lakes isgenerally believed to range from 15 percent to 60percent. If the uncertainty for precipitation onlakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontariois 40 percent, then uncertainties would be 28,500cfs, 20,600 cfs, 22,000 cfs, 10,200 cfs and 7,210 cfs(810 cms, 585 cms, 625 cms, 290 cms and 205 cms),respectively.

Precipitation on Lake Michigan is calculated toaverage 51,600 cfs (1,460 cms). An uncertainty of40 percent results in a potential uncertainty of20,600 cfs (585 cms). This is about 6.4 times theaverage outflow of the Lake Michigan Diversionand about 11 percent of the average St. Clair Riverflow. A flow of 20,600 cfs results in a change of 1.3feet (40 centimeters) in the level of Lake Michigan-Huron after equilibrium is achieved.

EvaporationUncertainty in evaporation from the Great Lakesderives primarily from: 1) measurement uncertain-ties in the parameters used to calculate evaporation– lake-surface temperature, air temperature, windspeed, and relative humidity; 2) the thermodynamicmodel used to calculate evaporation; 3) unaccountedfor lake-surface-area variations caused by waves;and 4) spatial averaging of parameters and modelcalculations. The recent use of remote sensing tomeasure lake-surface temperatures reduces theuncertainty of this measurement and the uncer-tainty associated with its spatial averaging.


Uncertainty in evaporation from the Great Lakes isgenerally believed to range from 15 percent to 60percent. If the uncertainty for evaporation fromlakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontariois 40 percent, then uncertainties may be 21,600 cfs,16,500 cfs, 16,600 cfs, 10,300 cfs and 5580 cfs (610cms, 465 cms, 470 cms, 290 cms and 160 cms),respectively.

Evaporation from Lake Michigan averages 41,200cfs (1,165 cms). An uncertainty of 40 percentresults in a potential uncertainty of 16,500 cfs (465cms). This is about 5.2 times the average outflowfrom the Lake Michigan Diversion and about 8.8percent of the average St. Clair River flow. A flowof 16,500 cfs results in a change of 1.0 foot (30centimeters) in the level of Lake Michigan-Huronafter equilibrium is achieved.

Connecting ChannelsUncertainty in connecting channel flows derivesfrom the various methods used to compute differentflows, including stage-fall-discharge relationships,water-control structure ratings, turbine ratings athydroelectric facilities, and lock use and leakagethrough these structures. The uncertainty of stage-fall- discharge relationships depends upon accuratestage measurements, sufficient fall of the stage overthe reach for which discharge is being calculated,and periodic measurements of discharge to updateand verify the relationship. Since stage-dischargerelationships are developed for open-water, ice-free,vegetation-free conditions, flow estimates must beadjusted to account for these factors, wheneverappropriate. The uncertainty of flows throughturbines depends upon the accuracy of the turbinerating and the availability of flow measurements toupdate and verify the ratings. Generally, newerturbines can be assumed to have a more accuraterating than older turbines. The uncertainty of flow

through locks by use or leakage depends upon theaccuracy of the calculation of lock volume, theamount of use, and the frequency and accuracy offield measurements of lock leakage. Sources ofuncertainty in the flows of the connecting channelsand St. Lawrence River are discussed by Gauthieret al. (2003).

The uncertainty of connecting channel flows hasnot been rigorously calculated for all connectingchannels. Uncertainties for the St. Marys River, St.Clair River, Niagara River, and Lake Ontarioaverage outflows may be 10 percent, 10 percent, 5percent and 3 percent, respectively. Potentialuncertainties for average flows of these connectingchannels, therefore, may be 7,600 cfs, 18,200 cfs,10,300 cfs and 7,390 cfs (215 cms, 535 cms, 290 cmsand 210 cms), respectively.

The average outflow from Lake Michigan-Huron byway of the St. Clair River is 182,000 cfs (5,155cms). During extreme conditions, flows have beenrecorded as high as 232,000 cfs (6,570 cms) and aslow as 106,000 cfs (3,000 cms) per month. Anuncertainty of 10 percent in computing the averageSt. Clair River flows results in a potential uncer-tainty of 18,200 cfs (515 cms). This is about 5.9times the average outflow of the Lake MichiganDiversion. A flow of 18,200 cfs results in a changeof 1.2 feet (36 centimeters) in the level of LakeMichigan-Huron after equilibrium is achieved.

DiversionsUncertainty in diversions derives from the variousmethods to compute flows. Sources of uncertaintyin the flows of the Lake Michigan, Long Lac andOgoki diversions are discussed below. Sources ofuncertainty in the flows of the remaining diver-sions are discussed by Gauthier et al. (2003).

Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago, IllinoisWater has been diverted from Lake Michigan atChicago, Illinois, since 1848, with subsequentchanges in the flow volume, control structuresand accounting procedures. Since 1981, thediversion outflow has been managed in accor-dance with a U.S. Supreme Court Decree thatlimits flows to 3,200 cfs (90.6 cms), averagedover a 40-year period. Uncertainty in the LakeMichigan Diversion derives mostly from: 1) theaccuracy of the acoustic flow meters placed inthe system; 2) velocity-discharge relationships;3) the rainfall-runoff models; and 4) calcula-tions of groundwater return flow.

The uncertainty of the Lake Michigan Diver-sion may range from 5 percent to 15 percent.

Niagara Falls


An uncertainty of 10 percent results in apotential uncertainty of 340 cfs (10 cms), whichis about 0.2 percent of the average St. ClairRiver flow. A flow of 340 cfs results in a changeof 0.02 feet (6 centimeters) in the level of LakeMichigan-Huron after equilibrium is achieved.

Long Lac DiversionThe Long Lac Diversion connects the headwa-ters of the Kenogami River (which originallydrained north through the Kenogami andAlbany Rivers into James Bay) with theAguasabon River, which naturally dischargesinto Lake Superior. As a result, it diverts therunoff from about 1690 square miles (4375square kilometers) directly into Lake Superior.The volumes of the Long Lac Diversion aremeasured and reported by Ontario PowerGeneration Inc. (OPG). Discharges through theLong Lake Control Dam to the AguasabonRiver are determined based on the currentsluice-rating table for the structure. OPGverifies and updates the sluice-rating table on aperiodic basis using accepted engineeringpractices.

The uncertainty of the Long Lac Diversion issimilar to that of gauged streamflow and mayrange from 5 percent to 15 percent, but is mostlikely closer to the lower value. An uncertaintyof 10 percent results in a potential uncertaintyof 140 cfs (4 cms), which is about 0.09 percentof the average St. Clair River flow. A flow of140 cfs results in a change of less than 0.01 feet(0.3 centimeters) in the level of Lake Michigan-Huron after equilibrium is achieved.

Ogoki DiversionThe Ogoki Diversion connects the upperportion of the Ogoki River (which originallydrained through the Albany River into JamesBay) with the headwaters of the Little JackRiver, which flows into Lake Nipigon and, fromthere, through the Nipigon River into LakeSuperior. The Waboose Dam on the OgokiRiver impounds water that would normally flownorthward in the Ogoki reservoir and redirectsit southward into Lake Nipigon. The SummitDam controls the rate of the diversion from theOgoki reservoir into Lake Nipigon. Althoughthe long-term average outflow from the Ogokireservoir into Lake Nipigon has been about4020 cfs (115 cms), monthly diversions havevaried from 0 cfs to 15,000 cfs (0 cms to 425cms).

The quantity of water diverted from the OgokiRiver in any month is not necessarily represen-tative of the quantity reaching Lake Superiorfor the same month. This is due to the waterbeing stored in Lake Nipigon for later releasethrough the power plants during fall and wintermonths when inflows are lower. Therefore,uncertainties related to the Ogoki Diversionmust be viewed in two ways: 1) uncertainty inthe amount of water diverted from the OgokiRiver into Lake Nipigon, which represents theshort- and long-term diversions to the GreatLakes basin; and 2) the amount of waterdiverted to Lake Superior on a monthly basis.

A question is occasionally raised as to whetheror not all of the water diverted into LakeNipigon from the Ogoki River reaches LakeSuperior. While a precise answer is not avail-able, it is believed that, if losses do occur, theyare likely within the quantitatively identifiedmeasurement accuracy. Discharges from theOgoki reservoir to Lake Nipigon are determinedbased on a stage-discharge relationship. OPGverifies and updates the stage-discharge rela-tionship though periodic field measurement toaccepted standards. The stage-dischargerelationship used for the Ogoki diversion hasremained stable over time. Therefore, theuncertainty for both the daily and monthly flowvalues reported for the diversion from theOgoki River to Lake Nipigon, and the resultinglong-term average diversion into Lake Superior,is similar to any other gauged streamflow site,ranging from 5 percent to 15 percent, but verylikely closer to the lower value. An uncertaintyof 10 percent results in a potential uncertaintyof 400 cfs (11 cms), which is about 0.2 percentof the average St. Clair River flow. A flow of400 cfs results in a change of 0.03 feet (0.9centimeters) in the level of Lake Michigan-Huron after equilibrium is achieved.

DiscussionPotential uncertainties associated with differentcomponents of the hydrologic cycle translate intolarge quantities of water, some much larger thanothers. For instance, uncertainties in precipitationon Lake Michigan-Huron are estimated to be plusor minus 40,000 cfs (1,130 cms), whereas uncertain-ties in the Lake Michigan Diversion are estimatedto be plus or minus 300 cfs (8 cms), as shown inFigure 2-12.

When considering flows on a systemwide scale,diversions are very small. Clearly they are muchsmaller than the magnitude of major hydrologic


components, including streamflow, precipitation,evaporation and connecting channel and St.Lawrence River outflows shown in Figure 2-13.

On a lake-wide or systemwide scale, potentialuncertainties are much larger than any currentwithdrawal. Even the flow impacts of large, newwithdrawals, for example, likely would not bedetected by measurement of a connecting channelflow or a lake level because of natural variability inthe system and potential uncertainties in measuringor computing flows. However, while this effect isunlikely to be detected by direct measurement, theimpact of removing water from the system can bepredicted to some extent. Current hydrologicmodels of the Great Lakes system can predict howwithdrawals will change supplies to each of thelakes, and thus, lower lake levels, reduce connecting

channel flows, or reduce hydroelectric generation.The accuracy of the predicted effect of a with-drawal is limited only by the accuracy with whichthe model simulates the physical system.

Findings and RecommendationsThe many findings and recommendations in thissection have four cross-cutting themes. First, abinational coordination framework needs to beestablished for collecting, analyzing, reporting andaccessing Great Lakes hydrologic and hydraulicdata. Second, uncertainties in levels and flows havenot been quantified. Third, a formal and robustevaluation of current monitoring should be under-taken with the goals of quantifying data gaps andmaking specific recommendations to reduce uncer-

tainties. Fourth, all recommendationsassume an increased quantity and qualityof monitoring and reporting. The needfor resources to carry out this work isimplicit.

FindingsAlthough a significant amount ofhydrologic monitoring occurs in theGreat Lakes basin, current efforts targetspecific needs that do not fully addressthe decisionmaking standard embodied inthe Great Lakes Charter Annex. Severalagencies collect Great Lakes hydrologicdata and calculate levels and flows,typically using different methods.Further, data are not available for allflows on a binational basis; coordinationbetween U.S. and Canadian jurisdictionson collection and analysis is inadequate.

Figure 2-12Potential uncertainties in flows to and from lakes Michigan-Huron

Figure 2-13Flows into and from the Great Lakes


Problems include the diversity of hydrologic dataand information sources, inconsistencies inmetadata, lack of compatibility with geographicinformation systems for some data, and limitedaccessibility to data on the Internet.

Decisionmakers do not always understand orconsider the variability of the hydrologic systemand the limitations of hydrologic measurement. Alllevels and flows are variable in the short- and long-term and at many spatial scales. Also, all measure-ments and calculations are inherently uncertain.However, most reported flows are long-termaverages at large spatial scales, and associated datauncertainties are not reported and often notcalculated.

Uncertainties associated with measurements oflevels and flows hinder the ability to assess ecologi-cal effects from withdrawals on a systemwide level.Even though the effects of a withdrawal on levelsand flows cannot currently be detected by measure-ments, existing models can accurately predict theeffects of withdrawals on connecting channel flows,lake levels or hydroelectric production.

On a sub-watershed scale, streamflow and ground-water data are insufficient in many areas of thebasin to predict ecological effects of instream andgroundwater withdrawals. Only large-scalegroundwater or cumulative withdrawals are likelyto be detected in streamflow, but this ability de-pends on the scale of withdrawal relative to thescale of baseflow. Standard approaches are, for themost part, available to collect the hydrologicinformation needed to make decisions on instreamand groundwater withdrawals, but they have notyet been applied to all areas of the basin.

The contribution of groundwater to the hydrologyof the Great Lakes has only recently been morefully recognized. As a result, the complex dynamicsof groundwater recharge, flow and discharge, andthe implications of these factors relative to bothwater quantity and quality, require special attention.

Recommendations

Monitoring/Modeling1. Evaluate the adequacy of hydrologic/

hydraulic monitoring systems, within thecontext of the Annex, after adecisionmaking standard is agreed upon.

The evaluation should include specificadditions to or modifications of currentnetworks, as well as changes to operatingand reporting methods.

2. Secure agency commitments to core,long-term, geographically distributedhydrologic/hydraulic monitoring thatwill be needed to implement thedecisionmaking standard.

Sustained investment in hydrologic/hydrau-lic monitoring networks and programs iscrucial to assessing cumulative impacts ofwithdrawals. Continual records of levelsand flows throughout the system have long-term strategic value for protection of theresource and, as such, their availabilityneeds to be factored into the design of adecision support system.

3. Support the continued maintenance andenhancement of the Great Lakes waterlevel gauging network, and quantify andreport uncertainties.

Substantial improvements have been madeto instrumentation and reporting methodsfrom U.S. water level gauging stations overthe last few years, but not all data arecollected and distributed uniformly or in atimely manner. Analysis should be con-ducted to quantify and report on uncertain-ties related to instrumentation accuracies,sampling methodologies, and reportingbetween U.S. and Canadian sites, with theobjective of reducing differences anduncertainties.

4. Develop coordinated binational methodsfor evaluating groundwater flow directlyand indirectly to the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system using commondata standards and models.

A conceptual model of groundwater flowand associated mapping tools for the GreatLakes basin should be developed thatincludes known groundwater divides,identifies and prioritizes data needs, andidentifies locations and quantities ofgroundwater discharge directly to the GreatLakes. Research should be focused ondeveloping relationships between directgroundwater discharge and adjacentnearshore aquatic ecosystems. Standardizedmethods should be developed betweencountries for computing indirect groundwa-ter discharge to tributary streams andcoordinate results.


5. Systematically evaluate the adequacy ofexisting tributary stream gauging tomeet Annex implementation needs anddevelop coordinated binational methodsfor calculating streamflow for allungauged areas.

The assessment of the adequacy of existingstreamflow gauging networks shouldinclude quantification of uncertainties,identification of optimum gauging locations,and recommendations of core networks tomeet Annex needs. Determination ofstreamflow for ungauged watersheds shouldbe based upon coordinated methods betweencountries that make maximum use of knownsurface runoff characteristics and flowprocesses, including calculations of associ-ated uncertainties.

6. Develop coordinated binational methods,with measures of uncertainty, for calcu-lating over-lake precipitation and evapo-ration processes using existing remotesensing techniques.

Over-lake precipitation can be estimatedfrom ground-based radar systems in theUnited States and Canada. This will requirea significant commitment of funds forapplied research. Improvements in evapora-tion estimates are also possible, usingsatellite observations of water surfacetemperatures, ambient air temperatures andother related meteorologic parameters, asinput to new-generation thermo-dynamicmodels.

7. Develop coordinated binational methods,with measures of uncertainty, for calcu-lating and/or measuring flows, custom-ized for each connecting channel, St.Lawrence River and diversion into/out ofthe Great Lakes.

These may include use of hydrodynamicflow models, permanent installation ofacoustic flow meters, and/or more frequentdirect measurements of flow to supportcalculations. Since instrumentation andmodels are subject to frequent changes intechnology, the efficiency and accuracy ofaccepted methods need to be periodicallyevaluated. The standards need to be flexibleenough to be adapted to all hydraulicsituations, particularly since channel modifi-cations can occur through natural physical

processes or human intervention. Flows indiversion canals also can be affected bychanges in maintenance over time.

8. Continue development and refinement ofsystemwide hydraulic routing models sothat effects of proposed withdrawals andthe uncertainty of the effects can bepredicted.

Complex hydrologic/hydraulic processescan be simplified via computer modeling,while providing substantial visualizationabilities. Computer models should beaccessible via the Internet, with modelinputs and outputs well documented andreadily available for wide application.

Information Availability9. Develop common data standards and

reporting practices for hydraulic/hydro-logic data and other information relevantto the Annex, with emphasis on deter-mining watershed impacts.

Data and information should be coordinatedregularly so that it is current. The collectionand coordination of hydrologic data andinformation relevant to the Annex should becarried out by agencies under the auspicesof the Coordinating Committee on GreatLakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data.

10. Ensure easy access to hydraulic/hydro-logic data for decisionmakers and otherinterested parties via clearinghouseservices, and conventional and electroniccommunications technology.

Access can be enhanced by development of acomprehensive Internet clearinghouse,coordination of web pages from primarydata sources, and promotion of consistentdata and metadata that can be used in ageographic information system (GIS).Metadata is descriptive information aboutdata that typically addresses its lineage,quality, condition, or characteristic. Sensitiveinformation (proprietary, personal andsecurity) will need to be protected andmanaged accordingly.


Information Use11. Incorporate an understanding of hydro-

logic variability and uncertainty at theappropriate temporal and spatial scales inthe decisionmaking process.

The uncertainty and variability of levelsand flows assessed on a Great Lakes basin-wide scale will differ significantly fromthose assessed at a sub-watershed or indi-vidual stream basis. A withdrawal from anindividual watershed should not therefore beassessed based on information compiled atthe Great Lakes basin level. Data, informa-tion and measures of uncertainties at theappropriate temporal and spatial scale areextremely important to the decisionmakingprocess.

ReferencesClark, R.H. and N.P. Persoage. 1970. “Some Implica-

tions of Crustal Movement in EngineeringPlanning.” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 7:628-633.

Croley, T.E., II. 1989. “Verifiable EvaporationModeling on the Laurentian Great Lakes.” WaterResources Research, 25(5): 781-792.

Croley, T.E., II, T.S. Hunter and S.K. Martin. 2001.Great Lakes Monthly Hydrologic Data. NOAATechnical Report #TM-083, Great LakesEnvironmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor,Michigan, 12 p.

Gauthier, R., L. Falikner, B. Neff and C. Southam.2003. Proceedings of WRMDSS Flows Ac-counting Workshops. Chicago, Ill., Dec. 18, 2001;Detroit, Mich., April 23-24, 2002; Burlington,Ont., May 6-7, 2002. Great Lakes Commission.

Grannemann, N.G. and T.L. Weaver. 1999. AnAnnotated Bibliography of Selected Referenceson the Estimated Rates of Direct Ground-waterDischarge to the Great Lakes. U.S. GeologicalSurvey. Water-Resources Investigations ReportNo. 98-4039, 22 p.


Holtschlag, D.J. and J.R. Nicholas. 1998. IndirectGround-water Discharge to the Great Lakes.U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 98-579, 25 p.

Neff, B.P. and J.R. Killian. 2003. The Great LakesWater Balance: Data Availability and AnnotatedBibliography of Selected References. U.S.Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investiga-tions Report No. 02-4296, 22 p.

Neff, B.P., R.L. Gauthier and J.R. Nicholas. Publica-tion pending. Uncertainty in the Great LakesWater Balance. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Detroit District) andGreat Lakes Commission. 1999. Living with theLakes: Understanding and Adapting to GreatLakes Water Level Changes.

Chapter Three - Inventory of Water Withdrawal and Use Data and Information - 47

Chapter ThreeInventory of Water Withdrawal and Use Data and Information

IntroductionAn inventory of water withdrawal and use data andinformation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Riverbasin is a key component of the Water ResourcesManagement Decision Support System project.This effort included an assessment of the latestavailable water use data as it relates to withdrawals,in-stream uses, diversions and consumptive use. AWater Withdrawal and Use Technical Subcommit-tee was established to provide guidance and over-sight to Great Lakes Commission staff in theconduct of this project element. This chapterdescribes the outcomes of its work by focusing onthe background and history of regional water usedata collection and reporting activities; describingstate and provincial programs for water withdrawaldata collection, consumptive use and demandforecasting; and examining how the states andprovinces have addressed commitments embodiedin the Great Lakes Charter.

Background and History of Water Use DataCollection and ReportingStates, provinces and municipalities of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River region have a longhistory of water resources management, with aprimary focus on manipulating freshwater supplies

to meet the growing and ever-evolving needs ofresidents, businesses and other water use sectors.

Increasingly, across North America, manyexisting sources of water are being depleted orotherwise stressed by withdrawals from aquifers,lakes, rivers and reservoirs to meet these needs.While the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River regionhas been largely immune from serioussystemwide water shortages, conflicts and supplyproblems, individual watersheds are increasinglyseeing such problems (on a short-term or ex-tended basis) and the attendant ecological,economic and quality of life impacts.

To generate a sense of how water resources areused, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hascompiled and disseminated estimates of water usefor the United States at five-year intervals since1950. In 1977, the U. S. Congress expandedUSGS water use activities by establishing aNational Water-Use Information Program which,in cooperation with the states, collects reliableand uniform nationwide information on thesources, uses and management of water (seeFigure 3-1).

The Great Lakes states work closely with theUSGS through its National Water-Use Informa-tion Program. However, the concept of a region-

Figure 3-1Timeline of Great Lakes water use data collection and reporting


specific, binational data system on water withdraw-als, diversions and consumptive use has long beenof interest to the region’s policymakers, managersand scientists.

This interest was heightened in the early 1980swith growing concerns about the vulnerability ofthe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system toharmful large-scale out-of-basin diversions. Toaddress this growing concern, the Great Lakesgovernors and premiers appointed a Task Force onWater Diversion and Great Lakes Institutions in1983 to study the issue and offer recommendations.Its report, submitted in January 1985, spoke to theneed to protect the water resources of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River system by enhancingprogram and institutional capabilities. The taskforce was particularly concerned over the state oftechnical information on water withdrawal and use,stating that “the kind of reliable, comparable wateruse data needed to accurately project future needsor to forecast ‘significant impacts’ are not availablenow.”

The centerpiece of the task force’s efforts was thedevelopment of the Great Lakes Charter, signed bythe Great Lakes governors and premiers in 1985. Anon-binding “good faith” agreement, the Charterprovides the principles and framework for strength-ening water management activities in the binationalGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River system. Amongother items, it calls for the establishment of aregional water use database and arrangements forexchanging and comparing water use data andinformation.

Coinciding with Charter development and imple-mentation were other state/provincial efforts todescribe and document their individual water usedata collection and reporting programs and toexplore opportunities to establish a consistentregional approach to water management. In 1985,for example, the Great Lakes Commission formed aWater Data Collection Task Force to evaluateregional data collection efforts. Through a surveyprocess, this task force determined the extent ofwithdrawal, return flow and water consumptiondata in the states and provinces, and also assessedthe compatibility of the data. The results werepublished in an October 1985 report by the GreatLakes Commission titled Survey and PreliminaryEvaluation of the Existing Water Use Data CollectionSystems in the Great Lakes States and Provinces.

Further, in an extensive 1985-86 study undertakenwith input from the Council of Great Lakes Gover-nors’ Water Resources Management Committee, the

USGS examined and compared Great Lakes stateand provincial data for nine water use categories. ADecember 1986 report titled Water Use DataCollection Programs and Regional Data Base in theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin States andProvinces influenced the subsequent design of theGreat Lakes Regional Water Use Database.

Following the signing of the Great Lakes Charter,a Water Resources Management Committee(WRMC) was established through the Council ofGreat Lakes Governors to achieve the objectives ofthe Charter. In a February 1987 report to thegovernors and premiers, the WRMC recommendedthat the Great Lakes Commission serve as therepository for a regional water use database tostore, aggregate, manipulate and display state/provincial water withdrawal, diversion and con-sumptive use data for multiple categories of use.

The Great Lakes Regional Water Use Databasebecame operational in mid-1988. Database mainte-nance and operation has been provided by the GreatLakes Commission since that time in partial fulfill-ment of Great Lakes Charter obligations.

Charter Minimum Requirements for Water UsePrograms and Data ReportingThe Great Lakes Charter of 1985 provides aregional framework for water resources manage-ment with the intent of protecting the Great Lakesregion from ill-advised diversion and consumptiveuse proposals and their deleterious impacts on theregion’s ecological and economic health. It presentsa series of five water management principles alongwith general guidelines for their implementation.Among others, an important recommendationprovided for the development and maintenance of aregional water use database and the minimumrequirements under which the database shouldoperate. These guidelines were reaffirmed andexpanded upon in the 1987 WRMC report, titledManaging the Waters of the Great Lakes Basin.

The Charter describes, in general terms, the typesof data and information to be collected and ex-changed among jurisdictions and a compliancemechanism to ensure jurisdictional participation.Under the “Implementation of Principles” section,the Charter presents three components to a com-mon base of data.

1. Each State and Province will collect andmaintain, in comparable form, data regardingthe location, type, and qualities of water use,diversion, and consumptive use, and information


regarding projections of current and futureneeds.

2. In order to provide accurate information as abasis for future water resources planning andmanagement, each State and Province willestablish and maintain a system for the collectionof data on major water uses, diversions, andconsumptive uses in the Basin. The States andProvinces, in cooperation with the FederalGovernments of Canada and the United Statesand the International Joint Commission, willseek appropriate vehicles and institutions toassure responsibility for coordinated collation,analysis, and dissemination of data andinformation.

3. The Great Lakes States and Provinces willexchange on a regular basis plans, data, andother information on water use, conservation,and development, and will consult with eachother in the development of programs and plansto carry out these provisions.

Under the “Progress Toward Implementation”section, the Charter specifies a sequence of steps tobe taken to implement the Charter and develop aBasin Water Resources Management Program.Among these are basic requirements in water usedata collection and exchange activities that jurisdic-tions must complete in order to participate in theprior notice and consultation process.

The prior notice and consultation process will beformally initiated following the development ofprocedures by the Water Resources ManagementCommittee and approval of those procedures bythe Governors and Premiers. Any State orProvince may voluntarily undertake additionalnotice and consultation procedures, as it deemsappropriate. However, the right of any indi-vidual State or Province to participate in theprior notice and consultation process, eitherbefore or after approval of formal proceduresby the Governors and Premiers, is contingentupon its ability to provide accurate and compa-rable information on water withdrawals inexcess of 100,000 gallons (380,000 litres) perday average in any 30-day period and itsauthority to manage and regulate waterwithdrawals involving a total diversion orconsumptive use of Great Lakes Basin waterresources in excess of 2,000,000 gallons(7,600,000 litres) per day average in any 30-day period.

Charter Objectives for a Regional Water UseDatabaseThe Great Lakes Charter calls for development of acommon, regional database as a principal tool forregional water resources management. In its 1987report, the WRMC presented recommendations fordata collection and management, laying out theobjectives of a regional information system:

The establishment of a regional water-use databasewill assist management efforts by providing:

• the states and provinces, and federal andinternational agencies with better basic informa-tion that can be applied to development of awater budget for the Great Lakes Basin;

• a more accurate base of data on present in-basinuses from which to project future in-basindemands;

• consistent, and, to the extent possible uniformregional water-use data so that the uses andneeds of individual jurisdictions may becompared and evaluated;

• a better understanding of the extent to which thecumulative effects of small-scale diversions andconsumptive uses of Great Lakes water mayaffect lake levels and flows;

• information on which to base regional decisionsrelating to consumptive uses; and

• more accurate data to be applied to futureresearch of the relationship between levels andflows and water use in the Basin.

In its present form, the Great Lakes RegionalWater Use Database meets most, but not all objec-tives. Among others, limitations of data as well asthe lack of a scientific basis to perform suchnecessary analyses, compromise its utility.

Lake Michigan dunes with power plant in background


Water Resources ManagementPrograms Related to WaterWithdrawal and UseMany state and provincial water resources manage-ment programs in the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver region trace their origin to the 1985 GreatLakes Charter. However, for many years prior, thestates and provinces have maintained a variety ofindependent water use data collection, storage andretrieval systems that have been adapted to meetCharter reporting requirements for withdrawals,uses, and diversions.

Progress Made on Charter Data ReportingProcessesThe Charter commits the states and provinces tocollect data on all water withdrawals in excess of100,000 gallons (380,000 litres) per day in theinterest of supporting its prior notice and consulta-tion process. In practice, however, this requirementhas not been emphasized, with a resultant lack ofconsistency among jurisdictions in Charter imple-mentation.

Table 3-1 presents an assessment of jurisdictionalefforts to fulfill Charter commitments for water usedata collection programs. This information wascollected by surveying members of the WaterWithdrawal and Use Technical Subcommittee, whowere asked to rate how well their jurisdictions havemet their commitments to two key Charter require-ments: 1) collect accurate and comparable informa-tion for withdrawals in excess of 100,000 gallons(380,000 litres) per day average in any 30-dayperiod and 2) report collected data for the agreed-tocategories of use to the Regional Water UseDatabase Repository annually.1 The members ratedtheir jurisdictions’ fulfillment of Charter commit-ments according to the legislative and/or regula-tory authority to cover water withdrawals withinthe water use category (legislative/regulatoryfulfillment scale) and the implementation effort toprovide the required water use data collection andreporting commitments for the water use category(implementation fulfillment scale). Ratings arebased on a conventional five-point scale, from “0”meaning no legislative/regulatory authority orimplementation effort to “4” meaning full legisla-tive/regulatory authority or implementation effort.

This information, while somewhat subjective, ishelpful in identifying water withdrawal and usedata gaps and information needs.

Several conclusions may be drawn from surveyresults. About half of the members indicate thattheir jurisdiction is presently able to fulfill Chartercommitments in both legislative/regulatoryauthority and implementation effort for almost allwater use categories. The balance indicate that theirjurisdiction is presently able to partially fulfillcommitments through legislative/regulatoryauthority or implementation effort. In most in-stances, constraints are found in implementationefforts, suggesting inadequate resources to carryout the reporting. Among all jurisdictions, theweakest water use categories for data collectionappear to be self-supply domestic, irrigation andlivestock.

Technical subcommittee members expressed somedifficulty in rating their jurisdictions’ performancefor the hydroelectric power category due to severalunique considerations. Major hydroelectric usesalong the St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers, wheremost of the quantity of hydroelectric water useoccurs, are monitored much more closely thanmany of the smaller operations, and jurisdictionscan generally use federal data for the regionaldatabase. For smaller hydroelectric uses, somestates, such as Indiana, use electricity generationdata collected from the U.S. Federal Energy Regu-latory Commission to calculate water use. NewYork, on the other hand, does not make thesecalculations because it has more small hydroelectricusers and the process would be more time consum-ing.

States and provinces also report differently oninstream hydroelectric uses. Ohio does not reportinstream uses because it considers them to beincidental uses, while some other jurisdictions doinclude these uses in their data reports. All statesand provinces report offstream uses, which involvetemporary storage of water so electricity can begenerated to meet peak loads, but not many juris-dictions have these uses. Other water use categorieshave unique considerations that point to a generalneed for clarifying water use category definitionsand determining whether categories should bereclassified.

1 This second requirement is not stated explicitly in the 1985 Great Lakes Charter. The Charter mandated the formation of a Water Resources ManagementCommittee to develop and design a system for the collection and exchange of comparable water resources management data. The Water ResourceManagement Committee recommended, in its 1987 report to the governors and premiers, that the jurisdictions provide collected data to the regionaldatabase repository annually. In return, the centralized repository would develop annual reports.


1. Illinois’ watershed drains to Lake Michigan and covers a relatively small area. Most of it is served byestablished public water supplies and, therefore, there are very few self-suppliers.

2. Indiana does not have the regulatory authority to require water usage reporting from hydroelectric powerplants, but has provided the information voluntarily. Some of the data is also available online from theEnergy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy.

3. Michigan’s water use reporting law requires annual reports from irrigated golf courses but not irrigatedfarms. For agricultural irrigation, the law directs the state to develop an estimation model. That model isnow used to calculate agricultural irrigation water withdrawals on an annual basis – based upon irrigatedacreage and crop type data reported every five years in the federal Census of Agriculture.

4. Ontario provides water use estimates based on census data (1991, 1996 and 2001) for irrigation, livestockand industrial water use. These categories are being reviewed to establish methodologies for more regularreporting.

5. For Québec, all data are available for self-supply thermoelectric and hydroelectric power but are not reportedto the regional water use database annually.

Codes for Self Assessment of Data Collection and Reporting ProgramsL - Legislative/Regulatory Fulfillment ScaleI - Implementation Fulfillment ScaleN - No water use occurs in this category within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin4 - Covers total quantity of water withdrawals for the required data collection and reporting programs3 - Covers approximately 2/3 or more of the total water withdrawal quantity for the required data collection

and reporting programs2 - Covers approximately 1/3 to 2/3 of the total water withdrawal quantity for the required data collection

and reporting programs1 - Covers approximately 1/3 or less of the total water withdrawal quantity for the required data collection

and reporting programs0 - No legislative/regulatory authority within this water use category

Table 3-1Fulfilling Data Collection Commitments Under the Great Lakes Charter

~Self Assessment by Jurisdiction~


State and Provincial Programs, Regulations,Statutes and AuthoritiesA survey of state/provincial water resourcesmanagement programs shows that, while jurisdic-tional water use data collection and reportingprograms are similar in some ways, they haveevolved differently and are unique in their develop-ment and function. (See project report titled, Reporton State and Provincial Water Use and ConservationPrograms in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin.)Most jurisdictions use either a water withdrawalregistration approach or a permitting system thatallows for data collection for facilities in manywater use categories that withdraw or have thecapacity to withdraw 100,000 gallons (380,000litres) of water per day averaged over a 30-dayperiod. A few jurisdictions also collect data or haverequirements at lower withdrawal rates.

Survey information compiled under the projectsuggests that the region is moving in the rightdirection, albeit slowly, in developing coordinatedprograms for water use data collection and report-ing. According to a USGS report (Snavely, 1986),data collection programs in the mid-1980s reliedprimarily on estimated data, and the states andprovinces used different water use categories.Significant progress has been made since that time.Currently, annual data submitted by jurisdiction tothe Great Lakes Regional Water Use Database fitwithin prescribed categories of public supply, self-supply domestic, self-supply irrigation, self-supplylivestock, self-supply industrial, self-supply thermo-electric (fossil fuel), self-supply nuclear, hydroelec-tric and “other.” A summary of the state andprovincial programs (and associated authorization)is presented below. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 also providesummary program information.

IllinoisThe state’s Level of Lake Michigan Act (615ILCS 50) allows the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources (DNR), Lake Michigan

Management Section to allocate Lake Michiganwithdrawals allowed under a 1967 U.S. Su-preme Court Decree. The DNR’s administrativecode, which outlines the process involved inissuing these permits, is found in Title 17Chapter I (h) Part 3730, “Allocation of Waterfrom Lake Michigan.” The Lake MichiganManagement Section receives monthly datafrom the 21 facilities that take water directlyfrom Lake Michigan. The 200 permittees thatuse the water must report metered annualwater use. No allocation permits are requiredfor water coming from non-Lake Michigansources, but the Illinois State Water Surveyconducts annual surveys of public watersuppliers and industrial facilities using morethan 70 gallons per minute (100,800 gallons, or381,500 litres, per day). Water use data isavailable from a combination of facility reportsand estimates.

IndianaIndiana’s Water Resource Management Act(Indiana Code 14-25-7), enacted in 1983,requires registration of facilities with a with-drawal capacity of more than 100,000 gallons(380,000 litres) per day. The Indiana Depart-ment of Natural Resources (DNR), Division ofWater collects annual data for all water usecategories. Authority for data collection comesfrom Indiana Code 14-25-7 for all of thecategories but hydroelectric power generation.Indiana’s four hydroelectric facilities voluntarilyprovide data; the state has no nuclear facilities.Facilities estimate their total water use for thecategories of public supply, self-supply irriga-tion, self-supply thermoelectric (fossil fuel), andhydroelectric. Facilities measure and estimatedata for the self-supply industrial and “other”categories, and the state estimates the majorityof the data for self-supply domestic and self-supply livestock uses.

MichiganWater use reporting occurs through theMichigan Department of EnvironmentalQuality’s (MDEQ) Drinking Water and Radio-logical Protection Division. Under Public Act451 of 1994, Part 327, industrial, powergeneration, and non-agricultural irrigationfacilities that have the capacity to withdrawover 100,000 gallons (380,000 litres) of waterin a 30-day period are required to registerwater withdrawals. As directed in Act 451, theMDEQ and state Department of Agricultureuse a model to estimate agricultural irrigationwater use. Public Act 399 of 1976, Part 15,

Chicago shoreline, looking at the Chicago River Lock and ControllingWorks – a component of the Lake Michigan Diversion

Chapter T

hree - Inventory of Water W

ithdrawal and U

se Data and Inform

ation - 53

*Based on status in 1998

Table 3-2Summary of Water Use Reporting Programs by Jurisdiction *

54 - Tow

ard a Water R

esources Managem

ent Decision Support System

for the Great L

akes-St. Law

rence River B

asin

Table 3-3Summary Characterization of Water Use Permitting, Registration and Reporting Programs

NOTES1 The hydropower category of Minnesota’s water use permitting program only covers facilities that divert water out of the river channel.

Currently, all Minnesota hydroelectric water uses in the Great Lakes watershed are in the river channel.2 Permits for the self-supply domestic category do not include individual residential use.3 Wisconsin has an approval process for many water uses that goes beyond registration but not a complete permitting process.

KEY TO TABLE3-3 CHARACTERISTICS

Permit/Reg.: Doesthe jurisdictionhave a water usepermitting orregistrationprogram? Ifneither, the box forthe category ismarked “None” forno program or “N/A” for no existinguses and the nextfour categories areleft blank.Water Source:What watersources (i.e.,groundwater,surface water, all)are included in theprogram?Threshold: Whatis the use thresholdfor inclusion in theprogram?Capacity/Use:Does the thresholdapply to facilitycapacity, actual use,or allowable use?If the thresholdapplies to all uses,“All” is repeated.Req’d Reporting:Is water usereporting requiredunder the permitor registrationprogram?Data Source:What is the sourceof water use datafor the 1998 GreatLakes RegionalWater Use DataBase?


requires public suppliers to register. TheMDEQ has no authority to collect data (andvoluntary data is not provided) for the catego-ries of self-supply domestic, self-supply live-stock, hydroelectric, and “other.” Facilitiesmeasure their water use for the categories ofpublic supply, self-supply thermoelectric (fossilfuel), and self-supply nuclear. Self-supplyindustrial data is available from facility measure-ments and estimates. Golf course irrigation datais based on facility measurements and estimates.

MinnesotaA water appropriation permit from the Depart-ment of Natural Resources’ Waters Division(DNR Waters) is required for all water with-drawals exceeding 10,000 gallons (37,900 litres)per day or 1 million gallons (3.79 million litres)per year. Minnesota Statutes 103G.255 to103G.315, and Minnesota Rules 6115.0600 to6115.0810, provide for implementation of theWater Appropriation Permit Program. Waterdata is collected for the nine Great LakesRegional Water Use Database categories.Registered facilities report on all categories buthydroelectric. Hydroelectric water use wherewater remains in the waterway (run of theriver) is not considered a water use in the state,and all current basin hydroelectric uses are ofthis type. Hydroelectric data has been derivedfrom U.S. Geological Survey five-year reports,and future reports will use Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission data. Minnesota has nonuclear facilities in its portion of the basin. Datafor all categories are measured by facilities forall categories.

New YorkNew York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part675 requires registration of Great Lakes basinwithdrawals greater than 100,000 gallons(380,000 litres) per day in a 30-day period.Public water suppliers are exempt but, based onthe authority of NYCRR Part 601, the Depart-ment of Environmental Conservation (DEC)issues permits to public water suppliers and usespermit quantities to estimate water use. TheDEC collects water use data for all water usecategories except for hydroelectric. The NewYork Power Authority and InternationalNiagara Committee provide measurements ofthe state’s two largest hydropower facilities, andthe DEC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-sion and Army Corps of Engineers are involvedin other hydroelectric data collection. Mostinformation is reported every other year, but

reports occur annually for self-supply irrigation.All facilities registered in the categories of self-supply industrial, self-supply thermoelectric(fossil fuel), and self-supply nuclear make therequired reports with partially measured data.Estimates are more frequently used for publicsupply and self-supply livestock data.

OhioSections 1521.15 and 1521.16 of the OhioRevised Code require facilities with the capacityto withdraw more than 100,000 gallons (380,000litres) of water per day to register with theOhio Department of Natural Resources (DNR).The DNR’s Division of Water collects annualdata on all nine water use categories in theGreat Lakes Regional Water Use Database, andall registered facilities file reports. The stateestimates data for the categories of self-supplydomestic and hydroelectric. Facilities measuredata for the public supply, self-supply irrigation,self-supply thermoelectric (fossil fuel), and self-supply nuclear categories. Facilities estimatedata for the self-supply livestock category. Datafor the self-supply industrial and “other” catego-ries combine facility measurements and esti-mates.

OntarioOntario’s Ministry of the Environment (MOE)regulates all types of water withdrawals withthe Permit to Take Water (PTTW) programunder Section 34 of the Ontario Water Re-sources Act (OWRA) of 1963. Withdrawals inexcess of 50,000 litres (13,200 gallons) per day,or that significantly interfere with other users,require permits which define maximum allow-able water takings. The Ministry of NaturalResources (MNR) is responsible for reporting tothe Great Lakes Regional Water Use Database,but relies on voluntary reporting because itlacks the authority to require reporting. TheMOE can require reporting under the PTTWprogram, but does not presently exercise thisauthority. Environment Canada and StatisticsCanada collect water use data every two to threeyears for municipal users and every five yearsfor industrial users. A 1996 Rural Water UseSurvey conducted by the University of Guelphprovides data for the self-supply domestic, self-supply livestock and self-supply irrigationcategories. MNR contacts station operators tocollect power generation water use data. Naviga-tion data from the National Canal survey makesup the bulk of water use for the “other” cat-egory.


Figure 3-21998 water withdrawals by category

PennsylvaniaUnder the Water Rights Act of 1939, publicsupply agencies must obtain a permit beforewithdrawing surface waters, but no rules andregulations govern the water allocation pro-cess. The Pennsylvania Department of Envi-ronmental Protection’s (DEP) Bureau ofWatershed Management is responsible forwater allocations and the Annual Water SupplyReport. Chapter 109.701 (b) Rules and Regula-tions, administered by the DEP’s Bureau ofWater Supply and Waste Water Management,provides authority for collection of surfacewater public supply water use information.Administrative Code Section 1904-A (3)provides for data collection for “other” uses.Data is collected for facilities using 100,000gallons (380,000 litres) per day or more but theDEP lacks statutory power to gather data fornon-public supply categories. Water use data iscollected for all public supply facilities, and atleast 80 percent of principal facilities in othercategories. Data is compiled through facilitymeasurements and estimates.

QuébecThe Ministry of the Environment (MOE)oversees most of the water use in Québec (i.e.,quality, hydrology), but several other minis-tries, agencies and municipalities share respon-sibilities. Under the Environment Quality Act,Québec has several regulations addressingwater use, primarily related to environmentaland water quality impacts. The act requires acertificate of authorization (permit) from theEnvironment Minister before a variety ofactivities can occur on water bodies, includingoperation of a public water facility. The 1999Water Resources Preservation Actprohibits the transport of water outsideQuébec in most cases. Although theMOE has the legislative authority tocollect and report on water use, it hasnot implemented any mandatoryprogram and no resources are formallydedicated for that purpose. To fulfill theprovisions of the Great Lakes Charter,MOE initiated, in 1994, the collectionof available data from other ministriesand agencies.

WisconsinWisconsin’s Act 60, passed in 1985,provides for regulation of water with-drawals, diversions, and consumptiveuse. A water withdrawal must be

registered if it will average more than 100,000gallons (380,000 litres) per day in any 30-dayperiod. Wisconsin diversions resulting in a lossof more than 2 million gallons (7.57 millionlitres) in a 30-day period require approval underWisconsin State Statute 30.18. The stateDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR)collects water use data based on the authority inWisconsin State Statute 281.35 and the associ-ated rules in Natural Resources 142, WisconsinAdministrative Code. Wisconsin receivesinformation that is either measured or estimatedby facilities on an annual basis for all water usecategories.

Water Use DatabaseThe Great Lakes Regional Water Use Databaseprovides a common base of data and information onwater use in the Great Lakes basin as called for inthe Great Lakes Charter of 1985. It was envisionedto be a primary vehicle to support water withdrawaldecisions.

Housed at Great Lakes Commission offices, thedatabase uses a modified Microsoft Access7 soft-ware package using Visual Basic for Applications.The customized program was designed in 1987 byAcres International, Ltd. and revised in 1999/2000by Eastern Michigan University’s Center forEnvironmental Information, Technology andApplication. It performs routine database operationsand includes standard data entry, retrieval andreport generation options.

The nine categories of use included in the GreatLakes Regional Water Use Database are outlined inthe previous section. Figure 3-2 depicts waterwithdrawals by category. Each water use categoryincludes three types of withdrawal/discharge


records: Great Lakes Surface Water (GLSW); OtherSurface Water (OSW); and Groundwater (GW).

The system includes six drainage basins (LakeSuperior; Lake Michigan; Lake Huron; Lake Erie;Lake Ontario; and the St. Lawrence River) whichare numerically coded in the database. All states andprovinces submit water use data to the databaserepository by basin of withdrawal. There are 22possible combinations of the six basins and tenjurisdictions. Each jurisdiction’s set of sub-basinrecords is comprised of nine sets of water usecategory records which, in turn, are comprised ofthree sets of withdrawal/discharge type records.Figure 3-3 shows water withdrawals by jurisdiction.

Data submitted to the Regional Water Use Databaseis provided in either million gallons per day (U.S.)(mgd) or million litres per day (mld). There are alsotwo measures of the quality of data provided foreach record: level of accuracy and level of aggrega-tion. The accuracy level indicates whether thewithdrawals are 100 percent measured, more than50 percent measured, or estimated. The level ofaggregation indicates whether the withdrawal dataoriginate from site-specific sources or from higher-level aggregate sources such as county or censusdatabases.

DiscussionGreat Lakes jurisdictions have, over time, madesignificant progress in developing coordinatedprograms for water use data collection and report-ing. Much work, however, lies ahead. Most jurisdic-tions collect some data at or below the Great LakesCharter-established 100,000 gallon (380,000 litre)per day threshold, but the ability of several jurisdic-

tions to collect and report water use data for allwater use categories is lacking. About half of themembers of the Water Withdrawal and UseTechnical Subcommittee state that their jurisdictionis able to fulfill Charter data collection and report-ing requirements in both legislative/regulatoryauthority and implementation effort for almost allwater use categories. The balance believe that theirjurisdiction has relatively strong legislative/regulatory authority but weak implementationefforts.

Even jurisdictions with more formal data collectionand reporting programs are constrained by the lackof high-quality data at the sector or facility level,inadequate enforcement, and/or limited resourcesto implement programs. Jurisdictions wheremultiple agencies are involved in the data collectionand reporting process face additional coordinationchallenges. Jurisdictions with mandatory reportingrequirements appear to be more effective than thoselacking them, given the more stringent require-ments for water users and the availability ofenforcement mechanisms. Currently, many jurisdic-tions lack the appropriate statutory or regulatoryauthority to implement mandatory reporting and/or permitting programs.

Progress has been made since the Great LakesRegional Water Use Database became operationalin 1988, but the database has limited utility as amanagement tool because it does not include site-specific data, and constraints in data collection andreporting programs at the state/provincial levelhave been experienced. Consequently, it lacks thehigh data quality needed to inform activities such astrend analysis, demand forecasting and waterresources planning in general.

The database presently lacks four years of datafrom most jurisdictions (1994-1997) and, conse-quently, it has limited utility in identifying trends inwater use, such as changes in demand at thesystemwide, jurisdictional and water use categorylevels. Trend analysis would provide a valuableplanning tool, allowing, among many other func-tions, projection of possible cumulative effects ofwater use.

The states and provinces released the 1998 annualdatabase report in mid-2002. Water use data for1999 and 2000 were recently submitted by mostjurisdictions, and reports for these years will beprepared in 2003. As resources permit, data from1994 to 1997 will be gathered and incorporated intothe database.

Figure 3-3 1998 water withdrawals by jurisdiction

(not including hydroelectric power)


If the utility of the database as a planning tool isnot improved, the annual data collection andreporting becomes little more than an administra-tive exercise with limited value for the jurisdictions.Under such a scenario, jurisdictions are likely toencounter difficulties in securing funding and otherresources for their individual data collection andreporting programs, and the region will remainunable to identify water use trends accurately.

A leading obstacle to improving the utility of thedatabase is that most jurisdictions are unable tocollect and report water use data on an annual basisfor at least one water use category. At one extreme,due to staffing and other program constraints,Pennsylvania and Quebec relied upon 1993 and1994 data for all water use categories in the 1998Regional Water Use Database Report.

Overall, the Great Lakes Regional Water UseDatabase is characterized by the following limita-tions:

• Measured or metered data is lacking and theuse of measurements or estimates to collectdata varies by jurisdiction;

• The reported level of accuracy (i.e., overallquality) of water use data varies signifi-cantly by jurisdiction;

• Measurement accuracy levels are not welldocumented in the database, limiting theusefulness of data in analyses;

• Each jurisdiction follows its own scheduleand protocols in data collection and report-ing; and

• Programs differ from one jurisdiction toanother and suffer from lack of fundingsupport and authority to fully develop andimplement programs consistent with theGreat Lakes Charter.

Accuracy, of course, is a key consideration indatabase utility, but the database only indicateswhether data is based on estimated use or site-specific metering and direct measurements. Mea-sured data, however, is not presently available formany of the water use categories. Clarification ofcategory definitions, including prospective reclassi-fication, would also enhance database utility. Aprime example is the need to track self-supplydomestic separately from self-supply commercialwater use.

Data submitted to the database is aggregated formultiple facilities, estimated in many cases, reportedat an annual interval and, in some jurisdictions,focused solely on surface water. This level of dataquality is inadequate for identifying impacts fromspecific withdrawals and annual/seasonal trends ofwater use. In addition, aggregate data may not beuseful to support the decisionmaking standardcurrently being developed under Annex 2001 to theGreat Lakes Charter, particularly for withdrawalsfrom tributaries shared by multiple jurisdictions.Site-specific data is needed if the hydrological andecological impacts of a prospective withdrawal areto be accurately assessed.

The data reported by most jurisdictions for mostwater use categories is an aggregation of datacollected for specific withdrawals. Therefore,reporting data in a less aggregated format shouldbe possible without a prohibitive increase in thelevel of the data collection effort. One inherentproblem associated with more specific withdrawaldata should be noted; as the level of withdrawaldata aggregation decreases, the degree of accuracyalso decreases (i.e., the tendency for instances ofover-reporting and under-reporting to cancel eachother out decreases as the data become more“localized”).

Consumptive Use of Great LakesWater

Definitions and CalculationsConsumptive use, as defined by the Great LakesRegional Water Use Database, is “that portion ofwater withdrawn or withheld from the Great Lakesbasin and assumed to be lost or otherwise notreturned to the Great Lakes basin due to evapo-transpiration, incorporation into products, or otherprocesses.”2 Consumptive use is one of severalfactors that affect the amount of water in lakes andother water bodies. In the Great Lakes Charter, theGreat Lakes states and provinces agreed, “that newor increased diversions and consumptive uses ofGreat Lakes basin water resources are of seriousconcern.” The International Joint Commission(IJC), in its 2000 report to the Governments ofCanada and the United States, recommended thatfederal, state, and provincial governments shouldexercise caution with regard to consumptive use of

2 All Great Lakes states and provinces use this definition except Minnesota, which defines consumptive use as any water not returned to its source (i.e., allgroundwater withdrawals). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the IJC use similar, but slightly different, consumptive use definitions.


3 The IJC’s report, Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes: Final Report to the Governments of Canada and the United States. (2000. p. 37) notes thatthe Mud Creek irrigation project in Michigan is the only consumptive use proposal to date large enough to trigger Charter requirements. The proposal“went forward even though there were objections by some Great Lakes jurisdictions. … Consequently, the Charter has not yet provided the impetus for anongoing conversation among the jurisdictions on the subject of consumptive uses.”

Great Lakes basin waters. Within the Great LakesCharter, the governors and premiers set forthprovisions for notifying and consulting each otheron proposed diversions or consumptive uses ofmore than 5 million gallons (19 million litres) perday and call for increased and improved datacollection on water use, diversion and consumptiveuse.3

Conceptualizing consumptive water use is difficultbecause the amount of water lost to the system isnot easily determined, and means are not readilyavailable to measure all water withdrawal and useprocesses. For instance, if water is “consumed”through evapotranspiration, the water may or maynot remain within the basin depending upon whereit returns to the earth’s surface as rain or snowfall.Similarly, water incorporated into food or beverageproducts may or may not remain in the basindepending upon where it is consumed. Additionally,calculated or measured consumptive uses need toconsider the quality of return flows, which may bealtered through chemical or thermal processes. Thereturn flow of water may be so severely degradedas to render it unusable, in which case the water is –in one sense – lost to the watershed.

Two primary methods of calculating consumptiveuse are currently employed in the Great Lakesregion: subtracting return flows from overallwithdrawals and multiplying withdrawal quantitiesby a coefficient that reflects the percentage of waterloss. This latter method is the one predominantlyused in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.Greater cooperation and coordination on the partof the Great Lakes states and provinces is neededto establish a workable methodology for calculating,measuring or estimating consumptive use. Acommon definition, along with common andconsistently applied coefficients, will be an impor-tant first step.

Data CollectionAll consumptive use figures contained in GreatLakes Regional Water Use Database reports areprovided by individual jurisdictions. Table 3-4presents the coefficients used by each in calculatingconsumptive uses. Most of these coefficientsoriginated with the USGS or the Technical WorkGroup of the Water Resources ManagementCommittee. This group was established in 1988 todevelop the protocols and methodology for datasubmittals to the water use database, including

establishing uniform water withdrawal and con-sumptive use estimation procedures. Despite thelack of an overriding scientific basis for the con-sumptive use coefficients, state and provincialofficials generally believe that their application isuseful to provide a general sense of consumptivelosses by water use category.

Most Great Lakes states and provinces estimateconsumptive use at the jurisdictional level, butWisconsin and Michigan have basic legislativeauthority to require consumptive use reporting byfacilities. Prompted by the Great Lakes Charter of1985, Wisconsin passed legislation in the late 1980sthat requires consumptive use reporting for sevenwater use categories: irrigation, livestock, thermo-electric power, commercial, industrial, mining, andpublic water systems. Michigan requires consump-tive use reporting for the self-supply thermoelectric(fossil fuel) and self-supply industrial categoriesonly.

Voluntary facility consumptive use reporting occursin Indiana, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvaniathrough water use registration forms or reports forfacilities that use or have the capacity to withdraw100,000 gallons (380,000 litres) of water per day.New York and Ohio request return flow data fromregistered facilities in withdrawal reports, andIndiana collects return flow data in initial registra-tion forms. In Pennsylvania, the reporting ofwithdrawals and return flows is only requested forthermoelectric (fossil fuel and nuclear) and indus-trial (not including mining). Pennsylvania uses thisdata to calculate consumptive use, but Indiana, NewYork and Ohio rely on established coefficients dueto concerns over its accuracy. Ontario also has somevoluntary reporting by industrial facilities, and thisdata is used for database submissions. Table 3-5describes the facility consumptive use reportingprocesses and applications.

The following is a description of the consumptiveuse coefficients used by Great Lakes states andprovinces to estimate consumptive use for the ninewater use categories included in the Great LakesRegional Water Use Database. Figure 3-4 showsthe percentage of water consumed by each categoryof use.

Public SupplyAll Great Lakes jurisdictions use between 10percent and 15 percent as the coefficient toestimate consumptive use for this category. For

60 - Tow

ard a Water R

esources Managem

ent Decision Support System

for the Great L

akes-St. Law

rence River B

asin

Table 3-4Consumptive Use Coefficients by Water Use Category (Great Lakes Jurisdictions and USGS)*

* Based on Great Lakes Commission survey, Spring 2002** Denotes change from Great Lakes Regional Water Use Data Base Repository representing 1993 data


multitude of uses that do not neatly fit into anyof the other water use categories, such ascommercial and institutional uses. Many usersare rural or unregulated, and, in those instances,water use is estimated at 75 gallons (284 litres)per capita per day. The Great Lakes states andprovinces use a coefficient between 10 percentand 15 percent of withdrawals to estimateconsumptive use.

Self-Supply IrrigationEight of the ten Great Lakes jurisdictions use a90 percent consumptive use coefficient forirrigation. The exceptions are Ontario, whichuses 78 percent, and Wisconsin, which uses 70percent. Many irrigation experts and waterresources managers prefer using evapotranspi-ration (ET) rates to estimate consumptive useinstead of using what they believe to be aninflated consumptive use coefficient. In the field,ET rates are calculated for particular crops andlocales using accepted formulas that considerfactors such as the water holding capacity ofthe soil, the crop root zone and climate.

Self-Supply LivestockThis category includes water for livestock,feedlots, dairies, and other on-farm needs. GreatLakes jurisdictions use an 80 percent consump-

* Although Ohio does not use this data, consumptive use for the self-supply fossil fuel category is reported by facilities, whichbase their calculations on withdrawal and return flow data.

Table 3-5 Measured Processes for Consumptive Use Reporting by Facilities

Figure 3-41998 consumptive water use by category

Illinois, the coefficient does not apply to theGreat Lakes basin because all public supplywater is diverted from Lake Michigan andentirely consumed.

Self-Supply DomesticThe database defines self-supply domestic use as“water used for normal household purposes” or“residential water use.” The category includes a


tive use coefficient for livestock except for NewYork and Wisconsin, which use 90 percent.

Self-Supply IndustrialThis category includes industrial and miningactivities, and coefficients range from 6 percentin Indiana to 25 percent in New York. Severaljurisdictions use the type of industrial facilityand the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)code to estimate industry-specific consumptiveuse, which averages between 10 percent and 15percent. Michigan and Wisconsin are the onlyGreat Lakes jurisdictions that mandate con-sumptive use reporting by facilities. Michigandoes not provide coefficients or technicalguidance to assist facilities with their estima-tions, and only about 30 percent of facilitiescomply with reporting requirements. In Wis-consin, consumptive use reporting by facilitiesis virtually non-existent due to programweaknesses and lack of enforcement.

Self-Supply Thermoelectric (fossil fuel and nuclear-powered facilities)This category is reported as two distinctcategories in the database, but most Great Lakesjurisdictions use the same coefficient for bothnuclear and fossil fuel-powered facilities. Inmost Great Lakes jurisdictions, facilities mea-sure withdrawals and provide that data to thestate or province. Since the water is used forcooling purposes, but is not incorporated intoproducts, consumptive use is generally reportedto be between 1 percent and 2 percent. However,Wisconsin uses a low of 0.5 percent to 1percent and Ohio uses a high of 14 percent fornuclear. Ohio estimates fossil fuel consumptiveuse based on individual plant withdrawals andreturn flows while Illinois and Pennsylvaniathermoelectric coefficients relate to coolingprocesses. Variable water cooling and dischargetechniques and evaporation rate issues bringuncertainty into consumptive use calculationsfor this category.

HydroelectricHydroelectric power generation occurs whengravity causes water to fall and drive turbines.This category includes both “instream”(waterremains within the water channel) and“offstream” (pumping and storage) uses. Evapo-ration in hydroelectric power generation isminimal, and consumptive use is assumed to bezero.

OtherThis water category was created to accommo-date all water uses not included in other catego-ries. Examples include withdrawals for fish/wildlife, recreation, navigation and water qualitypurposes. All jurisdictions except Indiana reportthat the coefficient varies depending on the use.Indiana uses a coefficient of 12 percent, al-though the basis for this coefficient is unclear.

DiscussionAccurate and reliable water withdrawal and usedata are essential in generating meaningful anddefensible consumptive use figures. Currently, suchdata is generated by multiplying the aggregatewithdrawal quantity for each use category by acategory-specific coefficient. While the use ofcoefficients does provide valuable information,confidence in their application is often limited. Forexample, coefficient-calculated consumptive usedata may not be accurate at a site-specific level andis more useful at a larger scale. Consumptive usedata are most reliable when they are based onmeasured, location-specific withdrawals and returnflows. Obtaining credible, location-specific con-sumptive use data will require substantial commit-ments of time and resources in all Great Lakesjurisdictions.

Where actual measurements of withdrawals orreturn flows/discharges are not feasible, such as forirrigation, livestock and rural uses, other reliablemethods for calculating or estimating consumptiveuses can be applied. Current consumptive usecoefficients cannot be validated by existing data andinformation and, due to the variance in use ofcoefficients among Great Lakes jurisdictions, datacomparability can be problematic.

Wisconsin’s experience illustrates this point.Consistent with the intent of the 1985 Great LakesCharter, Wisconsin codified a consumptive usereporting program that requires coefficients forseven water withdrawal categories. Given thequestionable validity of coefficients, and the factthat withdrawal data is largely estimated, theprogram has serious limitations.

Some of the larger water withdrawal categories usethe same coefficients for many types of distinctactivities that, in reality, have very different con-sumption characteristics. Similarly, there is greatvariability among the types of uses in the self-supply domestic and livestock categories, suggest-ing that a single coefficient for each category maybe inadequate in determining actual consumptiveuse.


Demand ForecastingWater demand forecasting is an essential tool inreducing uncertainty associated with the futurestatus and use of Great Lakes water resources. TheGreat Lakes Charter acknowledges the need forsuch assessments to guide future development,management and water conservation activities inthe Great Lakes basin. The Charter recognizes thata key element of a Great Lakes basin water re-sources program is:

Identification and assessment of existing and futuredemands for diversions, into as well as out of theBasin, withdrawals, and consumptive uses formunicipal, domestic, agricultural, manufacturing,mining, navigation, power production, recreation,fish and wildlife, and other uses and ecologicalconsiderations.

Demand forecasting has also been acknowledged asan important planning tool in any decision supportsystem – a key outcome of a Scenario EvaluationWorkshop conducted in May 2002. (Refer to theScenario Evaluation Workshop Summary Proceed-ings in the Appendix).

Recent Demand Forecasting EffortsFive of ten Great Lakes jurisdictions (Illinois,Minnesota, Ohio, Ontario and Pennsylvania)presently employ demand forecasting in their watermanagement programs. Table 3-6 below describesthe status of demand forecasts within these fivejurisdictions.

Developing an appropriate demand forecastingmethodology is a complicated undertaking, and

methods of water demand forecasts will varyaccording to the scale and scope of the study area.In 1999, the IJC commissioned Donald Tate andJeff Harris of GeoEconomics Associates to developwater demand forecasts for the United States andCanadian portions of the Great Lakes basin. Thesewater demand forecasts focused on five water usecategories: agriculture, mineral extraction, manu-facturing, thermal power, and municipal. Theirstudy uses five main parameters to forecast waterdemand:

1. Total water intake – the total amount ofwater added to the water system of a givenfacility, including amounts withdrawn fromvarious sources and for various purposes, orend uses.

2. Recirculated water – water used at least twicein an industrial plant, and applied mainly tomanufacturing and mineral extractionactivities.

3. Gross water use – the total amount of waterused.

4. Water consumption – water that is lost duringuse or in a production process.

5. Wastewater discharge – water that is returnedto the environment in the form of water.

To better understand future water demand inOntario, the Ministry of Natural Resources under-took a demand forecasting project with the assis-tance of GeoEconomics Associates in early 2002.The project was co-funded by Ontario with amatching grant from the Great Lakes ProtectionFund.

Table 3-6Jurisdiction Demand Forecasting Efforts


The methodology used for water demand forecast-ing is based on the application of category-specific(e.g., public water use) water use coefficients towater use drivers (e.g., population served by publicwater supply) where the growth of those drivers isexpected to correlate with that of water use.Forecasting was carried out at the sub-basin levelfor the years 2001, 2011, and 2021 projected fromthe base year of 1996.

In contrast to large-scale water demand analysis,small-scale studies with a narrower focus may takea different approach. An example is found with awater demand analysis of communities in north-eastern Illinois. The Illinois Department of NaturalResources – Office of Water Resources contractedwith Harza Consulting Engineers and Scientists todevelop water demand forecasts of domestic,commercial and industrial water use under the LakeMichigan Allocation Program. The programallocates water to approximately 200 permitteeslocated in four counties in northeastern Illinois.Water demand projections were developed for allpermittees based on historic water use data andlocal demographic projections. The development ofpopulation, housing and employment projectionswas used for the demand forecast analysis. Addi-tionally, the analysis used adjustment factors toaccount for system-specific conditions that causewater usage to vary among similar communities.The specific purpose of this demand forecastingeffort is to review the current allocations and revisethem to better reflect expected water use trends.

Complexity of ForecastsRegardless of methodology, future economicactivity, population growth, technological advancesand climate change are examples of factors influ-encing the outcomes of demand forecasts.

Climate change is a leading example of an influen-tial factor for which the future impacts in the GreatLakes basin are not well known and widely debatedamong experts. Predicting climate change impactsin a specific geographic location is particularlydifficult given the current uncertainty associatedwith the state of the science. However, Donald Tatedrew several general conclusions in a 2002 reportcommissioned by the province of Ontario. Forexample, climate change will enhance naturalclimatic variability, average temperatures in NorthAmerica will rise between 1 to 4 degrees Centi-grade (2 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit), and changes inthe atmosphere are beginning to affect the hydro-logic cycle. Collaborative research with Environ-ment Canada and the U.S. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration shows a lowering oflake levels of up to one meter (3.28 feet) by the endof the century, which may result in serious social,economic and environmental impacts. Climatechange is a slow process and may have long-termadverse effects on water availability. Scientificunderstanding of global climate change musttherefore be integrated in long-term water demandforecasts.

The weaknesses of demand forecasts must also berecognized in the interest of assessing theirapplicability to water resource management.Influential factors inject an element of uncertaintythat constrains the accuracy of any demand fore-cast. In demand forecasting, uncertainty is reflectedin high and low projections and by running themodel through various future scenarios. Uncer-tainty increases in developing long-term projec-tions, and most conventional economic forecastsproject no more then ten years into the future. Thispresents a challenge to water managers who handleprojects with planning horizons beyond ten years.More sophisticated forecasting approaches need tobe developed to reduce uncertainty.

DiscussionDemand forecasting is an essential tool for inform-ing water resources planning and managementactivities at the state/provincial, regional, and locallevels. Forecasts provide important information onwhere water demand is likely to increase and wherefinancial and other resources may need to bedirected to address priority areas.

The limitations and weaknesses of demand fore-casting need to be recognized, understood andaddressed. As forecasting methodology is improvedand refined, and water use data become morereliable and accurate, the ability to project waterdemand with greater certainty over longer plan-Lake Ontario, Toronto’s skyline in winter


ning horizons will be enhanced. The foundation ofany comprehensive water demand forecast isreliable and accurate water use data.

Findings and Recommendations

FindingsA number of findings can be derived from theassessment of state and provincial water use datacollection programs. Many aspects of currentstate/provincial programs, for example, must befurther developed and coordinated if regional watermanagement efforts are to be strengthened and thefull potential of the Great Lakes Charter andAnnex is to be realized. Most jurisdictions collectsome data at or below the Great Lakes Charter-established 100,000 gallon (380,000 litre) per daythreshold, but the ability of several jurisdictions tocollect and report water use data for all water usecategories is lacking. About half of the members ofthe Water Withdrawal and Use Technical Subcom-mittee state that their jurisdiction is presently ableto fulfill the Charter data collection and reportingrequirements in terms of both legislative/regula-tory authority and implementation effort for mostwater use categories. The balance state that theirjurisdiction has relatively strong legislative/regulatory authority but weak implementationefforts. Jurisdictions that have mandatory reportingrequirements built into their programs appear to bemore effective than those that do not, due to themore stringent requirements and the availability ofenforcement mechanisms.

Progress has been made in the area of waterwithdrawal and use data collection and reportingsince the Great Lakes Regional Water Use Databasebecame operational in 1988. The database, however,has limited utility as a management tool because itdoes not include site-specific data and constraintsexist in the state/provincial data collection andreporting programs. Data is aggregated for mul-tiple facilities, estimated in many cases, reported atan annual interval and, in some jurisdictions, focussolely on surface water. This level of data quality isinadequate for identifying hydrological impacts andassociated ecological effects with the confidenceneeded for demand forecasts and other planningactivities.

The current status of consumptive use accountingis similar to that of water use data collection.However, the level of confidence is much lowerbecause the amount of water lost to the system isdifficult to determine. Consumptive use calculations

are inadequate for providing meaningful anddefensible consumptive use information becausethey are based on partially estimated water with-drawal and use data. Current evidence does notvalidate consumptive use coefficients, and jurisdic-tions do not generate comparable data with thecurrent variety of coefficients.

Demand forecasting is an essential water resourcesmanagement tool for informing water resourcesplanning activities at the regional, jurisdictionaland local levels. Forecasts generate crucial informa-tion on where water demand is likely to increaseand where financial and other resources may needto be applied to help address priority areas. Al-though demand forecasts are important, they oftenlack financial and programmatic support at thejurisdictional level. Without knowing what andwhere future demand is likely to be, planners andpolicymakers have difficulty developing and imple-menting effective and comprehensive water man-agement programs that include elements such aswater conservation and drought contingencyplanning.

Recommendations1. Develop state/provincial legislative and

programmatic authority with adequatefunding and technical support to carryout the water withdrawal and use datacollection and reporting commitments inthe Great Lakes Charter and CharterAnnex.

All jurisdictions would benefit from in-creased authority and resources to betterfulfill commitments they made in the GreatLakes Charter and its Annex. At a mini-mum, all states and provinces should ensurethey are able to provide accurate andcomparable information for withdrawals thatexceed 100,000 gallons per day average inany 30-day period for all water use catego-ries. To ensure that all jurisdictions complywith their commitments, enforcementmechanisms should be reviewed, includingthe conditions for participation in the priornotice and consultation process.

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the GreatLakes Regional Water Use Database insupporting the decisionmaking processand revise and upgrade as needed tomake it a more useful planning tool.

Data collection must match the needs of thedecisionmaking process. The current


accuracy and consistency of withdrawal andconsumptive use data within each water usecategory. The ten jurisdictions should worktoward providing water use and consump-tive use data that are site specific, accuratewith high confidence levels (metered,measured or highly accurate estimations),collected at monthly intervals, and inclusiveof all water sources. This will ensure thatdata for all jurisdictions are comparable,accurate and applicable to a regional deci-sion support system. Each water use cat-egory may have specific data collectionneeds that can be addressed by determiningwhich type of data generation process ismost effective. The states and provincesshould regularly review water use dataavailability, collection and reporting on acategory-by-category basis to recommendways to improve this sector specific informa-tion.

4. Develop reporting requirements forincorporation into state/provincial wateruse data collection and reporting pro-grams.

Reporting requirements instituted throughstatutory or regulatory powers help ensurethat facilities – and state/provincial agencies– provide necessary reports in a timelymanner. The data collection process outlinedin the Great Lakes Charter does not assertthat the states and provinces must requirereporting, but those jurisdictions that havebeen most successful in collecting good datahave reporting requirements that areattached to compliance mechanisms, such asthose within a permitting program.

5. Improve state/provincial consumptiveuse reporting processes to ensure reliableand accurate data.

Measured consumptive use data wouldprovide much more accurate detail abouthow much water is actually consumed (i.e.,lost from the basin) from the variousprocesses of water withdrawal and use.Where measured data is not feasible,research-driven improvements in theaccuracy of estimates should be pursued.This would provide information todecisionmakers that would help in evalua-tion of future water withdrawal or diversionproposals.

database should be evaluated to determineelements that need to be strengthened. Thisincludes determining whether the currentwater use categories are appropriate andprovide the means to process and use data.The use of aggregate data should be refined,particularly for sub-watersheds that areshared by jurisdictions. A finer resolution ofdata is needed to assess ecological impacts,particularly at the sub-watershed andnearshore scale, while respecting theprospective need for confidentiality of site-specific data. Data accuracy and confidencelevels need to be improved to better informthe decisionmaking process. Further. statesand provinces must strive for comprehen-siveness, consistency and collaboration indeveloping a regional water managementprogram.

The Regional Water Use Database shouldbecome a more viable tool to assist inregional water resources management andplanning activities, including developingdetailed demand forecasts, creating a waterbudget, analyzing water use by jurisdiction,understanding cumulative effects, andrecommending (on an ongoing basis) meansto enhance database utility. More reliableand accurate data and information by wateruse category will be valuable todecisionmakers as they are faced withproposals for new or increased withdrawalsor diversions. Data need to be collected atthe scale that is appropriate fordecisionmaking, and these needs maychange over time. Some basic steps that willincrease the utility of the database areimproving software capabilities (see Table 3-7), establishing and honoring agreed-to datasubmittal schedules, preparing annualreports on a regular schedule and in a timelymanner, continuing the process of review-ing data submittal requirements and meth-odologies by water use category, and refin-ing and expanding the metadata for thedatabase.

3. Provide a more uniform and consistentbase of data and information through thestate/provincial water use data collectionand reporting programs to facilitatecomparison and evaluation.

Jurisdictions should work together todetermine the appropriate level of data


These forecasts should be an integralcomponent of water resources managementactivities. Each jurisdiction should conductdemand forecasts at a small scale, such asthe major watershed or sub-watershed level,so projected changes in water demand andassociated effects can be more easily identi-fied for decisionmakers. Dedicated, long-term financial and technical support fordemand forecasting is needed at the stateand provincial level and should feed intoregional demand forecasts.

Presentation of interbasin diversion data: Thesoftware presently used for the Great LakesRegional Water Use Database reports totalinterbasin diversions (the amount of watertransferred from the Great Lakes basin intoanother watershed or vice versa) using awater-balance approach. Diversion totalsfor each water use category, jurisdiction,lake basin or Great Lakes basin are pre-sented as the sum of incoming and outgo-ing diversions. A more useful way ofpresenting this information is to presentthese data separately.

Presentation of intrabasin diversion data:Intrabasin diversion totals (water flowingfrom one lake into another, but not leavingthe Great Lakes Basin) should also be geo-referenced and presented so that the usermay view the data separately rather than asan additive fixed total.

Incorporation of an advanced graphics programinto the database: The current databaseallows production of very simple pie chartsreflecting total withdrawals by jurisdiction.Advanced graphics capabilities will allowusers to display and print complex anddetailed data in multiple graphic styles. Asdata quality improves, graphics that displaytrends over years would be crucial inanalyzing water demand.

GIS Applications: Geographical informationsystem (GIS) applications, tools, and spatialdisplays of water use would contribute tothe analysis of regional water demand andlocalized environmental effects.

Table 3-7Software Needs and Recommendations

6. Develop and apply uniform consumptiveuse coefficients for each water usecategory until such time that a bettermethod of measuring consumptive wateruse is available.

Measured consumptive use data are notlikely to be available in the near future formany water use sectors until new technolo-gies are developed or current technologiesbecome more economical. Establishingconsumptive use reporting programs injurisdictions where they do not currentlyexist will also take time, resources andpolitical commitment. With this in mind,current reliance on consumptive use coeffi-cients should be continued, but thosecurrently in use must be refined to bescientifically credible and uniformly adoptedand applied. For certain categories such asself-supply industrial, subcategories shouldbe established to provide for a more accurateapplication of the coefficients. Wherefacility-supplied consumptive use data areavailable (either measured, calculated orestimated), states/provinces should providethis information to the Regional Water UseDatabase. This would allow for comparisonof this data with the agreed-upon coeffi-cients and new research.

7. Develop and regularly pursue a uniformregional approach to demand forecastingin the interest of strengthening jurisdic-tional and regional planning processes.

Demand forecasting methodology developedat the regional level should be refined toaddress the need for longer planninghorizons and uncertainty related to eco-nomic trends, demographic changes, climatechange impacts, technological developmentsand sector improvements in water efficiency.Research and development of demandforecasting methodologies should be pur-sued among academic institutions aroundthe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region. Statesand provinces should keep in mind theregional approach when performing demandforecasts at the watershed and sub-water-shed level.

New water demand forecasts need to bedeveloped on a regular basis (e.g., every fiveyears) with a timeframe of at least 20 years.


ReferencesBlake, D. 2002. Report on State and Provincial

Water Use and Conservation Programs in theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. Great LakesCommission.


Great Lakes Commission. 1985. Survey and Prelimi-nary Evaluation of the Existing Water Use DataCollection Systems in the Great Lakes andProvinces: Final Report of the Water DataCollection Task Force.

Great Lakes Commission. 2002. Annual Report ofthe Great Lakes Regional Water Use DatabaseRepository Representing 1998 Water Use Data.

Great Lakes Governors Task Force on WaterDiversion and Great Lakes Institutions. 1985.Final Report and Recommendations: A report tothe governors and premiers of the Great Lakesstates and provinces prepared at the request ofthe Council of Great Lakes Governors. January.

Great Lakes Water Resources Management Commit-tee. 1987. Managing the Waters of the GreatLakes Basin: A Report to the Governors andPremiers of the Great Lakes States and Prov-inces.

IC 14-25-7 (Indiana Water Resource ManagementAct). 615 ILCS 50 (Level of Lake Michigan Act).

Data submission: Annual data should besubmitted quickly and efficiently, and at theclick of a button. Enhancement of thesoftware would allow this type of timely,and almost immediate, electronic submittal.

Refined table formatting: Jurisdictional usersaccumulate and submit the number ofprincipal facilities, which are represented bya composite withdrawal figure for eachwater use category and withdrawal type.However, the actual number of principalfacilities contributing to a particular valuehas not been incorporated into reports todate. Such an enhancement would increasethe utility and value of the reports. Forreasons of confidentiality, some data mustremain aggregate.

Table accuracy: The 1998 water use tableshave blank fields where data is not available.Future reports should have a non-numericfigure, rather than a blank, to indicate a lackof credible data for a particular field.

Table 3-7Software Needs and Recommendations (cont.)

17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 3730 (Allocation of Waterfrom Lake Michigan).

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office ofWater Resources (prepared by Harza, ConsultingEngineers and Scientists). 1998. 1998 Update ofIDNR Lake Michigan Water Allocation.


Mich. P.A. 451 of 1994, Part 327 (Natural Resourcesand Environmental Protection Act).

Mich. P.A. 399 of 1976, Part 15 (Safe DrinkingWater Act).

Minn. Rules 6115 (Public Water Resources).Minn. Stat. 103G (Water Law).6 NYCRR, Part 601 (Water Supply Applications).6 NYCRR, Part 675 (Great Lakes Water Withdrawal

Registration Regulations).NYSECL 15-1501 (Water Supply).NYSECL 15-1609 (Great Lakes Water Conservation

and Management).Ohio RC 1521 (Division of Water).Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) of 196325 Pa. Code 109 (Pennsylvania Safe Drinking

Water).Pebbles, V. 2002. Measuring and Estimating Con-

sumptive Use of Great Lakes Water. GreatLakes Commission.

Quebec R.S.Q. Chapter Q-2 (Environment QualityAct).

Quebec R.S.Q. Chapter R-13 (Watercourses Act).Quebec Bill 73, 1999 Chapter 63 (Water Resources

Preservation Act).Snavely, D.S. 1986. Water Use Data Collection

Programs and Regional Data Base in the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River Basin States andProvinces U.S. Geological Survey Open FileReport 86-546.

Tate, D. 2002. The Walkerton Inquiry Commis-sioned Paper 22: Water Quantity and RelatedIssues: A Brief Overview. Ontario Ministry ofthe General Attorney: Toronto.www.walkertoninquiry.com/part2info/commissuepapers/06tate/22-Tate.pdf. 19 Sept.2002.

Tate, D. and J. Harris. 1999. Water Demands in theCanada Section of the Great Lakes Basin, 1972-202. Ottawa: Canadian, IJC, and Water Demandsin the United States Section of the Great LakesBasin, 1985-2020. Washington D.C.: UnitedStates, IJC.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Estimated Use ofWater in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geo-logical Survey Circular 1200.

Wisc. Admin. Code NR 142 (Water Managementand Conservation).

Wisc. Statutes 281.35 (Water Resources Conserva-tion and Management).

Chapter Four - Water Conservation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region- 69

Chapter FourWater Conservation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region

IntroductionAnnex 2001 of the Great Lakes Charter calls for adecisionmaking standard that includes waterconservation measures. Although this topic was notpart of the original project work plan, the ProjectManagement Team agreed that water conservationcan inform the decision support process and,consequently, authorized additional research. Theinformation in this chapter outlines these researchefforts, which were based on a survey of state andprovincial water use and conservation programs andsupplemented with information on conservationbest management practices. The focus of the surveyeffort was limited to water conservation at the stateand provincial scale. Additional research on localwater conservation efforts undertaken by entitiessuch as municipalities and agricultural districtswould be extremely useful to more fully supportAnnex requirements. Additional information onexisting programs and guidelines is found in theAppendix.

A Case for Water ConservationThe states and provinces of the binational GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River region are blessed withan abundance of high quality fresh surface water.Collectively, the Great Lakes and their connectingchannels comprise the world’s largest body of freshsurface water. They contain 6.5 quadrillion gallons(24.6 quadrillion litres) of fresh surface water, 20percent of the world’s supply and 95 percent ofthe supply in the United States. Due to this seem-ingly inexhaustible supply of fresh surface water,decisionmakers in the Great Lakes region havehistorically had minimal concern with water supplymanagement issues such as water conservation.These concerns have heightened in recent decades,however, with the increasing frequency of local-ized water management conflicts and the broaderrealization of the Great Lakes system as a large,yet finite, supply of freshwater.

Reliable water supplies continue to be readilyavailable to the majority of the basin’s populationand, in most cases, these supplies will be adequateto accommodate growth in demand. However, insome localized cases, water conservation and otherresponsible water use practices are needed to

provide a viable solution to current shortages or toprovide protection to ecologically and hydrologi-cally sensitive areas. Several cases in Michigan areillustrative of water management issues through-out the basin. Monroe County, located in thesoutheast corner of the state, relies on groundwa-ter for drinking water and irrigation, but aquifershave been depleted due to quarry operations(Behnan, 2002). Oakland and Macomb counties,also in the southeastern portion of the state,likewise have recently experienced aquifer deple-tion due to low rainfall, higher than normaltemperatures and rapid residential development(Patterson and Garrett, 2002). In Saginaw County,similar climatic conditions, along with increases ingroundwater-based agricultural and golf courseirrigation, have resulted in a loss of residentialwell water pressure for extended periods duringthe summer months (Saginaw County Dept. ofHealth, 2002). Developing additional infrastruc-ture can provide for long-term dependable surfacewater supplies, but the potential cost savings fromwater conservation measures will likely be moreeconomical.

Ecological benefits also result from water conser-vation because less water is removed from thesource (e.g., lake, river, aquifer), thus reducingalterations to natural levels and flows and associ-ated ecosystem disruptions.


Even in areas that currently have abundant sourcesof water, conservation measures may increaseefficiencies and lead to lower operating costs. Apublic water supplier that implements an effectivewater conservation program can forego, delay andotherwise better manage system and plant expan-sion. The city of Barrie, Ontario, for example, useswater conservation to reduce wastewater flows,easing the need for supply and wastewater infra-structure while providing savings to customers(Ontario MOE, 1998). Saginaw, Michigan, hassuccessfully used a similar conservation approach(Peters, 2002). Savings can also be realized in othersectors such as industry and agriculture. Allcommunities should reassess the economic benefitsof water conservation, and revisit their belief thatconservation reduces water-related revenue.

Based on the potential benefits of water conserva-tion, support for a regional water conservationapproach has arisen in recent years. In its February2000 report to the governments of the UnitedStates and Canada, the International Joint Commis-sion (IJC) observes, “Because of a possible down-ward trend in net Basin (water) supply in the 21st

century, water-conservation and demand-manage-ment practices should become increasingly impor-tant components of any overall sustainable usestrategy.” The report suggests, “Implementation ofthe Basin Water Resources Management Program –to which the states and provinces are committedunder the Great Lakes Charter – could provide theopportunity to launch a water-conservation initia-tive.” Through the Great Lakes Charter Annex, theregion further committed itself to the pursuit ofresponsible water management through a newdecisionmaking standard that includes waterconservation.

Water Conservation Within a Decision SupportSystem FrameworkIn Directive #3 of the Great Lakes Charter Annex,the Great Lakes governors and premiers agreedthat a new decisionmaking standard on proposalsfor new or increased water withdrawals should bebased on four principles. The first of these is“preventing or minimizing Basin water loss throughreturn flow and implementation of environmentallysound and economically feasible water conservationmeasures.” Clearly, a commitment to water conser-vation will be an essential consideration as adecision support system is designed and imple-mented. In addition to economic efficiencies, suchmeasures can lower consumptive use and reduceindividual and cumulative ecologic impacts ofwithdrawals.

Implementing water conservation measures withinthe basin also provides the region’s decisionmakerswith a basis to insist on such measures by prospec-tive out-of-basin users.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, aswell as World Trade Organization agreements thathave been signed by the United States and Canada,“severely restrict the ability of the Great LakesStates and Provinces to arbitrarily or unilaterallylimit the export of Great Lakes water” (Lochheadet al., 1999). The U.S. Constitution’s interstatecommerce clause also limits the ability of the statesto restrict interstate water transfers. Water conser-vation for all prospective users is important and, byproviding a measurement of how effectively thewater resource will be used and protected, candetermine the merits of a proposed use.

State/Provincial Water ConservationPrograms and Drought ContingencyPlansWhile Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River states andprovinces typically have the authority to implementwater conservation programs, the relative absenceof severe water shortages has limited the impetusfor exercising that authority. Where they do exist,state and provincial water conservation programsvary widely in scope and content and are usuallycomponents of drought contingency plans.

Below is a summary of state and provincial waterconservation programs and drought contingencyplans. The conservation efforts detailed here focuslargely on the public supply sector, a reflection ofthe fact that the state and provincial agenciessurveyed are most closely involved with that levelsector. (See Table 4-1.)

IllinoisIllinois has water conservation requirements ineffect for the entire year for Lake Michigan water,and outdoor water use rules apply during thegrowing season (May 15-September 15). The state’swater conservation program requires conservationby the end user and the owners of water distribu-tion systems. Requirements for end users includemetering of all new services, low-flow plumbingfixtures, lawn sprinkling restrictions and recyclingon automatic car wash facilities. All of the munici-pal permittees have adopted the required ordi-nances and building codes pertaining to waterconservation, so there is no direct monitoring ofthese conservation efforts by the state. Distribution

Chapter F

our - Water C

onservation in the Great L

akes-St. Law

rence River R

egion- 71

Table 4-1State/Provincial Water Conservation Programs and Drought Contingency Plans (as of January 1998)


system owners, or permittees, report annually theamount of Lake Michigan water used along withthe amount lost due to unaccounted-for-flow. If apermittee’s unaccounted-for-flow exceeds 8 percent,a plan of action for meeting the 8 percent standardmust be submitted. Water conservation is alsopromoted by a variety of pamphlets and bookletsthe Department of Natural Resources makesreadily available.

The state has no drought contingency plan, but theDepartment of Natural Resources encouragespermittee emergency water conservation plans incase of temporary water supply failure. AGovernor’s Drought Task Force makes recommen-dations on drought situations.

IndianaIndiana has no formal water conservation program.The Indiana Water Shortage Plan provides criteriafor determining the severity of a drought andrecommends actions that should be taken duringthree water shortage phases. The plan recommendsapproaches for individuals, utilities, and local andstate governments to conserve water duringdifferent stages of drought and establishes priori-ties for water use. Phase I and Phase II occurthrough a joint declaration of the Department ofNatural Resources and the State EmergencyManagement Agency. These phases focus onvoluntary water use reductions and public outreach.Phase III involves an emergency declaration by thegovernor and mandatory restrictions on certainwater uses. Also, agovernor’s advi-sory WaterShortage TaskForce can beformed withrepresentativesfrom severalagencies.

MichiganMichigan has noformal statewidewater conservationprogram ordrought manage-ment plan. In thepast, interdepart-mental task forceshave been formedto address droughtconditions. Indi-vidual municipali-

ties or local governments implement droughtmanagement measures as necessary.

MinnesotaMinnesota’s water conservation program includesboth planning and permitting requirements. Thestate requires all permittees to use water efficientlyand meet certain permit conditions. The stateDepartment of Natural Resources coordinatesconservation requirements with the state Depart-ment of Health for well construction approvals,Drinking Water Revolving Fund requests andwellhead protection efforts. Approaches to waterconservation include planning, education, conserva-tion rate structures, metering, leak detection andrepair, retrofitting programs, local regulations, andelimination of wasteful use.

Minnesota statutes specifically require conservationplans for public water suppliers and agriculturalirrigators. Public water suppliers must implementdemand reduction measures before requestingapprovals for construction of new municipal wellsand increases in permitted water withdrawals.Public water suppliers must have unaccounted-forwater volumes below 20 percent as a condition oftheir permit. Irrigation permit applicants mustobtain approval from the county soil and waterconservation district, which may impose site-specific conservation requirements.

The state’s drought contingency plan is specific tothe Mississippi River, but is being updated to reflectall state resources. As part of the drought plan,

public water suppliers serving more than1,000 people must have an approved wateremergency and conservation plan that isupdated every 10 years. These plans arerequired for wellhead protection plans andapplications for the state’s Drinking WaterRevolving Fund. All surface water appropria-tors must have an approved contingency plan.As the plan goes into effect, statutory wateruse priorities determine which water uses aresuspended. An agency and stakeholder taskforce helps implement the plan.

New YorkThe Department of EnvironmentalConservation’s Public Water Supply PermitProgram (PWSPP) requires new water supplypermit applicants to have water conservationprograms. The water supplier holds responsi-bility for implementing the program, and thePWSPP monitors compliance with theprograms. The PWSPP requires permittees todevelop and implement long-term waterBelle Isle fountain, Detroit, Mich.


conservation measures such as metering, meterreplacement/calibration, system water audits andleak detection and repair. The goal of each pro-gram is to keep unaccounted-for water to 15percent or less. The PWSPP also requires publicityand consumer education efforts.

The State Drought Management Task Force,comprised of several state agencies, evaluatesdrought conditions and recommends to the gover-nor and State Disaster Preparedness Commissionwhich drought stages should be announced. During“Watch” and “Warning” stages, conservationrecommendations focus on outdoor use and thereare no mandatory statewide restrictions. Thegovernor can declare an “Emergency” stage andrequire water conservation measures. In the “Disas-ter” stage, restrictions can be stricter and thegovernor may request federal assistance. The stateDepartment of Health (DOH) also requires com-munity water supply systems with more than$125,000 in annual gross operating revenues tohave a Water Supply Emergency Plan. Local watersuppliers are responsible for implementation, andthe DOH monitors compliance.

OhioOhio has no formal water conservation program.Ohio’s Drought Response Plan has four phases,with increasing amounts of water conservation.Various levels of voluntary water conservationmeasures are requested during Phase Two andPhase Three Drought Alerts. At these levels, publicwater suppliers, their customers, and privatewithdrawers are asked to voluntarily reduce theirwater use. A Phase Four Drought Emergency,which involves mandatory water use restrictions,occurs by the governor’s declaration when watersupplies will not meet projected demands and thePalmer Drought Severity Index reaches 4.0 orlower. The Ohio Emergency Management Agencyheads Ohio’s drought response team and enforceswater use restrictions. The Drought ExecutiveCommittee is activated during Phase Three andincludes relevant agencies and interest groups thatassist in monitoring water use to identify non-compliance.

OntarioOntario has no formal water conservation program,but federal, provincial and local governmentsemploy a variety of conservation strategies. Manycommunities restrict outdoor water use, requiremeter installations and require conservation plans,while the federal government supports water

conservation through research, information sharingand funding local conservation efforts.

At the provincial level, a number of regulationsimpact water conservation. The Ministry ofEnvironment (MOE) “Permit to Take Water”program requires a permit for withdrawals greaterthan 50,000 litres (13,200 gallons) per day andgives priority to natural ecosystem functionprotections. Water conservation is required forpermit applications in the Greater Toronto Area.Provincial building codes require low-flow plumb-ing fixtures, retrofits, education programs andsupport for municipal conservation efforts. TheProvincial Planning Act requires consideration ofwater conservation during planning. The MOEundertakes provincial water conservation educationinitiatives and the Ministry of Agriculture andFood promotes agricultural best managementpractices for agriculture.

Drought is managed through the Ontario LowWater Response Plan, which uses partnershipsbetween local and provincial agencies. A local waterresponse team is comprised of stakeholders whowork with provincial ministries to find ways toreduce demand. The plan relies on existing legisla-tion to ensure provincial preparedness and tosupport and coordinate local response. For ex-ample, the Ontario Water Resources Act allows theMinister of Environment to limit water withdraw-als for permitted uses. The plan includes threedrought indicator levels. Level I seeks a voluntary10 percent reduction in water use. Level II seeks avoluntary 20 percent reduction, and municipalbylaws may be enacted to restrict non-essentialuses. Level III includes mandatory water userestrictions and allocation priority recommenda-tions.

PennsylvaniaIn Pennsylvania, public water supply agencieswithdrawing or using surface water are required todevelop a water conservation program. The De-partment of Environmental Protection (DEP)provides its Drought Information Center guidelinesto assist in program development, and a PermitCompliance Report process ensures that a varietyof conservation efforts occur. The state investigatespublic water supply systems that do not have wateruse that falls between 40 and 70 gallons (150 and265 litres) per capita per day. The last comprehen-sive study indicated a statewide average usage of62 gallons (235 litres) per capita per day formetered systems. The state also investigatesunaccounted-for-flows that exceed 20 percent bylooking at domestic connection per capita usage.


Streamflow, groundwater levels, reservoir storage,precipitation, and the Palmer index are all used todetermine one of three stages of drought. Levelsof reduced water use are targeted within eachstage: 5 percent in Drought Warning, 10 percent to15 percent in Drought Watch and at least 15percent in Drought Emergency. The third stagemay also include mandatory restrictions. Watersuppliers in a drought emergency area can rationwater during the emergency stage with approvalfrom the Commonwealth Drought Coordinator. Thestate’s drought regulations require water supplysystems with more than 50 connections to providethe DEP with drought contingency plans. Indus-trial and commercial water users that use more than100,000 gallons (380,000 litres) per day in any 30-day period must also have a drought plan.

QuébecQuébec has no mandatory water conservationprogram or drought contingency plan. Conserva-tion efforts occur at the local level, and provincialministries provide financial support to some non-governmental organizations, such as RÉSEAUEnvironment, which promotes water conservationthrough publications, conferences, publicity cam-paigns and a website (www.reseau-environnement.com). Québec also provides financialsupport to small municipalities for replacement orimprovement of drinking and wastewater infra-structure. Municipalities implement conservationmeasures (e.g., limiting hours when lawns can bewatered) and work with other organizations toprovide education and incentive programs. Somemunicipalities and organizations, such as theMontreal Urban Community, have educationprograms in schools and awards for institutionsthat improve their water management.

WisconsinWisconsin has no required formal water conserva-tion program, but the state recommends waterconservation plans as part of wellhead protectionplans that are required for all new municipal wells.The Department of Natural Resources regulatessupply sources and users, such as community watersupplies and hydroelectric facilities. The PublicService Commission regulates water rates, pressurestandards and system losses, and the Departmentof Commerce regulates water use standards fornew plumbing fixtures.

The statewide drought contingency plan takeseffect when the governor declares an EmergencyExecutive Order. This plan can include mandatorywater conservation measures that occur as a

drought increases in severity, but there are nocompliance provisions. A statewide technicaladvisory committee has given consideration to thecriteria for determining the stages of a drought,but no statute or rule has been adopted.

Summary AnalysisA variety of water conservation efforts are occur-ring at the state/provincial level, but furtherprogress is needed. Current water conservationpractices that some jurisdictions require or encour-age include: use of low-flow plumbing fixtures;metering; outdoor water use restrictions; reportson water use and unaccounted-for flow; publicityand consumer education; rate structures; wellheadprotection plans; and leak detection and repair.

These practices provided initial guidance indeveloping the 15 recommended conservationmeasures in the following section of this chapter.Many of the above-mentioned conservationpractices are implemented at the municipal/locallevel, where they are most effective, and furtherresearch is needed to assess the extent to whichthese water conservation efforts are presentlyemployed. Research is also needed to determine thelevel of water conservation occurring in otherwater use sectors, such as industry and agriculture.

Several of the water conservation programscurrently in place provide elements that should beconsidered in development of a regional initiative.Illinois’ water conservation program is noteworthyfor the fact that it provides specific conservationrequirements and implements a year-round pro-gram. Knowledge gained and lessons learned fromIllinois’ program, as well as Minnesota’s andOntario’s permit-related water efficiency require-ments, New York’s and Pennsylvania’s watersupplier conservation program requirements, andelements of the various drought plans, should beconsidered when assembling guidance for basin-wide water conservation. These programs focusprimarily on the public supply sector; other ele-ments will need to be integrated into a regionalwater conservation approach based on the out-comes of future research on other water usesectors. Jurisdictions without any water conserva-tion program have a clear need to devote time andresources to plan and implement a program.

Existing drought contingency plans appear toprovide an appropriate process for addressingemerging water shortage situations and are gener-ally adaptable to varying needs over the course ofthe year. Jurisdictions without drought contingency


plans, including states, provinces and municipalities,should move expeditiously to develop them.

Developing Coordinated ConservationProgramsWater conservation programs and practices at theindividual state, provincial and municipal levelssuggest a growing awareness of water manage-ment needs as well as current/prospective wateruse conflicts in the region. Such measures, however,are limited in scope and geographic coverage, andare generally not coordinated with other jurisdic-tions. Consequently, the region lacks a basin-wideframework or over-arching plan, compromising theeffectiveness of individual efforts and the region’sability to effectively demonstrate responsible use ofits water re-sources.

The rationale fora coordinatedapproach to waterconservation iscompelling, and isfound in theInternationalJointCommission’sFebruary 2000report, Protectionof the Waters ofthe Great Lakes,and the June 2001Great LakesCharter Annex.The IJC reportrecommends that:“Sharing ofconservation experiences among basin jurisdictionsshould be an integral part of the overall approachto conservation programs and practices. Jurisdic-tions may wish to adopt some common approaches,as appropriate, in their water conservation plans,including incentives to encourage water demand-management initiatives and the installation of bestpracticable water-saving technology.” In Directive#6 of the Great Lakes Charter Annex, the gover-nors and premiers agree to “develop guidelinesregarding the implementation of mutually agreedupon measures to promote the efficient use andconservation of the Waters of the Great Lakes

Basin within their jurisdictions.” Based on thisprovision and Directive #3, which stipulates thatwater conservation will be part of thedecisionmaking standard, water withdrawal propos-als will need to demonstrate appropriate waterconservation efforts.

A challenge in implementing these directives will bedeveloping guidance that recognizes the uniquehydrologic and ecological characteristics associatedwith each prospective water withdrawal locationand use.

Basic Guidance for Regional WaterConservationGreat Lakes states and provinces will benefit fromguidance in developing regionally consistent andcoordinated water conservation programs. Basicguidance focusing on public water suppliers isprovided in this section; additional research isneeded to provide more comprehensive guidance forother water use sectors.

As outlined in the section on state and provincialwater use programs, several basin jurisdictionscurrently require or encourage water suppliers topursue specific water conservation practices. Theseshould be a foundation in the development of anymodel programs or guidance to be considered at theregional level. Based on these practices and otherreference materials,1 Table 4-2 has been compiled topresent 15 water conservation measures that can beimplemented by state, provincial and regionaldecisionmakers as well as municipalities, watersuppliers and other water users. Measures arecategorized as Financial, Programmatic, Techno-logical and Informational.

FinancialIn the residential water use sector, programsoffering financial incentives can be used to encour-age water conservation. Some of the most commonentail paying for, or subsidizing, retrofits andreplacement of older plumbing fixtures, measuresthat provide instant reductions in water use. Also,metering and submetering allow for the establish-ment of rate structures with incentives for reducedwater use and give end users the ability to tracksuch use. Similarly, industrial facilities can installtheir own meters to monitor water use at variouspoints in a production process so that potentialconservation savings can be identified.

1 See, in References section, AWWA, 1969, AWWA, 1991; AWWA, 1995; CUWCC, 2002; 17 Ill. Adm. Code 3730; 42 USC 13385; USEPA, 1998; Vickers,2001.

Tahquamenon Falls, Michigan


ProgramaticMany conservation measures implemented by awater supplier or large end user require extensivelyplanned and executed programs. Reliable informa-tion and regularly scheduled reports on water useand unaccounted-for flow help identify areas forsystem improvement, and can prompt follow-upaction, such as system maintenance or repair. Publicwater suppliers may initiate other internal conser-vation programs that reduce water used for opera-tions, such as mains flushing and filtration plantbackflushing (Ellison, 2002). Integrated resourceplanning employs a comprehensive process toconsider supply alternatives and to ensure that themost efficient water supply approach is imple-mented. Other programmatic approaches includealtering water system pressure to control watervolumes and recirculating and reusing water inindustrial processes.

TechnologicalTechnological advances create new options forincreased efficiency. In the public water supplysector this can be accomplished through the in-creased use of low-flow plumbing fixtures andappliances. Industrial, commercial, and agriculturalequipment can also be made more efficient throughtechnological improvements. The choice of technol-ogy largely depends on the needs of the individualwater user, but can be as simple as replacing anolder toilet with a low-flow model. For example, theU.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires a maxi-mum manufacturing standard of 1.6 gallons (6litres) per flush for toilets.

InformationalInformation campaigns targeting all sectors of thebasin community can be effective in promotingwater conservation practices. For example, domes-tic users can turn off faucets when they are not inuse and agricultural users can monitor climate andtemperature to irrigate with a goal toward reducedlosses to evapotranspiration. Appropriate adoptionand use of landscape equipment also can reducewater use, as can planting of native and drought-tolerant vegetation. Industrial and commercialfacilities can often find ways to alter operations orprocedures to reduce unnecessary water consump-tion.


FindingsA commitment to “environmentally sound andeconomically feasible water conservation measures,”as stated in the Great Lakes Charter Annex, iscritically important if the region is to demonstrateit can responsibily manage its own resources.

This growing emphasis on water conservationsignals a significant shift from past water manage-ment practices that viewed Great Lakes water as avirtually limitless resource that can accommodateall current and anticipated in-basin demands. Waterconservation is now considered a viable solution tocurrent shortages in some communities experienc-ing water supply problems, and as a means ofreducing costs and providing ecological benefits inareas with abundant water. In particular, areas of

Table 4-2Fifteen Suggested Water Conservations Measures


unique ecological and hydrological characteristics –and associated sensitivities – will benefit fromtargeted water conservation efforts.

Several Great Lakes-St. Lawrence states andprovinces have the authority to implement basicwater conservation programs, but these programsvary widely in scope and content, and are usuallypart of a drought contingency plan. Many conser-vation programs are in place at the local level butprograms and models to promote region-widecoordination are lacking.

Based on current programs and several consultedguidelines, a list of 15 water conservation practicesranging from financial incentives to improvementsis provided in Table 4-2 of this chapter as basicguidance.

Recommendations1. Develop and apply water conservation

models that foster a coordinated regionalapproach and address the Charter Annexstandard of “environmentally sound andeconomically feasible.”

A coordinated regional approach to waterconservation needs to be developed andimplemented to demonstrate the region’scommitment to responsible water manage-ment. The region, including each state andprovince, must remain committed to a new“environmentally sound and economicallyfeasible” water conservation standard. Thiswill avert potential water shortages whileproviding economic and technical efficien-cies and ecological benefits. Regional goalscould be developed for “environmentallysound and economically feasible” waterconservation by water use sector.

Development of models at the basin levelbased on jurisdiction conservation experi-ences will assist the states and provinces indeveloping their own programs and contrib-uting to basin-wide initiatives. Elements ofcurrent state and provincial water conserva-tion programs, including the list of 15 bestmanagement practices in this chapter,should be used in conjunction with otherresearch to provide this guidance. The GreatLakes Commission’s water conservationproject, funded by the Great Lakes Protec-tion Fund in 2002-03, will help in develop-ing these models.

2. Establish an information clearinghouseto publicize best management practicespertaining to individual sectors of wateruse.

Information within this chapter, includingthe list of 15 suggested water conservationmeasures, needs to be followed with moreresearch: surveys of water suppliers (largelyat the local level) that provide profiles ofexisting programs; case studies of effectiveprograms in other regions of NorthAmerica and beyond; and identification ofappropriate measures that should be in-cluded in a decisionmaking standard. Thisresearch should outline which water conser-vation practices are most applicable to eachwater use sector and special local conditions,such as ecological sensitivities. A clearing-house that details this research should bedeveloped and maintained to provide waterusers and decisionmakers with the informa-tion.

3. Develop and update state/provincialdrought contingency plans to ensureadequate attention to water conservation.

As a basic step toward regional waterconservation, drought contingency plansneed to be adopted at the state and provin-cial levels. Increased understanding isneeded on the range of natural variation ofthe resource and how to plan for the ex-tremes. Jurisdictions (including states,provinces, municipalities and agriculturaldistricts, among others) that have nodrought contingency plan should developthem so they can address future watershortage situations.

4. Develop specific water conservationprovisions as part of state/provincialwater management programs.

All states and provinces should developwater conservation provisions within theirwater management programs. Jurisdictionswithout any such program should devote thetime and resources needed for plan develop-ment and implementation.

5. Undertake an economic analysis toidentify the financial benefits of waterconservation, and use results to promoteadoption of such practices atthe local level.



17 Ill. Adm. Code 3730 (Allocation of Water fromLake Michigan). http://dnr.state.il.us/waterresources/3730rule.htm. 22 May 2002.


Lochhead, J.S., C.G. Asarch, M. Barutciski, P.J.Monahan, G.E. Taylor, and P.M. Schenkkan.1999. Governing the Withdrawal of Water fromthe Great Lakes: Report to the Council of GreatLakes Governors.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1998. City ofBarrie’s Water Conservation Program: HugeSuccess. Green Industry. August.

Patterson, D., and C. Garrett. 2002. SuburbanGrowth Drains Wells. The Detroit News, July30. www.detnews.com/2002/metro/0207/30/a01-548539.htm. 26 Aug. 2002.

Peters, G. 2002. (Saginaw-Midland Water SupplyCorp.). Personal communication. 12 Aug.

Saginaw County (Michigan) Department of PublicHealth. Report on Groundwater WithdrawalConflicts. Executive Summary.www.saginawpublichealth.org/irrigation.html.27 Nov. 2002.

42 USC 13385. U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Water

Conservation Plan Guidelines. www.epa.gov/owmitnet/water-efficiency/wecongid.htm. 5 July2002.

Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook of Water Use andConservation. Amherst, Mass.: WaterPlow Press.

An economic analysis needs to be under-taken to demonstrate the economic benefitsof various water conservation measures.This analysis should build upon previousefforts and help define which conservationapproaches are “economically feasible” forthe region.

6. Develop a regional information/educa-tion program to promote the adoption ofwater conservation practices.

An information/education program at theregional level is needed to promote waterconservation priorities and explain theirbenefits. This will help address themisperception that the Great Lakes basin’sabundant water is readily available, withoutlimit, as a supply source to all in-basininterests. The program should encouragewater users to adjust consumption habits tominimize pressure on the resource. A varietyof publicity tools should be employed, andthe program should track performance overtime and be regularly updated to reflectevolving needs.

ReferencesAmerican Water Works Association. 1969 (last

revised 1998). Metering (policy).www.awwa.org/Advocacy/govtaff/meterpol.cfm.26 June 2002.

American Water Works Association. 1991 (reaf-firmed 2002). Water Use Efficiency (policy).www.awwa.org/Advocacy/govtaff/watcopol.cfm.26 June 2002.

American Water Works Association. 1995. WaterConservation and Water Utility Programs(white paper). www.awwa.org/Advocacy/govtaff/atcopap.cfm?a404=1. 23 May 2002.

Behnan, C. 2002. Officials Seek Lakes Protection.SEMscope (Southeast Michigan Council ofGovernments), Summer: 8-9.

Blake, D. 2002. Report on State and ProvincialWater Use and Conservation Programs in theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. Great LakesCommission.

Blake, D. 2002. Selected Guidelines of WaterConservation Measures Applicable to the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence Region. Great LakesCommission.

California Urban Water Conservation Council.Memorandum: What We Are About: BMPDefinitions, Schedules, and Requirements.www.cuwcc.org/m_bmp.lasso 6 June 2002.

Ellison, T.D. 2002. (Canadian Water and WastewaterAssociation). Email correspondence. 15 Aug.

Chapter Five - Ecological Impacts Associated with Great Lakes Water Withdrawals - 79

Chapter FiveEcological Impacts Associated with Great Lakes Water Withdrawals

standard that the states and provinces will use toreview new proposals to withdraw water or increaseexisting water withdrawals from the Great Lakesbasin. The new standard is based upon four prin-ciples, including:

• No significant adverse individual or cumulativeimpacts to the quantity or quality of the Watersand Water-Dependent Natural Resources of theGreat Lakes Basin; and

• An Improvement to the Waters and Water-Dependent Natural Resources of the GreatLakes Basin.

Implementation of such a decisionmaking standardin a fair and equitable way requires a quantitativeunderstanding of the relationship between waterwithdrawals, other human uses and the cumulativeecological response of the system.

The Ecological Impacts Technical Subcommittee ofthis project compiled an inventory of the data andknowledge base and tools available for applying aregional resource-based decisionmaking standardand, in so doing, identified gaps in understandingand assessment capabilities.

Work under this project element included: a) thedevelopment of a list of “essential questions”regarding potential ecological impacts that shouldbe addressed in reviewing water withdrawalproposals; b) a literature search and analysis; and c)an inventory of existing models.

This chapter presents the basic framework devel-oped for assessing ecological impacts of waterwithdrawals/diversions, including a comprehensivelist of “essential questions” that should be ad-dressed in making such an assessment. An ExpertsWorkshop, held in November 2001, provided initialinput to the development of the preliminary set ofquestions, refinement of the framework and“essential questions,” and identification of data andresearch needs relative to addressing these ques-tions. The essential questions express whatdecisionmakers need to know. This chapter alsopresents a summary of a literature review anddescribes the model inventory. The literature searchfocuses on the knowledge and data available forassessing ecological impacts of water withdrawals/

IntroductionThe Great Lakes Charter of 1985 established aprior notice and consultation process for GreatLakes diversions and consumptive uses averagingmore than 5 million gallons per day in any 30-dayperiod. One of the five principles set forth in theCharter is the Protection of the Water Resources ofthe Great Lakes, which states that “diversions of

Basin water resources will not be allowed ifindividually or cumulatively they would have anysignificant adverse impacts on lake levels, in-basinuses, and the Great Lakes Ecosystem.” The GreatLakes Charter Annex builds on the Charter byseeking to develop an “enhanced water managementsystem that …most importantly, protects, con-serves, restores, and improves the Waters andWater-Dependent Natural Resources of the GreatLakes Basin.” This pursuit of long-termsustainability for the basin’s water resources wouldpreserve water quantity and quality in a way thatmaintains or enhances the ability to provide social,economic and environmental services. A key tenetof this water resource management approach is toprevent water withdrawal and use from havingadverse ecological impacts on the Great Lakesecosystem.

In specifying its concern about preventing adverseecological impacts of water withdrawals in theGreat Lakes, Directive #3 of the Great LakesCharter Annex calls for a new decisionmaking

Great Blue Heron


diversions. The model inventory provides a list ofmodeling tools for making ecological assessments.These last two sections summarize what is known inthe area of ecological impacts and where the major gapsare.

“Essential Questions” for EcologicalImpact Assessment

IntroductionIn November 2001, U.S. and Canadian scientists,policymakers and managers drawn from states,provinces, federal agencies and nongovernmentalsectors participated in an Ecological ImpactsExperts Workshop. The primary objectives of theworkshop were to identify the types of “essentialquestions” that must be considered to evaluate thepotential ecological impacts of any proposed waterwithdrawal, begin to develop an inventory ofinformation on ecological impacts, and provide anopportunity for participants to raise related issuesand concerns. Experts from a range of relevantdisciplines were invited to serve on a panel to fulfillthese objectives. Panel members included individu-als with expertise in fisheries biology, surface andgroundwater hydrology, wetlands ecology, aquaticecology, bird ecology, environmental engineering,and other relevant disciplines. The full workshopsummary is available in the Appendix.

Approach to Developing List of EssentialQuestionsAn initial list of “essential ques-tions” was presented for consider-ation. This information was derivedby considering the range of possibleimpacts from a theoretical perspec-tive and from the literature review(see Section 6.3), consulting withthe Project Management Team, andreviewing the results and recom-mendations of an EcologicalIndicators Workshop held inBurlington, Ontario (Leger et al.,2001). This initial list of questionswas prepared for the workshopparticipants to react to and refineduring the workshop. In developingthis list, there was recognition thatthere are multiple levels of ques-tions that relate to different levelsof authority, and this list does notaddress all levels of detail. It wasalso recognized that, in a decision

support framework, not all questions would beessential, and not all would need to be asked forevery situation. Rather, the panelists were asked todevelop a list of questions that are the types ofquestions that should be considered to assessimpacts of water withdrawals.

Workshop participants were provided with back-ground information, including the followingguidance on the essential questions:

• Questions will be focused on scientificissues and not on regulatory or socio-economic issues (although the final decisionsupport system may consider these);

• Questions may be posed to either regulatedor regulator parties;

• Localized as well as regional and cumula-tive impacts should be considered;

• Human health impacts should be consid-ered.

Figure 5-1 presents the proposed framework forassessment. Each box represents a category ofessential questions, and the arrows indicate howthese impacts interact. The list of questions iscategorized by the main headers in the boxes ofthe framework.

Workshop participants refined the list of essentialquestions, and the outcome is presented below. Inaddition to the essential questions, participantsidentified several scientific and policy issuesrelated to the larger assessment process. Theseissues included how to characterize the baseline

Basic Informationon

Proposed Water Withdrawal

Basic Informationon

Proposed Water Withdrawal

Water QuantityImpacts

Water QuantityImpacts

Ecological Impacts

Habitat

Species Effects

Community Interactions

Energy & Nutrient Flow

Ecological Impacts

Habitat

Species Effects

Community Interactions

Energy & Nutrient Flow

Water QualityImpacts

Water QualityImpacts

Sediment Dynamics &

CharacteristicsImpacts

Sediment Dynamics &

CharacteristicsImpacts

Figure 5-1Proposed framework for ecological assessment of water withdrawals


condition, how to quantify ecologically significantchange, how much of a change is acceptable from apolicy perspective, and the need for managementobjectives. While several issues were discussed, itwas beyond the intent of the workshop to reachconsensus or draw conclusions related to theseissues. Rather, the workshop provided an opportu-nity for an “open airing” of issues and concernsrelated to this topic.

List of Essential Questions

Category 1:Basic Information on Water Withdrawal

The first category of questions covers basicinformation on the proposed water withdrawal,such as the characteristics of the source andreturn water bodies, the proposed use of thewater, and information related to the structureand operation. These questions also addressalternatives to the proposed withdrawal, and theassociated impacts.1. Where is the proposed water with-

drawal?If water withdrawal is from a Great Lake, St.Lawrence River, or Connecting Channel:• What is the specific location and depth of

withdrawal?• What are the relevant hydrology, geom-

etry, hydrodynamics, and water quality inthe vicinity of the withdrawal?

If water withdrawal is from a river:• Where is it located on the river?• What are the statistics on flow regime

(average flow, 7Q10, 100 year flow)?• What are the key characteristics of the

river and watershed? Characterize sub-watersheds by land use types.

If water withdrawal is from an inland lake:• What are the inflows and outflows?• What is the lake geometry?• What is the range of water levels?• What is hydraulic retention time?If water withdrawal is from a groundwatersource:• What is the elevation of the water table?• What is the size of the aquifer?• What is the general characterization of

the aquifer?• What is the estimated sustained yield of

the aquifer?• How does this aquifer relate to the surface

waters of the Great Lakes basin?

2. What is the existing quality of thesource water and sediments?• Temperature• Nitrates• Dissolved oxygen• Buffering capacity• BOD• Salinity• Total dissolved solids• Sulfur• Pathogens• Water conductivity• Dissolved organic carbon• Persistent toxic substances

3. Describe the current assimilative capac-ity of the source and return water.

4. Describe the key habitat characteristicsfor habitats associated with the sourceor receiving water (i.e., quality, access,resilience)• Are there endangered or threatened

species or fragile habitats associated withthe source water? If so, list and describe.

• Does the area of influence contain asignificant amount of seasonal/semiper-manent wetlands, bogs or fens that aredirectly linked to the water table? If so,describe.

5. What components of the system aremost sensitive to withdrawals? Which ofthese will most likely improve?

6. What are the existing uses (e.g., drink-ing water) of the source water body?

7. Is there a watershed management planor objective for the area where thewithdrawal is proposed to be made? Forthe source water? If so, is the proposalconsistent with the plan?• What are the existing water quality

standards for the source water? For thereturn water?

8. What is the proposed use of the with-drawn water?• Will its water quality be altered by this

use? What are the water use processes? Ifso, explain.

• Will the use be consumptive? If yes, whatfraction of withdrawn water is consumed?

• What is the potential for future changes inthe proposed use?

9. What is the proposed rate of with-drawal?


• Will there be seasonal or diurnal varia-tions in withdrawal rate? If so, describe.

• What is the anticipated duration of thiswithdrawal? Will the diversion be essen-tially irreversible?

• Is an increase in water withdrawal antici-pated in the future?

10.Where is the unconsumed water pro-posed to be returned?• Will the water be impounded before being

returned? If so, describe.• Will it be treated before it is returned? If

so, describe treatment.• If in same water body, where is return

located with respect to withdrawal?• If different water body, what is the

location of the water return?• What is the quality of the receiving water

for the return?• Are there endangered or threatened

species or fragile habitats associated withthe receiving water? If so, describe.

• What are the existing uses of the receiv-ing water for the return?

11. What will be the physical structure andoperation of the proposed water with-drawal and return? Describe the intakestructure and operational plan in detail.• Will there be any physical, chemical, or

biological impacts due to the withdrawaloperation? Describe in detail and includeentrainment or impingement effects.

12. Are other options to this proposedwithdrawal available? Can the locationof the proposed withdrawal be changedto minimize the impact? If so, describethe impacts that are associated with thesealternatives.

Category 2: Water Quantity

Questions in this category relate to flows, waterlevels, groundwater yields, and other informa-tion about water quantity in the source and thereceiving water.1. For the source water, receiving water for

returns, and any other impactedwaterbodies (including bypassedreaches, downstream waterbodies andimpacted wetlands), does the withdrawalaffect: If yes to any of the questions,describe the impacts.• Baseflow?

• Range and timing of water levels or watertable elevation fluctuations (includingseasonal ranges or fluctuations)?

• Flows and flow variability?• High water mark? Stream status (perma-

nent or intermittent)?• Index?• Recession (rate of recharge)?

2. How large is the proposed water with-drawal in the context of total systemflows in the source water and the receiv-ing water?

3. If there are impoundments, will there bea reduction in peak flows?• Will there be a loss in variation of water

levels? If yes, describe the impacts.4. For groundwater withdrawals:

• How important is groundwater seepage inthe overall water budget and watercharacteristics of hydrologically-con-nected surface waterbodies (e.g., baseflows,water temperature)?

• Will there be a reduction in the amount ofgroundwater exchange with the river? Ortiming of ? Explain.

• Will there be an effect on any drinkingwater wells? If yes, explain.

Category 3 Sediment Dynamics and Characteristics

Questions in Category 3 relate to potentialchanges in sediment suspension and distribu-tion, or sediment characteristics as a result ofthe water withdrawal.1. Will there be a change in sediment

suspension and distribution (i.e., ero-sion, accretion/deposition, turbidity) inthe source water or the return water?• What is the anticipated magnitude and

extent of this impact?• Will this alter the shoreline geomorphic

features or the location and area ofshallow water zones? In what way?

• Will this change result in the need forincreased dredging? Explain.

• If there are impoundments, will there be areduction in total sediment delivery?Explain.

• Will there be significant effects on dy-namic beach/coastal processes? Explain.

2. Will the water withdrawal affect waveenergy dynamics? If yes, describe theeffects.


3. Will there be a change in sedimentcharacteristics in the source water or thereturn water?• Will there be an increased sediment

contamination by persistent toxic sub-stances?

• Will there be a change in the properties ofsuspended or bedded sediments?

• Will there be an alteration of the organiccarbon content of sediments?

• Will there be an increased sedimentoxygen demand?

Category 4: Water Quality

The following questions relate to the quality ofthe source and receiving water, including anypotential impacts related to invasive species.1. How will the withdrawal alter the water

quality of the source water and thereturn water? Address changes in:• Temperature• Nitrates• Dissolved oxygen• Buffering capacity• BOD• Salinity• Total dissolved solids• Sulfur• Pathogens• Water conductivity• Dissolved organic carbon• Persistent toxic substances• Nutrients

2. Are there invasive species in the sourcewater or return water? Please list.• How are invasive species in the source

water affected (negative and positiveimpacts)?

• What pathways, if any, will be created bythe withdrawal/diversion that would allowinvasive species to spread?

3. Will the water use (e.g., irrigation) leadto degradation of unrelated watersupplies (e.g., ground-water)? Explain.

4. Will there be alteration of the thermalprofile in the source or receiving water?Explain.If there are impoundments, will there bean increase in water temperature? Explain.

Category 5: Ecological Impacts

Questions in Category 5 relate to potentialimpacts on habitats, structure and function ofthe ecosystem, and any ecological benefits thatmay occur as a result of the proposed activity.1. For the source and return systems, will

the changes in water quantity, sedimentdynamics, and/or water quality:

affect aquatic or terrestrial habitats?• Will there be habitat loss or gain?• Which species habitats are impacted (fish,

benthos, birds, amphibians, reptiles,mammals, invertebrates)? Will anysensitive species such as piping plover beimpacted?

• What are the habitat attributes that areimpacted? For example, for migratoryspecies, will access orconnectivity be affected? Will resiliency ofthe habitat be affected?

affect production or diversity of flora (includingphytoplankton, periphyton, and macrophytes)?

cause acute or chronic toxicity to any species?

affect population levels or growth rates of anyspecies in impacted system?

affect hyporheic zone and subsequently affectsurface aquatic systems?

have an ecological impact on assemblages ofendangered/threatened species?

Describe any changes in detail. Include consid-eration of any seasonal pattern of withdrawals,and the related effects on impacted species (e.g.,access to fish spawning areas in the spring).2. For the source and return systems, will

the changes in water quantity, sedimentdynamics, and/or water quality:

affect predator-prey relationships or food webstructure and/or function in the impactedsystem?• If yes, which species are impacted?• If yes, how will the whole community

structure and function be impacted?cause a change in the energy flow or nutrientcycling through the ecosystem?

cause an increased bioaccumulation of contami-nants in the food web?

lead to human health impacts through increasedcontaminant levels in fish or other pathways?


questions would determine which set of questionswould be asked next. In turn, answers to thissecond set of questions would determine whichfiner level questions would be asked. Certainquestions would be skipped entirely, and thecertainty and specificity of the questions thatwould be asked would depend on the unique needsof each case.

The questions vary in complexity, ranging frombasic questions about the location of the with-drawal to questions related to potential cumulativeimpacts of multiple water withdrawals and otherstressors. Some questions can be answered byreferring to available information (e.g., what are thecurrent uses of the water body?), while others mayrequire site-specific studies to answer (e.g., willthere be an impact on aquatic and terrestrialhabitats?). Other questions may be very challeng-ing, if not impossible, to answer given the currentstate of knowledge (e.g., will changes in thehydrology/hydraulics of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system that may result from globalclimate changes alter the impact of the waterwithdrawal?).

The workshop highlighted many unresolvedscientific and policy issues and questions. Some keyscientific issues relate to characterization ofbaseline ecological conditions, detection of ecosys-tem health and integrity when they have alreadybeen compromised, and identification of “essentialhabitat” (quality and quantity components). Somekey policy issues include deciding the sociallyacceptable levels of ecological change, determiningthe significance of impacts, and assessing cumula-tive impacts while accounting for future uses. Theworkshop emphasized the need for a decisionframework as well as monitoring to post-auditdecisions and address unanswered questions anduncertainties. The following two sections providean overview of some resources available for ad-dressing these questions.

Review and Analysis of EcologicalImpacts Literature

Introduction

BackgroundThe intent of the literature review report(available in the Appendix) was to compile thebody of research relevant to the identificationand quantification of ecological impacts thatmight arise from Great Lakes basin water

Describe any changes in detail.3. What ecological benefits, if any, will

accrue from the proposed water with-drawal or diversion?

4. Will the withdrawal change the amountor the functioning of riparian land?Describe any changes.

Category 6: Cumulative Impacts

The questions in Category 6 address the poten-tial for cumulative impacts as a result of theproposed use and other existing and future usesof the water. Questions also address whetherthere are any features (such as land use) thatmay alter the impact of the proposed activity.1. From a lake-wide, river, connecting

channel, and/or systemwide basis, howwill this withdrawal (and return flow ifapplicable) affect:• water levels and flows?• water quality and ecological health of the

source water?• water quality and ecological health of the

receiving water for the return?2. Will this withdrawal (and return flow if

applicable), when combined with ongo-ing and anticipated future withdrawals,cause a deviation from the hydrology/hydraulics of the system that is requiredto maintain the health and integrity ofthe ecosystem? In what way?

3. Will changes in the hydrology/hydrau-lics of the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver system that may result from globalclimate changes alter the impact of thewater withdrawal? In what way?

4. Can further impacts be anticipated inthe long-term on such things as land useor population, as a result of the project?

5. Are there any existing or potentialfeatures that would alter the impact ofthe water withdrawal (channel/lakestructures, channel lake substrate,existing land use, water control struc-tures, conservation)? If so, describe.

DiscussionThe essential questions should be considered whenassessing the potential ecological impacts of waterwithdrawals, but not all of these questions need tobe asked for all situations. Answers from basic


and documents published outside of the tradi-tional peer review and publication process) weresearched using a variety of methods. The grayliterature search focused primarily on thefollowing organizations: U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE), U.S. Geological Survey(USGS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) and The Nature Conservancy. Alsoreviewed were reports and materials fromspecial focused studies conducted by suchorganizations as the International Joint Com-mission.

Description of CategoriesThe literature search indicated that the problemof identifying ecological thresholds and indica-tors that could be used to assess the cumulativeecological impacts of water use, and theirpossible application to the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system, has not been addressedin the context of water uses and changes inlevels and flows. However, as some of thereferences may have relevance to particularaspects of cumulative impact assessment, theauthors grouped the references into four broadcategories: 1) effects on physical habitat; 2)effects on populations and/or communities; 3)ecosystem effects; and 4) synoptic modelingstudies. These categories are nonexclusive, sosome papers could have fit into more than onecategory. Also, a number of large, focusedstudies have made or are making significantcontributions to these four categories. Each ofthese studies was dealt with individually.

Effects on Physical Habitat:Effects on Physical Habitat:Effects on Physical Habitat:Effects on Physical Habitat:Effects on Physical Habitat: This category includesliterature describing the effects of changes inwater levels and flows on physical habitat(substrate, flow, depth and temperature), as wellas assessments of physical habitat. Althoughclimate change was not in itself a focus of thisliterature search, some references of interesthave been included under this category. Forexample, climate change research that addresseschanges in river flows, lake circulation andwaters levels, as well as the ecological impactsof these changes, is described.

Effects on Populations and/or Communities:Effects on Populations and/or Communities:Effects on Populations and/or Communities:Effects on Populations and/or Communities:Effects on Populations and/or Communities: Thiscategory includes literature describing theeffects of water use and of changes in waterlevels/flows on biological populations andcommunities. The literature in this category hasbeen subdivided into two sections: effects onflora and effects on fauna. The former sectionincludes literature that describes effects onphytoplankton, aquatic macrophytes and tree

withdrawals, including diversions. This topicencompasses the entire body of knowledge onthe effects of physical, chemical, and biologicalconditions in a freshwater ecosystem on itsstructure and function. The reviewers, therefore,had to be reasonably discriminative in selectingliterature.

The over-arching hypothesis in organizing thisbody of literature was that alterations in flow,water levels, or system geometry and hydrologyin the course of withdrawing or diverting waterfor human use produce ecological effects in aserial manner. The withdrawal affects thephysical and/or chemical environment, which inturn affects specific populations or groups ofpopulations (i.e., communities). Next, ecosystemstructure and function are affected throughecosystem processes such as competition,predator-prey interactions, energy flow, nutrientcycling, and habitat quality and quantity. Ofcourse, ecosystem effects can feed back into thephysical, chemical, individual population orcommunity components of the ecosystem.Indeed, these feedback processes are a crucialpart of ecosystems because they provide ameasure of their stability and resilience tostressors. The final category, synoptic modelingstudies, includes those studies that have at-tempted to demonstrate the coupling among thevarious types of effects, and thereby include theprocess understanding and feedbacks that allowa more generic application of site-specificobservations.

ObjectivesThe objectives of the literature review were to:

• Identify and summarize literature thatassesses the ecological impacts of water use,levels and flows; assess ecological thresholdswith respect to water supply; and presentindicators used to assess the ecologicalimpacts of water use and the processes,functions and time scales of those indicators;

• Review frameworks that have been estab-lished to assess the ecological sensitivity offreshwater ecological systems to futurewater use and/or changes to water supply(e.g. under climate change); and

• Prepare a report that presents a descriptiveinventory and analysis of literature address-ing the ecological impacts of water use.

ApproachBoth the published literature and a sampling ofthe “gray” literature (i.e., government reports


species. The latter subcategory includes litera-ture describing effects on fisheries populations,muskrats, turtles and migrating birds. It alsoincludes papers addressing minimum flowrequirements for fish.

Ecosystem Effects: Ecosystem Effects: Ecosystem Effects: Ecosystem Effects: Ecosystem Effects: This category includes papersthat describe ecosystem effects from water useor from changes in water levels/flows. Awetlands ecology subcategory specificallydetails literature on wetland functions, wetlandstresses, and wetland assessments. A streamecology and ecological assessment studiessubcategory focuses on literature describingstream assessments and stream assessmenttechniques.

Synoptic Modeling Studies:Synoptic Modeling Studies:Synoptic Modeling Studies:Synoptic Modeling Studies:Synoptic Modeling Studies: This category includespapers describing conceptual or mathematicalmodels. Such models have been employed topredict the spatial distribution of vegetation, toinvestigate the impact of flow diversion onbenthic communities, and to predict habitatsuitability for fish. This section also includesliterature describing conceptual frameworks foranalyzing the ecological impacts of water use inthe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system.Models that examine relationships with livingorganisms, and therefore attempt to predict

possible impacts or changes, are a very limitedsubset of the literature on modeling; this searchdid not include all types of models, (e.g., somehydraulic or hydrologic models).

Special Focused Studies:Special Focused Studies:Special Focused Studies:Special Focused Studies:Special Focused Studies: This category highlightsa number of relevant large-scale studies. Thesestudies focus on water level issues in the GreatLakes, ecological impacts from dam and hydro-power regulation, and conceptual frameworksfor investigating ecological impacts of changingwater levels and flows. The papers describework conducted by the International JointCommission, the World Commission on Dams,United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization’s (UNESCO)Ecohydrology Programme, the WaterpowerProject (Ontario, Canada) and The NatureConservancy.

Descriptive Inventory of LiteratureThe following setions summarize the literaturereviewed, organized by the categories describedabove.

Physical and Chemical Habitat EffectsStudies on the impacts of global climate changein the Great Lakes have great relevance to theassessment of potential impacts of large-scalewithdrawals that might impact the water levelsin the lakes themselves. Global climate changemodels vary in their predictions, but show apotential drop in average Great Lakes waterlevels by 1.5 to 8 feet (o.5 to 2.5 meters). Thischange in the hydrology of the Great Lakesbasin will, of course, have a concentrating effecton all materials (nutrients, toxic chemicals,salinity, plankton, etc.) being carried by thewater bodies. Studies have also producedforecasts of a systematic reduction in ice cover.But perhaps one of the major impacts of adecrease in average water levels will be theeffect on the temperature regime of the lakes.These temperature changes will likely alter theamount of oxygen in the lakes and may have asignificant impact on the movement, feeding andspawning habits of fish in the lakes. Thesechanges can have widespread impacts on thereproductive success and resulting populationdynamics of fish, a significant ecologicalindicator in the Great Lakes.

Many of the other studies in this categoryfocused on the effects of flow and geometrychanges in river and lake physical/chemicalhabitats in the watersheds that drain into theGreat Lakes. Many studies dealing with stream

Saginaw Bay, Michigan


habitats identified flow reduction effects on thearea and quality of benthic (bottom level)habitats. One of the main observations was thatminimum flow rates are required to preventexcess sedimentation in stream reaches that areproviding quality fish spawning habitat. Flowalterations and resulting water level changes ininland lakes and river-impoundments (especiallythose impoundments in the St. Lawrence River)also affect light penetration, thereby causing achange in the nearshore area available formacrophyte (macroscopic plant) growth and aresulting shift in the distribution of primaryproduction between open-water, phytoplanktonand nearshore macrophytes.

Population/Community EffectsThe population/community effects studies canbe divided into flora and fauna. Studies on theimpacts of flow and water level changes onflora were generally restricted to nearshoreareas, rivers and impoundments. For example,in the St. Lawrence River, phytoplanktonbiomass decreased in response to flow reductionbut species diversity increased. A number ofstudies found that unregulated water levels ledto more diverse macrophyte plant communitieswhile regulated lakes or impoundments had lessdiverse communities.

Studies of flow effects on fauna included bothaquatic species (e.g., fish and benthic inverte-brates) and terrestrial species (e.g., muskratsand turtles). Some studies connected water levelor flow changes with some impacts on fish,benthos, muskrats and turtles, but these impactswere generally very subtle and connectedindirectly to the changes in levels and flows.Some references to direct mortality or spawningeffects on fish included the capture of fishlarvae and juveniles in water intake systems andimpediment of fish migration by dams. Manny(1984) estimated that in 1979, 1.2 billion fishlarvae and 98 million juvenile and adult fishwere drawn into the water intakes of 90 powerplants on the shores of the Great Lakes.

Ecosystem EffectsMost of the available literature relative toeffects of flow/level changes was directed atwetland and stream ecosystems. A good reviewof recent literature on North American fresh-water wetlands was compiled by Adamus et al.(2001). This work generally agrees withliterature that highlights important wetlandecosystem functions, such as groundwaterrecharge and discharge, flood storage, shoreline

anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces,sediment trapping, nutrient retention andremoval, food chain support through primaryand secondary production, habitat and refugefor fish and wildlife, and active and passiverecreation (Adamus and Stockwell, 1983). Whilemany factors affect wetland function, fluctuat-ing water levels, as exhibited in the Great Lakesunder unregulated conditions, clearly are goodfor wetland diversity and productivity insupport of the various functions.

Numerous studies on stream ecology exist thatrelate to ecosystem effects, and nearly all ofthese studies recognize the importance of flow(or velocity) and stream depth on ecosystemstructure and function. However, these studiesgenerally are not truly systematic and could notcontrol for other stressors (both natural andanthropogenic) that can confound the ability toquantitatively link a stream ecosystem responseto a change in the flow regime. Such factors asland use in the watershed, watershed size, andstream geomorphology are among the primaryfactors that lead to varied responses to flowalterations. These and other stream ecosystemcomplexities have resulted in increasing use ofdata-based adaptive management approaches,such as the Instream Flow Incremental Meth-odology (IFIM) (Bovee et al., 1998) and theIndex of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr, 1991).While the application of these methods hasgreat value, the state of the science is far fromdeveloping a process-oriented knowledge basethat allows for development of a generic,predictive framework to aid in decisionmaking.

Synoptic Modeling StudiesMany conceptual and mathematical models havebeen developed to relate receiving water andhabitat quality to land use/cover in the water-shed. In general, these models use a baselinehydrology/hydraulics regime to examine howchanges in land use or pollutant loadingsimpact the system. While many of the modelscan examine how changes in hydrology mayimpact the system, these applications remainlargely undeveloped.

A number of other models predict changes inriparian vegetation as a function of streamshoreline drying and inundation cycles (Aubleet al., 1994, for example). These methodsgenerally indicate that flow variability, particu-larly minimum and maximum flows, causeimpacts.


Baker and Coon (1995a, 1995b) conducted amodel development and field testing study thataimed to quantify the effects of stream flow.They diverted about 50 percent of the summerstream flow around a 0.7 kilometer (0.43 mile)reach of Hunt Creek, Michigan, and comparedthe observed response of benthicmacroinvertebrates and brook trout to predic-tions of their model (PHABSIM – PhysicalHabitat Simulation). They found no change inthe total density of benthic macroinvertebrates;however, they found significant reductions inriffle dwelling taxa (e.g., Heptageniidae). Themodel and experiment both suggested thatmeasurable negative impacts to brook troutwould require greater flow reductions thanoccurred in the study.

DiscussionIn general, the literature offers few fully functionalapproaches for evaluating cause-effect relationshipsand cumulative impacts of changes in levels andflows, but the literature may help guide establish-ment of monitoring protocols and agendas forscientific research. Many of the papers that werereviewed describe the impacts of regulation,withdrawals, and dams on biota, landscape ecology,environmental flows, geomorphologic processes andvegetation landscape, but they lack specific informa-tion that relates these impacts to changes in levelsor flows. Other articles compare regulated and non-regulated rivers, and a limited number proposeassessment methodologies. Some papers describephysical characteristics and ecological aspects ofnearshore habitats while others provide conceptualframeworks for describing impacts. In general, thestudies explore trends in alterations of freshwaterecosystems, the ecological consequences of bio-physical alterations, and the need for an ecosystemapproach. A few discuss the major scientific chal-lenges and opportunities involved in effectivelyaddressing the changes.

A striking diversity of key ecological indicators areused in the various publications: shoreline andnearshore vegetation, inland or riverine/lacustrinewetland vegetation, macrophytes and submergedvegetation, aquatic insects, plankton, benthos andvarious fish species. This indictor, or end point,concept has a very strong social value representa-tion, but is often site-specific, creating difficultiesfor development of an integrative concept that canbe applied to management objectives (Rogers andBiggs, 1999). The IJC and the U.S. and Canadiangovernments recognize the importance of restoringand maintaining the chemical, physical, and biologi-

cal integrity of the waters of the Great Lakesecosystem (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,1972). In an effort to provide indicators of GreatLakes ecosystem integrity and to implement thoseindicators, the governments, with IJC review andcomment, have launched the large-scale State ofthe Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) processto establish indicators and implement an ongoingmonitoring effort to assess progress.

In the reviewed literature, the terms and conceptsof measurements, indicators and thresholds areoften used interchangeably. Sometimes the conceptof a threshold is more of a descriptive value than apoint that can be used to evaluate cumulativeimpacts. Lack of precision in the use of terminol-ogy is common; for example, some authors recog-nize a distinction between “effects” and “impacts.”This distinction reflects an intentional separationbetween scientific “assessment” of facts (effects)and the “evaluation” of the relative importance ofthese effects by the analyst or the public (impacts).While the analytical component or the scientificpart of an analysis is often termed “assessment,”

Tobico Marsh, Michigan


the term “evaluation” applies to the significance orimportance of an impact and is often value-laden.

The literature review also pointed to a noticeablelack of research on the ecological effects of waterwithdrawals on connecting channels and the St.Lawrence River. These river systems are hydrologi-cally distinct from the lakes and are especiallysensitive areas, although further research is neededto reconcile differences of opinion about sensitivi-ties of these waterways to withdrawals. A smallwater level change in one or more of the lakes maycause a large response in flow distribution andlevels in connecting channels and the St. LawrenceRiver. For example, the St. Lawrence River isdownstream of the lakes, and is thus susceptible tocumulative impacts from all upstream activities.Connecting channels are important fish producersand reservoirs of biodiversity. These waterwaysmay be particularly at risk because they host aconcentration of water users, including majorhydropower facilities.

While this literature review has pointed out manystudies that are relevant to the assessment ofecological impacts of water withdrawals anddiversions, most of these studies are site-specificand descriptive in nature. Several test a hypothesison the presence of a significant response in thesystem, but do not collect sufficient information forquantitative analysis of the deterministic, cause-effect relationships that underpin the empiricalobservations. This critical process understanding isneeded, through synthesis and model development,to generalize the findings to the various types ofGreat Lakes basin ecosystems. Hardy (1998) makesan especially relevant point that the future ofstream habitat modeling “remains an abstraction, inthat integration of all the pieces has yet to beaccomplished, field validation remains unproven,availability of an integrated analysis framework(i.e., computer software system) is not yet available,and a clear framework for selection and applicationof specific tools has not been developed.” Meyer etal. (1999) reach a similar conclusion: “We arelimited by availability of both data and models.More extensive data sets and better models areneeded linking hydrologic regime with ecosystemprocesses (productivity, nutrient dynamics, food webinteractions), with ecological interactions (preda-tion, species invasion), and with water quality.”

Ongoing Great Lakes research and developmentprojects aim to develop the kind of comprehensiveand quantitative assessment tools necessary tomanage basin water resources in a way that main-tains ecological integrity. For example, the IJC is

conducting a large study to review and potentiallyrevise the water level and flows regulation plancurrently in place for the Lake Ontario-St.Lawrence River system. Part of this study will beto develop a quantitative model of the system’secological response to alternative regulation plans.This effort, intended to be completed by 2005, willpotentially provide many useful tools and largeamounts of data for assessing ecological impacts ofwater withdrawals and diversions.

Models for Ecological ImpactAssessment

Introduction

BackgroundThe descriptive model inventory (available inthe Appendix) describes modeling tools thathave been identified with prospective relevanceto ecological impact assessment of waterwithdrawals in the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver basin. The compilation of this informa-tion addresses the need for an understanding ofthe state of the science of existing quantitativetools that may be used in a Water ResourcesManagement Decision Support System.

ObjectivesSpecific objectives of the model review were to:

• Identify models applicable directly and/orindirectly to the assessment of the ecologi-cal impacts of water withdrawals in theGreat Lakes basin;

• For the selected models, identify key modelcharacteristics, including the model purpose,past applications and experience, datarequirements, strengths and weaknesses,ease of use, and applicability to assessingthe effects of water withdrawals; and

• Compile the information into a user-friendly,descriptive inventory that provides support-ing information.

ApproachA literature and web-based search was firstconducted to identify relevant models. Modelsincluded in the inventory were selected on thebasis of their relevance to the problem, theiravailability for general use, and their wide-spread use and acceptance. The inventory is notintended to provide a complete list of all modelsthat may be relevant. Rather, it provides an


adequate representation of the models that areavailable. A review sheet that describes keymodel characteristics and capabilities and otherinformation was prepared for each selectedmodel. A list of other models that may haverelevance, but are not as widely distributed andused, was also prepared.

Information Provided in the InventoryModels in five categories were reviewed:hydrodynamic/hydraulic; surface water quality;hydrology/watershed; ecological effects; andgroundwater. For each selected model, thedescriptive inventory in Appendix A of themodels inventory provides the following keyinformation:

• Category of model• Developer and distributor• Primary purpose• Applications and experience• Overview of characteristics• Applicability for assessing ecological

impacts of withdrawals• Data requirements• Ease of use• Strengths and weaknesses• Other notes and references

Where possible, references to useful websites andother references are also provided.

Model DescriptionsReview sheets were prepared for 38 models that fallinto at least one of five categories. While themodels included in the descriptive inventory areconsidered to be the most relevant for assessmentof the ecological effects of water withdrawals andare generally accepted by the modeling community,other models may also be relevant. No geomorphicmodels for nearshore zones were included in theinventory, but some models that focus on hydrody-namic and sediment transport processes have beendeveloped for some U.S. Great Lakes rivers by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers under authorityprovided in Section 516(e) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act (WRDA) of 1996. These shouldbe reviewed in the future to assess their applicabil-ity to water withdrawals. Other categories may alsoneed to be identified.

Hydrodynamic/Hydraulic ModelsHydrodynamic/hydraulic models provide adescription of circulation, mixing and densitystratification processes that can affect the waterquality and transport of pollutants within a

water body. These models use water bodygeometry, boundary conditions, inflows, with-drawals, and meteorological data to simulatewater levels, flow velocities, salinities andtemperatures. Information on physical proper-ties of a water body (e.g., depth, slope of bed,precipitation, temperature) provides inputparameters for these models. Physical processessimulated by hydrodynamic models includetidal, wind, buoyancy, turbulent momentum andmass transport. The spatial dimensions of thesemodels include one-dimensional longitudinal,two-dimensional in the longitudinal andvertical, two-dimensional in the horizontal(vertically-averaged), and three-dimensional.Hydrodynamic models use numerical solutionsto governing equations for the conservation ofmomentum and/or mass to predict watermovements.

A hydraulic model can be used to simulatevariations in the composition and distributionof habitats during different flow regimes, whichis helpful information for development ofhabitat and bioenergetic models for fish. Table5-1 provides a list of relevant hydrodynamic/hydraulic models, and indicates the models thatare described in detailed review sheets in themodels inventory report.

Hydrologic/Watershed ModelsHydrologic/watershed models are a usefulassessment tool for managing the water re-sources of watersheds. This category includesmodels that simulate the generation and move-ment of water and water-borne pollutants fromthe point of origin to discharge into receivingwaters. These models can be used to quantifytotal watershed contributions of flow, sediment,nutrients and other constituents. Linkinghydrologic/watershed models with receivingwater hydraulics and water quality modelsprovides the ability to quantitatively relatewater withdrawal-induced alterations ofwatershed hydrology to aquatic ecologicalimpacts.

Generally, these models require data such asrainfall, evapotranspiration, temperature,humidity and solar intensity. The watershedloading models evaluate the effects of land usesand practices, land cover and soil properties onpollutant loadings to water bodies. Availablehydrologic/watershed models vary from simplemethods to detailed loading models. Simplemodels have very limited predictive capabilitiesand provide rough estimates since they are


CEAM USEPA’s Ctr. for Exposure AssessmentModelingEPRI Electric Power Research InstituteGLERL NOAA’s Great Lakes Env’tal Research LabHEC USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering CenterNALMS North American Lake Management SocietyNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AgencyOMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

SFWMD South Florida Water Management DistrictSWET Soil and Water Engineering Technology,Inc.USACE U.S. Army Corps of EngineersUSDA U.S. Department of AgricultureUSEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSGS U.S. Geological SurveyWES USACE’s Waterways Experiment Station

Model Developer Acronyms

*Indicates that model is reviewed in more detail in review sheets provided in Appendix A of the models inventory.

Table 5-1 Hydrodynamic/Hydraulic Models


typically derived from empirical relationships.Detailed models are generally more complexwith greater spatial and temporal resolutions,and they use storm events or continuoussimulation to predict flow and pollutant concen-trations for a range of flow conditions. Thesemodels include physical processes of infiltra-tion, runoff, pollutant effects and groundwater-surface water interactions. Applications forthese models vary depending on data availabil-ity and modeling needs. Table 5-2 provides a listof relevant hydrologic/watershed models andindicates the models that are described indetailed review sheets in the models inventoryreport.

Surface Water Quality ModelsSurface water quality models address problemsassociated with variables that can result in fishkills, unpleasant tastes and odors, human healthimpacts and other ecosystem disturbances. Thiscategory includes models of dissolved oxygen,nutrient-eutrophication, sediment transport,and fate and transport of contaminants. Surfacewater quality models are used to analyze waterquality related problems and to synthesize theprincipal components: inputs, reactions andphysical transport, and outputs. The analysis ofpollutants in surface waters describes load-response relationships, cause-effect mechanismsand, in some cases, the impact of pollutants onbiota in the system. These models focus on theobjective of protecting plants, animals, humans,wildlife, aquatic life and the environment fromthe negative effects of pollutants and toxicsubstances.

Some water quality models simulate the effectof pollution discharges from various sources toair, water and land. The external inputs includepoint and non-point sources. This categoryincludes eutrophication models, which predictthe production, transformation and decay ofphytoplankton biomass in response to changesin nutrients, temperature and light. Table 5-3provides a list of relevant surface water qualitymodels and indicates the models that aredescribed in detailed review sheets in themodels inventory report.

Groundwater ModelsGroundwater models address issues related towater supply, sub-surface containment trans-port, remediation and mine dewatering. Thesemodels can be used to track pollutants in thesaturated and unsaturated zones and to evaluatepollutant transport occurring through migra-

tion and interactions of groundwater andsurface water. Groundwater withdrawals canlower river and stream levels. The hydrology ofthe watershed can be impacted by precipitation,runoff, groundwater, surface storage and riverlevels. The watershed hydrology indirectlyincludes the groundwater components in theseassessments.

Groundwater models generally require a largeamount of information and a complete descrip-tion of the flow system, as well as specializedexpertise. Table 5-4 provides a list of relevantgroundwater models and indicates the modelsthat are described in a detailed review sheet inthe models inventory report.

Ecological Effects ModelsThis category includes a wide variety of modelsand techniques for the ecological assessment ofan aquatic system. It includes habitat andspecies classification, index systems, andtoxicological and ecological models that simu-late the effect of stressors on habitats. Thesetypes of models can examine or predict thestatus of a habitat, biological population orbiological community. Water withdrawals cancause changes in the features of the systemsuch as depth, velocity, temperature, oxygen,surface area and vegetation, and this informa-tion can be used to evaluate the effect on aquaticecosystems. Ecosystem models that respond tothese hydraulic and hydrologic changes will bemost valuable for application to a Water Re-sources Management Decision Support System(WRMDSS).

Ecological effects models that address theimpacts of water withdrawals use a wide rangeof evaluation and assessment techniques toexamine ecosystem structure and function.Changes in water quantity, water quality andsediment dynamics driven by water withdrawalscan affect many components and interactions inan aquatic ecosystem (e.g., species habitat,production and diversity of flora, predator-preyrelationships and food web structure).

Due to the inherent connection between speciesand habitat, the effects models are best suitedwhen used in combination with each other andwith other categories of models. Severalenvironmental impact assessment modelingframeworks have been developed to assess theeffects of different flow conditions on aquaticecosystems. For example, the Instream FlowIncremental Methodology (IFIM) is a habitat-


Table 5-2 Hydrologic/Watershed Models



Table 5-3 Surface Water Quality Models



based impact assessment and water manage-ment tool used to manage stream fisheryhabitat. These steady flow frameworks wouldneed to be modified to include the potentialeffects of changes in flow conditions on habitatand aquatic biota.

Table 5-5 provides a list of relevant ecologicaleffects models and identifies the models de-scribed in a detailed review sheet in the modelsinventory report.

Selecting a ModelThe selection of the appropriate models to addressa particular management question should be basedon many considerations, including managementobjectives, data availability and available resources.The models presented in the descriptive modelinventory differ in their capabilities, complexity andresource requirements, and the inventory can assistin the model selection process. Model users shouldcarefully define management problems and fullyunderstand a system before selecting a model fromthis inventory. Many of these models requireextensive data, which may necessitate expenditureof significant resources for site-specific application;resource and data availability for a given site arecritical considerations in the model selectionprocess.

In some contexts, a set of models might be neededto address multiple stressors and the interrelation-ship of various processes and components. In thiscase, the objectives can be met by using a combina-tion of models. An integrated modeling frameworkcomprised of a suite of models can be useful forassessing the effects of water use and water with-drawals on ecosystems. However, model linkagecompatibilities must be considered, which mayrequire significant resources to accomplish properly.

Generally, the complexity of a modeling applicationwill increase (along with the development andapplication costs) as the complexity of the natureof the management problems increases. The modelinventory describes models ranging from simple tocomplex. Simple models require less expertise anddata, so a wider community can use them, but oftenthey are limited in the management questions thatcan be credibly addressed. Complex models gener-ally have high spatial, temporal and process resolu-tions, and they require large data sets and extensivecomputation efforts. These models can be used by alimited number of experts. In some cases, thesemore complex models have undergone limited fieldtesting (i.e., ground-truthing on a variety ofsystems) and great caution should be taken in

applying them on a site-specific basis withoutrigorous calibration and confirmation.

To select models from this inventory, user-specificinformation for the following factors will helpidentify the needs:

• Management objective: Outline a cleardefinition of the problem.

• Global modeling objective: Define thespecific modeling need.

• Spatial and temporal scales: Define theresolution needs, including aspects likesteady-state or time varying.

• Constituents of concern/stressors:Identify the conventional and toxic pollut-ants and biota that play a role in problemdefinition.

• Data availability: Identify available system-specific inputs, calibration, and validation forthe data set.

• Project constraints: Identify the availabil-ity of modeling expertise, ease of use needs,model accuracy, and available time andbudget.

• Level of analysis: Define whether theanalysis is a screening level or detailed.

DiscussionThe models presented in the descriptive inventoryare organized into five categories, and differ in theircapabilities, complexity and resource requirements.Model users should carefully define the manage-ment problem and gain a full understanding of theassociated system before selecting models from thisinventory. Among others, site-specific managementobjectives, data needs and accessibility, and resourceavailability should be considered in the modelselection process. Also, model users should beaware that the inventory does not include allmodels related to physical and biological processesassociated with water withdrawals.

Most of the models reviewed in the inventory arestand-alone models that address one or moreaspects of the overall problem, such as hydrody-namics, sediment transport, water quality orecological effects. The inventory did not find anysingle model that can, by itself, quantify the rangeof potential ecological impacts of a particularwater withdrawal scenario. For example, no single“off-the-shelf ” model can answer the question: “Forthe source and return systems, will the changes inwater quantity, sediment dynamics, and/or water


Table 5-4 Groundwater Models



Table 5-5 Ecological Effects Models



quality affect predator-prey relationships of thefood web structure in the impacted system?”

A suite of linked models can be used to addressthese types of management questions for differentwithdrawal scenarios. For example, a linked model-ing framework comprised of groundwater, hydro-dynamic, surface water quality, and ecologicaleffects models may be developed to evaluate theimpact of a groundwater withdrawal on surfacewater ecosystems. Figure 5-2 illustrates theinterconnectivity of the five categories of models,with output from one category serving as input toanother category.

The linked model frameworks can be built from theexisting state-of-the-science models reviewed inthis inventory and could provide very usefulassessment tools in any decision support systemframework. Additional modeling research isrequired to develop coupled models in situationsthat have process feedbacks between models ofparticular domains. For example, coupling surfacewater and groundwater models may be very

important in assessing how a groundwater with-drawal might have ecological impacts that resultfrom altered river flow.


FindingsProject work on the ecological impacts of waterwithdrawals has identified and compiled a large

amount of information that can be used bydecisionmakers to develop and implement a processfor assessing the ecological impacts of proposedwater withdrawals. However, many information andknowledge gaps pose barriers to understandingthese ecological impacts. Continued research anddata collection are necessary, but these gaps inunderstanding and data cannot be allowed to slowprogress toward development and application oftools that support the decisionmaking process.

Essential Questions for Ecological ImpactsAssessmentMany essential questions must be considered tofully assess the ecological impacts of waterwithdrawals. The questions vary in complexity,ranging from basic questions about the locationof the withdrawal to questions related topotential cumulative impacts of multiple waterwithdrawals and other stressors. Not all ofthese questions need to be asked for all situa-tions, and the questions are designed for aphased application. The “basic information”questions require answers that determine which

assessment questions need to be asked andwhat level of analysis is needed.

Selected past and ongoing research studiesand existing modeling tools provide usefulresources to answer some of the essentialquestions. Some of the questions can bereadily addressed using data and informationthat are often available from governmentagencies or can be approximated from relatedinformation. Some questions that requireassessment and synthesis of information canbe addressed using existing models, many ofwhich are in the models inventory.

However, significant data gaps and informa-tion needs must be considered before many ofthe essential questions can be addressed.Many unresolved scientific and policy issuesand questions were raised and discussedduring the Experts Workshop. Key scientificissues that were identified include:

• how the baseline ecological condition ischaracterized;

• how the health and integrity of an ecosys-tem that has already been compromised isseparated from water withdrawal impacts;and

• how “essential habitat” (quality andquantity components) is identified.

Watershed/

Hydrology Model

Watershed/

Hydrology ModelHydrodynamic/

Hydraulic Model

Hydrodynamic/

Hydraulic Model

Surface Water Quality Model


Groundwater

Model

Groundwater

Model

Ecological Effects Model


Watershed/

Hydrology Model

Watershed/

Hydrology ModelHydrodynamic/

Hydraulic Model

Hydrodynamic/

Hydraulic Model



Groundwater

Model

Groundwater

Model



Figure 5-2 Interconnectivity of five categories of models


Numerous unresolved policy issues were alsodiscussed, including:

• how much change is acceptable from apolicy perspective;

• how the significance of impacts will bedetermined; and

• how cumulative impacts are understoodand assessed, while accounting for futureuses and modifications to the activitiescausing the impacts.

The Experts Workshop also emphasized theneed for a decision framework, monitoringprograms, and post-audits to assess decisionoutcomes.

Review and Analysis of Ecological ImpactsLiteratureThe literature offers few practical approachesfor evaluating cause-effect relationships andcumulative impacts of changes in levels andflows, but some studies may help guide estab-lishment of monitoring protocols and agendasfor scientific research. Many of the papers thatwere reviewed describe the impacts of regula-tion, withdrawals, and dams on biota, land-scape ecology, environmental flows, geomor-phologic processes and vegetation landscape,but they lack specific information that relatesthese impacts to changes in levels or flows.Other articles make comparisons betweenregulated and non-regulated rivers, and alimited number propose assessment method-ologies. Some papers describe physical charac-teristics and ecological aspects of nearshorehabitats while others provide conceptualframeworks for describing impacts. In general,the studies explore trends in alterations offreshwater ecosystems, the ecological conse-quences of biophysical alterations, and theneed for an ecosystem approach. A few discussthe major scientific challenges and opportuni-ties involved in effectively addressing thechanges.

Models for Ecological Impacts AssessmentThe assessment of cumulative ecologicalimpacts from multiple stressors is confoundedby the lack of integrative modeling tools.While the literature review revealed manystudies that are relevant to assessment ofecological impacts of water withdrawals anddiversions, most of these studies have beensite-specific and descriptive in nature. Severaltest a hypothesis on the presence of a signifi-cant response in the system, but do not collect

sufficient information for quantitative analysisof the deterministic, cause-effect relationshipsthat underpin the empirical observations. Thiscritical process understanding is needed,through synthesis and model development, togeneralize the findings to the various types ofecosystems that exist in the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River basin.

The outcome of the model review shows thatno single model can, by itself, quantify therange of potential ecological impacts of aparticular water withdrawal scenario. Most ofthe models reviewed in the inventory are stand-alone models that address one or more aspectsof the overall problem, such as hydrodynamics,sediment transport, water quality or ecologicaleffects. However, a suite of linked models can beused to address these types of managementquestions for different withdrawal scenarios.For example, a linked modeling frameworkcomprised of groundwater, hydrodynamic,surface water quality, and ecological effectsmodels may be developed to evaluate the impactof a groundwater withdrawal on potentiallyimpacted surface water ecosystems. This effortcan be very resource intensive.

Additional ObservationsIn assessing cumulative impacts, the questionremains, “at what scale should one attempt toview the impacts of multiple water withdrawalstaken together?” The importance of assessingcumulative impacts was highlighted during theExperts Workshop because the spatial (e.g.,watershed, lake, river, or whole basin) and time(e.g., 20 years or 100 years) scales over whichwithdrawal impacts might be observed are notknown. Both time and space scales must be usedfor making assessments to satisfy Directive #3of the Charter Annex. Based on the outcomesof the literature review, the essential questionsand the model inventory, one finding stands out:the ecological impacts of a water withdrawalwill be most clearly discernible at the nearshoreand sub-watershed levels, where relatively smallchanges in water levels and flows can affect theecosystem.

There is also a noticeable lack of research onthe ecological effects of water withdrawals onconnecting channels and the St. LawrenceRiver. These river systems are hydrologicallydistinct from the lakes and are particularlysensitive areas, although further research isneeded to reconcile differences of opinion abouttheir sensitivity to withdrawals. A small change


flows and a range of sensitive ecologicalresponses. There are opportunities now toconduct studies that can address some ofthe important information needs. Forexample, studies on the impacts of naturalevents such as the recent 40-centimeter(15.75-inch) drop in water levels on lakesMichigan and Huron would be valuable.Studies of this type have been limited in thepast because of challenges due to the size ofthe system, the cost and long time frame ofthe studies, and the need for cooperationbetween multiple agencies. However, wateruse issues have highlighted the need for, andimportance of, such studies. A number ofenvironmental/ecological studies are underway for Lake Ontario and the St. LawrenceRiver as part of an International JointCommission reference study to examine theimpacts of changes to the level and flowregimes resulting from alternative regula-tion plans. These studies should be exam-ined for their applicability to the waterwithdrawal issue.

3. Develop indicators and thresholds toinform the discussion of “no significantadverse individual or cumulative impacts”relating to ecological effects from waterwithdrawals.

Studies can establish impact thresholds thatcan be used for assessing the cumulativeimpacts of multiple withdrawals or diver-sions on the study system. This effortshould be coordinated with the SOLECindicator process to ensure the establish-ment of a long-term reference data set.

4. Synthesize and model the quantitativerelationships between water withdrawals/diversions in various types of GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystems(large lakes, inland lakes, streams andrivers, groundwater) and the potentialecological impacts of those water with-drawals.

A need exists for a quantitative understand-ing of ecological effects of water withdraw-als and diversions in the context of othersystem stressors (e.g., nutrient loads, toxicchemicals, invasive species) that can alsocause adverse impacts. The modeling effortwill need to rely on a linked model frame-work, as specified in Recommendation #5,because no single model can, by itself,

in water levels in one or more of the lakes maycause a large response in flow distribution andlevels in connecting channels and the St.Lawrence River. For example, the St. LawrenceRiver is downstream of the lakes, and is thussusceptible to cumulative impacts from allupstream activities. Connecting channels areimportant fish producers and reservoirs ofbiodiversity. These waterways may be particu-larly at risk because they host a concentrationof water users, including major hydropowerfacilities.

Recommendations1. Review and refine the list of “essential

questions” to ensure comprehensivenessand feasibility in a decision supportframework.

Input in the review process should besought from both those who will be chargedwith answering a list of essential questions,and those who will be responsible formaking subsequent decisions. The list of“essential questions” presented in the studyreport was developed and refined byattendees at an “Experts Workshop,” basedupon the outcomes of an extensive litera-ture review and background work by atechnical subcommittee. The questionsreflect the collective thought and bestprofessional judgment of experts from amultitude of scientific disciplines as well asrepresentatives of the policy community.These questions offer a promising frame-work for assessing the prospective impactsof any given water withdrawal proposal.Before these questions are incorporated intoa decision support framework, however,additional review by representatives of boththe regulatory and regulated community isadvised.

2. Funding for research and developmentshould be directed at a) mining datafrom existing sources, and b) studies ofboth qualitative and quantitative stress-response relationships. Data and infor-mation gaps should be identified andstudies conducted to fill those gaps, witha particular focus on sub-watersheds.

The data mining and synthesis of knowl-edge are expected to lead to a need forwatershed-scale research conducted toquantify the relationship between levels/


8. Improve understanding of variability anduncertainty in levels and flows tostrengthen the decision support system.

Uncertainty in the prediction and measure-ment of hydrologic changes in response towater withdrawals or diversions leads touncertainty in the deterministic predictionof ecological responses. Research to quan-tify these cause-effect relationships and, byextension, the application of those relation-ships to make decisions must recognizethese inherent uncertainties.

9. Monitor ecological and hydrologicalresponses to water withdrawal activities,with a special emphasis on sub-water-sheds and nearshore zones.

Monitoring activities provide a means of“post-auditing” the decision and providingdata and information for updating assess-ment tools. This allows a decision supportsystem to evolve and improve over time.

ReferencesAdamus, P.R. and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. Method for

Wetland Functional Assessment. Volume I:Critical Review and Evaluation Concepts. 176 p.

Adamus, P., T.J. Danielson and A. Gonyaw. 2001.Indicators for Monitoring Biological Integrityof Inland, Freshwater Wetlands: A Survey ofNorth American Technical Literature (1990-2000). EPA 842-R-01.United States Environ-mental Protection Agency, Office of WaterWetlands Division (4502F), Washington, DC.www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg/publicat.html.

Auble, G.T., J.M. Friedman and M.L. Scott. 1994.Relating Riparian Vegetation to Present andFuture Streamflows. Ecological Applications 4(3):544-554.

Baker, E.A. and T.G. Coon. 1995a. Comparison ofPredicted Habitat Change and BenthicMacroinvertebrate Response to a SimulatedIrrigation Withdrawal in Hunt Creek, Michigan.Fisheries Division Research Report No. 2019.Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Baker, E.A. and T.G. Coon. 1995b. Comparison ofPredicted Habitat Change and Brook TroutPopulation Response to a Simulated IrrigationWithdrawal in Hunt Creek, Michigan. FisheriesDivision Research Report No. 2018. MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources.

Bovee, K.D., B.L. Lamb, J.M. Bartholow, C.B.Stalnaker, J.G. Taylor and J. Henriksen. 1998.Stream Habitat Analysis Using the InstreamFlow Incremental Methodology. U.S. Geological

quantify the range of potential ecologicalimpacts of a particular water withdrawalscenario.

5. Develop linked model frameworks forselected water withdrawal scenarios bybuilding on the existing model inventory.

The synthesis and modeling proposed inRecommendation #4 should be designedand conducted in the context of an inte-grated modeling study so that data collectedand processes quantified through fieldresearch can provide a basis for developingintegrated assessment models.

6. Intensify and enhance research thatsupports more accurate predictions ofregional climate change, populationgrowth, demand forecasting and land usechanges, and use this information to helpevaluate ecological sensitivities.

Forecasts of the capacity of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River system shouldaccount for future scenarios that may alterwater levels and flows. Although modelsprovide limited information, current modelsdo forecast a reduced availability of waterdue to these factors. There is a need forregion-specific climate change studies tobetter understand how climate change willaffect water levels and flows.

7. Improve data to assess and model eco-logical impacts of water withdrawals atdifferent temporal and spatial scales,particularly on a nearshore and sub-watershed basis, where impacts are mostdiscernible.

This report documents the prospective needto assess impacts of water withdrawalsfrom anywhere in the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River basin. The “essentialquestions” presented in this chapter provideguidance for such assessments and requirebasic data and information at the appropri-ate temporal and spatial scales. For example,cumulative ecological impacts of alteredwater levels and flows could take years, oreven decades, to manifest themselves at theecosystem level. Long-term monitoringprograms are required to relate level/flowchanges to trends in ecosystem structureand function.


Survey, Biological Resources Division Informa-tion and Technology Report USGS/BRD-1998-0004. viii +131 p.



Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972.Between the United States and Canada.

Hardy, T.B. 1998. The Future of Habitat Modelingand Instream Flow Assessment Techniques.Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. 14(5): 405-420.

Karr, J.W. 1991. Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Manage-ment. Ecological Applications 1(1): 66-84.

Larson, W., J.V. DePinto and M.J. Donahue. 2002.Experts Workshop Summary Paper: EcologicalImpacts of Water Withdrawals in the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence System, November 13-14,2001, Ann Arbor, Mich. Limno-Tech, Inc. andGreat Lakes Commission.

Leger, W, R. Read and A. Lyttle, eds. 2001. Indica-tors Workshop Proceedings. April 10-11, 2001,Burlington, Ontario. Prepared for EcologicalRequirements Work Group, Water Use andSupply Project, Environment Canada.

Limno-Tech, Inc. and M. Slivitzky. 2002. EcologicalImpacts of Water Use and Changes in Levelsand Flows: A Literature Review. Prepared forGreat Lakes Commission.

Limno-Tech, Inc. 2002. Descriptive Inventory ofModels with Prospective Relevance to EcologicalImpacts of Water Withdrawals. Prepared forGreat Lakes Commission.

Madsen, J. D. and T.D. Wright. 1999. EcologicalEffects of Water Level Reductions in the GreatLakes Basin. Report on a Technical Workshop,16-17 Dec., 1999, Vicksburg, Miss. U.S. ArmyEngineer Research and Development Center,Environmental Laboratory. J.W. Barko, TechnicalCoordinator, 57 p.

Manny, B.A. 1984. Potential Impacts of WaterDiversions on Fishery Resources in the GreatLakes. Fisheries 9(5): 19-23.

Meyer, J.L., M.J. Sale, P.J. Mulholland and P.N.LeRoy. 1999. Impacts of Climate Change onAquatic Ecosystem Functioning and Health. J.Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 35(6): 1373-1386.

Persat, H. 1991. Space and Time, Stumbling-Blocksof Impact Studies in Large Rivers. Bulletind’Ecologie 22(1): 203-212.

Rogers, K.H. and H. Biggs. 1999. IntegratingIndicators, Endpoints and Value Systems inStrategic Management of the Rivers of theKruger National Park, South Africa. Freshwat.Biol. 41(2): 439-451.

Chapter Six - Resource Improvement Standard for Water Resources Projects- 103

Chapter SixResource Improvement Standard for Water Resources Projects

received during the call was used to prepare abriefing paper on the topic.

The conference call elicited consensus on somepoints and diverse viewpoints on others. There wasgeneral consensus that the issues paper should:

• Define the improvement concept, with anemphasis on case study examples;

• Focus on improvements to ecological health,not on human use and associated economicconsiderations; and

• Explore the relationship between waterwithdrawal and improvement.

Diverse viewpoints were expressed as to whethermitigation should be a component of Annex 2001,and the authors were asked to distinguish betweenmitigation and improvement in the briefing paper.

In June 2002, a briefing paper on analysis andprospective application of the resource improve-ment standard was prepared by Limno-Tech, Inc.(available in the Appendix). The paper presents thedefinition of improvement as defined in Annex2001, discusses the goals of resource improvement,and examines how these goals have changed overtime. Ten case study applications in differentsettings and for different purposes from within andoutside the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River regionare presented and discussed. These case studieswere selected to provide a range of examples tostimulate discussion on how the improvementstandard may be applied to implementation of theCharter Annex.

The background material provided in the briefingpaper has served as a departure point for discus-sions on the interpretation and application of theimprovement standard. The final section of thebriefing paper poses four questions that are criticalto implementing a resource improvement standardand address issues of definition, interpretation andapplication.

The Great Lakes Commission convened a ResourceImprovement Workshop on July 31, 2002 to discussthe issues raised in the paper, and to focus on keyquestions. Participants included members of theAnnex Working Group, Project Management

IntroductionDirective #3 of Annex 2001 to the Great LakesCharter calls for a new decisionmaking standardthat is based, in part, on “an Improvement to theWaters and Water-Dependent Natural Resources of

the Great Lakes Basin.” This chapter presents ananalysis of the “resource improvement” concept andexplores issues and options in the application of thestandard to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Riverbasin, as illuminated by case studies. Althoughresource improvement was not part of the originalproject work plan, the Project Management Teamagreed to support research on the topic to assist theregional policy development effort.

MethodologyIn March 2002, a Focus Group conference call wasconducted to define the scope of the analysis effort.Focus Group participants included members of thegovernors’ Charter Annex Working Group, somemembers of the Project Management Team and theStakeholders Advisory Committee for theWRMDSS project, and staff of the Great LakesProtection Fund. Focus Group participants dis-cussed a background paper, distributed prior to thecall, that addressed two primary objectives: 1) toclarify definitions of key terms in Annex Directive#3 statements concerning principles upon which anew decisionmaking standard is to be based; and 2)to obtain direction on the way that the new standardwould be interpreted and applied. The guidance

Sandpipers


Team, Stakeholders Advisory Committee, GreatLakes Protection Fund staff and various observers.

Resource Improvement StandardConceptThe term “Improvement to the Waters and WaterDependent Resources of the Great Lakes” isdefined in the Charter Annex as:

. . . additional beneficial, restorative effects to thephysical, chemical, and biological integrity of theWaters and Water-Dependent Natural Resources ofthe Basin, resulting from associated conservationmeasures, enhancement or restoration measureswhich include, but are not limited to, such practicesas mitigating adverse effects of existing waterwithdrawals, restoring environmentally sensitiveareas or implementing conservation measures inareas or facilities that are not part of the specificproposal undertaken by or on behalf of thewithdrawer.

The research for this paper focused on this defini-tion and, in particular, on the following terms:conservation, enhancement, restoration, and mitigatingadverse effects.

Goals of Resource ImprovementThe concept of resource improvement is subjectiveand depends on the valuation framework that theobserver applies to the natural world (Tietenberg,1996). The element of time and the importanceassigned to human uses of natural resources aretwo key dimensions of the framework by whichresources are valued.

On one extreme, resources are valued only on thebasis of the current services they provide to humanpopulations. This valuation framework aims tomaximize current human welfare. However, such astatic and wholly anthropocentric view of resourcevaluation can threaten the viability of naturalsystems, sacrificing future environmental health toachieve short-term gain.

Many reject this static view of resource valuationin favor of a longer-term perspective that featuresmeasures that enhance both current and futureresources. An example of this is modern forestrymanagement practices that are forward-looking,valuing the future health of the forest along withits current health.

A logical question in this discussion is, what weightshould be given to the future services to be pro-vided by natural resources, relative to current

services? One answer is to assign dollar values tofuture services and discount them using an interestrate, as is done to evaluate the future economicpayoff from a capital investment. This puts invest-ments in natural resources on the same footing asother investments, in terms of comparing theircosts and benefits. The decision to maintain aforest, for example, would depend on the value offuture yields, relative to payoffs from other invest-ments.

Some would argue, however, that this model ofresource planning assigns too little value to theenvironment that will be inherited by futuregenerations, because they (future generations)cannot participate in today’s decision process. Theconcept of sustainability balances these interests,dictating that every generation should inherit anenvironment whose resources are maintained andnot degraded.

Even within the umbrella of sustainability, thereare alternatives depending on the importanceassigned to human use services. What exactly is tobe sustained? One view is that the services providedto human populations should be sustained atcurrent levels. In this view, a forest might bemanaged so that its yield of lumber does notdecline with time.

An alternative view of sustainability is ecosystem-based, advocating not just for unborn humangenerations, but also for all living things, presentand future. Based on this view, the environmentshould be managed in such a way that nativepopulations of plants and animals remain healthyand viable, regardless of the services that they mayor may not provide to human populations.

Over the course of the past 150 years, popularviews of resource management have evolved to takean increasingly long-term and ecosystem-orientedperspective. The Annex 2001 definition of improve-ment appears to reflect this evolution, focusing onthe “physical, chemical, and biological integrity of… resources,” rather than the services that re-sources may provide to human populations. Itshould be recognized, however, that the definitionmay be open to differences in interpretation (e.g.some might argue that an increase in currentcommercial fishing yields due to the constructionof a new dock might be described as “a beneficialeffect … resulting from enhancement measures”).Implementation of Annex 2001 should be consis-tent with current societal values and needs, but alsoflexible enough to incorporate future changes inoverall environmental goals.


Mitigation Versus ImprovementThe definition of improvement in Annex 2001includes “such practices as mitigating adverseeffects of existing water withdrawals.” Someparticipants in the Focus Group cited this languageand emphasized that, with the exception of mitigat-ing the adverse effects of existing water withdraw-als, mitigation is not a component of the Annexbecause a principle of no significant adverseimpacts is embodied in Directive #3. The GreatLakes Commission’s Resource Improvement Stan-dard Workshop on July 31, 2002 in Chicago pro-vided a forum to discuss the issue of mitigationversus improvement. Discussion points from theworkshop are summarized later in the chapter.

The Decisionmaking Standard Subcommittee to thegovernors’ Annex Working Group has agreed thatimprovement is not mitigation and improvementbegins only after mitigation has been addressed.Therefore, some policy case studies that matchimprovements to adverse impacts may not beappropriate prototypes.

Many of the resource improvement programs thatexist today in the regulatory arena are designed tocompensate for past damages or future unavoidableimpacts, although some also require measures thatgo beyond mitigation and are directed at resourceimprovements. A common feature of the casestudies in this chapter is that they try to offsetactivities that have negative effects with positiveactions, and there is an effort to scale the positivesand the negatives through some type of tradingratios. The challenge in applying these types ofprograms to implementation of Annex 2001 is howto scale improvements when no significant negativeimpacts are allowed.

Many existing mitigation programs apply thedefinition issued by the President’s Council onEnvironmental Quality (40 US CFR, 1508.20),which includes:

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not takinga certain action or parts of an action.

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degreeor magnitude of the action and its imple-mentation.

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabili-tating, or restoring the affected environ-ment.

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact overtime by preservation and maintenanceoperations during the life of the action.

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing orproviding substitute resources or environ-ments.

Other approaches to resource improvement includeprograms, such as those run by conservationgroups like The Nature Conservancy, which are notmatched with resource use. Although these pro-grams may have features that are applicable to theAnnex 2001 improvement standard, they were notreviewed because of this missing link to resourceuse.

In the case studies discussed below, the role ofmitigation in the program is highlighted anddiscussed, as appropriate.

Frameworks for Resource ImprovementFew existing regulatory programs specificallymandate resource improvement. The programs thathave an element of resource improvement generallyuse different terms to describe it, or the improve-ment is implicit to the program rather than explicitin the regulations. An example is compensatoryrestoration as part of the U.S. federal/state NaturalResource Damage Assessments (NRDA) program.These compensatory measures are directed atoverall improvements to the ecosystem to compen-sate for past damages, yet there is no specificlanguage in the authorizing acts that describes a“resource improvement standard.” For this reason,the concept is discussed below in the context ofillustrative case studies, and relevant language fromregulations or guidelines is cited as appropriate.

Related approaches have also been proposed. Forexample, a consortium of nongovernmentalorganizations submitted suggestions to the Councilof Great Lakes Governors in May 2002 (Miller etal., 2002). These included requirements thatimprovements function in perpetuity; that they betied to restoration plans; that they be matched towithdrawals by sub-basin where possible; that theybe measured in terms of ecological rather thaneconomic value; and that the withdrawals andimprovements be scaled according to size, type andpotential for unknown harm. Other approaches anddiverse views exist on each of these aspects ofimprovement.

The importance of considering cumulative impactsin implementation of Annex 2001 was highlightedduring the Focus Group and workshop discussions.During the review of case studies, these exampleswere examined to determine if cumulative impactsof multiple stressors (including multiple waterwithdrawals) are addressed through the program.


Some programs implicitly account for cumulativeimpacts by nature of the program design. Forexample, water quality trading programs take awhole watershed approach and focus on improve-ments as an outcome of trading between multipledischargers that may have a cumulative impact.Canada manages fisheries habitat under a “net gain”policy that is designed to achieve an improvementin habitat while allowing for multiple uses withpotentially cumulative impacts. Other programsfocus only on the particular project under reviewand do not address cumulative impacts. An exampleof this type of program is the compensatoryimprovements component of NRDA program.

When applying a resource improvement standard, itis necessary to be aware of other programs (includ-ing those considered in this document) to ensurethat a specific resource improvement is not beingused for more than one program. This could defeatthe purpose of the resource improvement standard;having one improvement offset more than onedegradation through different programs wouldeffectively constitute double counting.

Case Study Improvement StandardApplicationsIn this section, specific applications in differentsettings and for different purposes from within andoutside the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River regionare discussed. For each case study, the followinginformation is provided:

1. Case study overview provides a generaldescription of the project or program. Foreach example, the “environmental currency”in which required future resource improve-ments are measured is described;

2. Definition and application of resourceimprovement concept describes why thisexample was selected as illustrative of animprovement concept;

3. Associated issues highlights relevantissues, including whether the case study isan example of mitigation; and

4. Potential applicability to Annex 2001implementation discusses how a similarframework might be applied to implementa-tion of Annex 2001.

These case studies do not constitute a comprehen-sive collection of all relevant examples that illus-trate the resource improvement standard concept.Rather, they were selected to provide a samplingand a range of examples to stimulate discussion on

how the improvement standard may be applied inimplementation of Annex 2001. Each of these casestudies illustrates certain features that could beapplicable to resource improvement, rather thanapproaches that are consistent with Annex 2001 inevery respect.

Natural Resource Damage Assessments:Compensatory ImprovementsThe objective of natural resource damage assess-ments (NRDAs) is to restore and improve injuredresources in compensation for past and expectedfuture damages. Damages are quantified in terms ofdollar values, and this provides the currency inwhich required future resource improvements aremeasured.

Case Study OverviewNRDAs are based in the legal doctrine of publictrust, under which title to natural resources isheld by the state in trust for the people. Thepurpose of the trust is to preserve resources ina manner that makes them available to thepublic. The state may convey to private ownersthe right to use land and natural resources, butprivate interest is subservient to preserving thepublic’s right to use and enjoy those resources.

NRDA provisions were included in U.S. legisla-tion authorizing the Comprehensive Environ-mental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (Superfund), the Oil Pollution Act, theNational Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the ParkSystem Act in order to establish specific publicagencies as trustees for natural resources andgive them the right to recover damages onbehalf of the public. Damage assessments,therefore, take into account the cost to restorethe resource, rather than just any diminution inthe value of the resource, and the trustees arerequired to apply any damages collected toward“restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquir-ing the equivalent of the injured resource.”NRDA activities constitute mitigation ofinjuries, in that they identify and quantifydamage that has been done and require anequivalent resource improvement, in terms ofdollar value of services.

Figure 6-1 (Jones, 2000) illustrates the NRDAconcept. Due to a historical release at time t0,there is a loss of services provided by naturalresources. An example might be a reduction inrecreational fishing. The economic valuation ofthose total losses is represented by areas A + B,under a natural recovery scenario. Under active


restoration, the resource recovers faster andfuture losses are reduced. In the figure, lossesare equal to only area A, because the portion offuture losses represented by B is prevented.NRDA procedures provide for compensatoryresource improvements, requiring provision ofadditional services with a value of C, in addi-tion to the restoration of baseline services.Compensation is sufficient and complete whenthe present discounted value of losses A and ofcompensatory restoration C are equal andoffsetting. Thus, NRDA requires active restora-tion to reduce losses, if possible, and alsoprovide restoration to fully compensate forinterim losses.

Definition and Application of Resource ImprovementConceptThe baseline for NRDA, according to thedefinition in U.S. Department of Interior(USDOI) regulations, is “the condition orconditions that would have existed at theassessment area had the discharge of oil orrelease of hazardous substance not occurred.”Thus, the damage to resources is not measuredrelative to pristine conditions: rather, it ismeasured relative to a hypothetical state inwhich this discharge did not occur but all otherongoing impacts did occur. Thus, the historicaldischarger must compensate the public for theeffects of the discharge, but not for any otherconcurrent environmental degradation.

Damages are determined by identifying injuredresources, quantifying services lost due to theinjuries, and then determining the dollar values

of those lost services. Injuryis defined by USDOIregulations (43 US CFR 11)as “a measurable adversechange … in the chemical orphysical quality or viabilityof a natural resourceresulting either directly orindirectly from exposure toa discharge of oil or releaseof a hazardous sub-stance….” Services aredefined as “the physical andbiological functions per-formed by the resourceincluding the human uses ofthose functions.” Compensablevalue is “the amount ofmoney required to compen-sate the public for the loss inservices provided by the

injured resources between the time of thedischarges and the time the resources and theservices those resources provided are fullyreturned to baseline conditions.”

Associated IssuesThe human use of natural resources is the basisof NRDA. Damage is assessed only to theextent that resources provide services that areof measurable value to human populations. Thisincludes both use (e.g., the benefits of recre-ation) and nonuse (also called passive or exist-ence) values (e.g., valuing the knowledge thatresources exist and are uninjured). Resourceshave no intrinsic value in NRDA, other thantheir value in providing these human services.

A controversial issue in NRDA is the estimationof nonuse values of resources. Although thereis little doubt that people place value on theexistence of natural resources from which theydo not personally obtain any tangible services,there is much less agreement whether specificdollar estimates of those values are real andmeaningful. Active uses require users to makeeconomic choices; indirect but objective esti-mates of these values can, therefore, often bemade. In contrast, nonuse values are estimatedthrough questionnaire methods, asking peoplewhat they would be willing to pay to see aspecific resource improvement. It is not practi-cal to put respondents to a real test of theirtrue willingness to pay for nonuse services and,consequently, their answers are not verifiable.

Figure 6-1Relationship between compensatory restoration and interim lost value

Time

ResourceValue

AB

CCompensatory

Restoration

NaturalRecovery

Active PrimaryRestoration

Incident (t0) FullRecovery-

ActiveRestoration

(t1)

FullRecovery-

NaturalRecovery

(t2)

Baseline Value


Although dollars are the standard currency ofresource improvement in NRDA, services havebeen employed as an alternative currency insome cases. Most commonly this has been donethrough “habitat equivalency”: habitat improve-ment is required as compensation for pasthabitat degradation, and full compensationrequires that resource services gained by theimprovement are sufficient to offset servicespreviously lost due to the release. For example,services might be measured in terms of abilityto support endangered migratory bird popula-tions.

Potential Applicability to Annex 2001ImplementationOne distinction between the NRDA approachand Annex 2001 is NRDA’s human use valua-tion of resources. Members of the Focus Groupand workshop participants expressed a strongpreference for ecosystem sustainability as abasis for resource improvement, rather thanhuman use values.

Another important difference between NRDAprocedures and the contemplated resourceimprovement standard under Annex 2001 isthat NRDA is retrospective, whereas Annex2001 is prospective. The Annex 2001 resourceimprovement standard would not be applied ascompensation for effects of past withdrawalsfrom the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.

Nevertheless, the methods used in NRDA tovalue resources are available to be consideredfor water withdrawals proposed under Annex2001, with some history to illustrate their prosand cons. Any expected impact from waterwithdrawals would be evaluated in terms ofreductions in resource services, and theirassociated use and nonuse values. The applicantwould be required to provide compensation, inan equal amount or including a premium toaccount for uncertainty of estimation methods,either in cash or through in-kind resourceimprovement projects. A resource improvementstandard would direct either form of compensa-tion toward improvements providing sufficientservices to offset the impact of the proposedwater withdrawal. In practice, it would bedesirable for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrencestates and provinces to estimate the servicelosses associated with generic withdrawals ineach sub-basin, and develop and maintain a listof desired improvements and their estimated

service values. This would facilitate matchesbetween water withdrawal applicants andcompensating resource improvements.

Another potentially applicable concept is habitatequivalency. Expected potential natural re-source service losses (e.g., decline in wildlifepopulations or diversity) due to proposed waterwithdrawals could be estimated for the variousGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence sub-basins. Candidatehabitat improvements could also be catalogued,along with estimates of associated serviceimprovements. Proposed new water withdraw-als would then be matched with required habitatimprovements to protect resources from netdegradation. Annex 2001 would require thatthis be accomplished in such a way as to preventadverse impact to the resource.

Water Quality TradingWater quality trading provides an instructiveresource improvement standard case study becausetrading programs require that every trade result inan improvement to water quality. The basic cur-rency of water quality trading programs is pollut-ant loading rates, so that resource improvementsare measured in terms of reduced total loads.

Case Study OverviewThe primary objective of water quality tradingis to reduce the cost of achieving water qualitygoals by providing dischargers with market-based flexibility. There can be numerousavailable means of reducing total pollutantloads to a target level, and trading programsallow dischargers to negotiate among them-selves, selecting the most cost-effectivemethod(s) and sharing the costs of implementa-tion. A second objective is water quality im-provement. Agencies that have allowed waterquality trading have also required resourceimprovements in the form of overall loadreductions, relative to preexisting water quality-based targets.

In practice, the most important avenue fortrading is between point-source and nonpoint-source dischargers. In recent decades, the waterquality threat posed by nonpoint sources, suchas agricultural runoff and urban stormwater,has become increasingly clear. It is also oftenapparent that reductions in nonpoint-sourceloads can be achieved at lower costs thanadditional point-source load reductions becausepoint-source loads have been more aggressivelycontrolled by past environmental policies.


Water quality trading allows a point-sourcedischarger to earn credit toward its permitlimits by financing a load reduction program fora nonpoint-source discharger, effectively pur-chasing credits for load reduction. In this way,dischargers as a group can reduce or eliminatesources in order of their cost-effectiveness.

The so-called trading ratio is the key to effect-ing resource improvement under environmentaltrading programs. There is a discount applied toany credits purchased before they may beapplied to meet the purchaser’s permit require-ments. For example, a 2:1 trading ratio requirestwo credits to be retired toward water qualityimprovement for each credit used to meetpermit requirements. In this case, a point sourcedischarger requiring a 1000 kg reduction tomeet its permit requirements would need tofinance a 2000 kg reduction in nonpoint-sourceloads to satisfy its permit through trading.Trading ratios may vary on a case-by-case basis,but are set above 1:1 to facilitate improvements.

Definition and Application of Resource ImprovementConceptThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) has released a proposed policy fortrading involving nutrients and sediments(USEPA, 2002). According to the proposedpolicy, pollutant reduction credits may beexpressed in rates or mass per unit of time. Forexample, if flow and concentration limits in adischarge permit effectively limit a discharger’sphosphorus load in units of kilograms permonth, then credits are expressed in the sameunits. The improvement of the resource broughtabout by a trading ratio greater than 1:1 wouldthen likewise be measurable in units of kilo-grams per month.

The proposed USEPA policy also supports theuse of credits “in ways that achieve ancillaryenvironmental benefits beyond reductions inspecific pollutant loads, such as the creation andrestoration of wetlands, floodplains and wildlifeand/or waterfowl habitat.” Credits for theseactivities may be used to supplement pollutantload reductions made at a 1:1 point/nonpoint-source trading ratio, to bring about a netenvironmental benefit.

Associated IssuesUSEPA’s proposed trading policy containsnumerous safeguards against trading that would

degrade water quality in one location whileimproving it in another, a possibility that ariseswhen trading partners are in different locations.Key provisions, intended to ensure consistencywith the Clean Water Act, include:• Watershed basis:Watershed basis:Watershed basis:Watershed basis:Watershed basis: All trading should be within

a watershed, so that that the total pollutantload within the watershed is reduced.

• No localized impairment: No localized impairment: No localized impairment: No localized impairment: No localized impairment: Any trades that wouldcause localized impairments of existing ordesignated uses are unacceptable.

• Baselines for trades: Baselines for trades: Baselines for trades: Baselines for trades: Baselines for trades: Parties earn credits onlywhen they improve upon levels derived from,and consistent with, water quality standards.Where Total Maximum Daily Loads(TMDLs) have been established, the associ-ated load allocations for dischargers consti-tute the baseline.

• Trading ratios: Trading ratios: Trading ratios: Trading ratios: Trading ratios: Trades should require theretirement of a portion of credits earned, toachieve water quality improvements andprovide a margin of safety of load shiftsbetween point and nonpoint sources.

Potential Applicability to Annex 2001ImplementationTrading offers the potential to allocate existingGreat Lakes water withdrawals to their mostbeneficial uses, while also improving GreatLakes resources. A trading framework forimplementation of Annex 2001, analogous towater quality trading, would establish a baselineof Great Lakes water withdrawals, possibly atcurrent levels, and would allow the flexibilityfor prospective users and existing users to tradein withdrawal credits. The most fundamentalissue that arises in applying trading principles iswhether Great Lakes water withdrawal rightsshould be established at current or at any otherlevels.

To effect resource improvements in any tradingprogram, trading ratios need to be greater than1:1. In this instance, a portion of the allowedwithdrawal could be retired upon purchase ofwithdrawal rights or the purchaser wouldfinance some additional resource improvement.The latter option would be analogous to theoption in the USEPA proposed water quality-trading policy for the creation of credits “inways that achieve ancillary environmentalbenefits beyond reductions in specific pollutantloads.” The creation and restoration of wet-lands, floodplains and habitat are currently highpriorities in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River


basin relative to reductions in water withdraw-als below current levels. For this reason,requiring these ancillary activities may be amore beneficial way to achieve resource im-provements than to retire water withdrawalrights.

As with water quality trading, it might also bebeneficial to restrict trades to parties withincommon hydrological regions in order tominimize adverse local effects. In some cases, inorder to be beneficial, tradeoffs might berestricted to the same sub-basin, or even thesame reach. Finally, the baseline established fortrading programs sets the target to be met bytrading. If current rates of water withdrawalare satisfactory, then these could be used to setthe baseline. If significantly lower withdrawalrates are desired, then this could be taken intoaccount by setting a lower baseline.

Wetland Mitigation BankingSection 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes aprogram to regulate the discharge of dredged andfill material into waters of the United States,including wetlands. Permit applicants must providejustification for impacting wetlands and must avoidand minimize impacts to wetlands before a compen-sation (mitigation) proposal can be entertained.Applicants must compensate for all unavoidablewetland impacts by replacing the lost wetlands.Mitigation ratios result in a net gain of wetlandacreage and range from 1.5: 1 to 3:1.

Case Study OverviewA wetlands mitigation bank is a wetland areathat has been restored, created, enhanced, or (inexceptional circumstances) preserved, which isthen set aside to compensate for future conver-sions of wetlands for development activities.The following description of mitigation bank-ing is excerpted from a Congressional ResearchService Report (Zinns, 1997):

Mitigation banking is relatively new, and federalmitigation banking policies continue to evolve….Banking can occur only after three steps are takenin the federal process for protecting wetlands.First, wetland development must be avoided ifpossible; second, when this is unavoidable, impactsmust be minimized; and third, impacts that cannot be minimized to an acceptable level must bemitigated. Mitigation banking is an option onlywhen mitigation on-site is not possible. Banksponsors create wetland “credits” at a bank sitethat can be acquired by those who fall within thepurview of these two programs and are required

to offset wetland losses, or “debits,” at othersites….Mitigation banking has many definitions, butmost center on the restoration, creation, enhance-ment, or, in exceptional circumstances, the preser-vation of wetlands which will compensate forunavoidable wetland losses at another site.Banking is designed to coordinate mitigation atone location for habitat losses allowed underfederal programs at other sites. Mitigationbanking is used primarily when on-site mitigationcan not be achieved or is not as environmentallybeneficial. Mitigation banking involves a processin which a client may be required to obtainwetland units with similar functions and values ata nearby site to satisfy federal permit or programrequirements.Bank operations vary widely, but all follow thesame general principles. These principles use theterminology of financial institutions: transactionsare described in terms of credits and debits towetland resources. A bank sponsor creates creditsas it restores, enhances, or creates wetlands at thebank site. These credits are either debited (moneyis not involved) or purchased by clients (a finan-cial transaction) who are being required tocompensate for wetland losses. When clients obtainthese credits, they are withdrawn from the bankand become unavailable for future transactions.Clients are usually required to make these with-drawals prior to or concurrently with theirproposed activity that will result in wetland losses.Banks may be allowed to transfer some credits,usually to fund their operations, before the site isfully established.

USEPA lists several benefits of wetland mitiga-tion banking, including:• Consolidation of numerous small, isolated or

fragmented mitigation projects into a singlelarge parcel may have greater ecologicalbenefit.• A mitigation bank can bring scientific and

planning expertise and financial resourcestogether, thereby increasing the likelihood ofsuccess in a way not practical for individualmitigation efforts.

The environmental currency in which futureresource improvements are measured is acreageof wetlands.

Definition and Application of Resource ImprovementConceptMitigation ratios used in mitigation bankingresult in a net gain of wetland acreage and


range from 1.5: 1 to 3:1. In terms of wetlandacreage, this represents an improvement.However, some critics argue that, even thoughmitigation banking involves obtaining wetlandunits with similar functions and values at anearby site, existing wetlands cannot be re-placed because the same functions and valuescannot be replicated. According to the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS), the rate ofwetlands loss in the U.S. has slowed by 80percent from 1986 to 1997 compared to thepreceding decade (USFWS, 2001). However,forested wetlands and freshwater emergentwetlands show the most losses, while openwater pond acreage has been increasing, reflect-ing substitution between these different wetlandtypes.

Associated IssuesMitigation banking is controversial. Supportersclaim that mitigation banking, when comparedwith mitigation on-site, provides better-orga-nized planning, an improved regulatory climate,greater commitment to long-term wetlandprotection, and more consolidation of habitat.Opponents claim that banking is a loophole andfacilitates additional wetland destruction, thatsome types of wetlands are difficult to create orrestore as thriving ecosystems, and that wetlandlosses are sometimes allowed before the bank isfully functional. More generally, supportersview policy flexibility as critical to success,especially for commercial banks, while criticsworry that flexibility will lead to unacceptablelosses of wetland functions and values (Zinns,1997).

The success of wetland mitigation programs ingeneral is currently a topic of much debate. Arecent self-assessment of New Jersey’s wetlandprogram (Brouwer, 2002) revealed that New

Jersey lost 22 percent of its wetland acreageover a recent four-year period. This contrastssharply with the state’s goal of creating twoacres of wetland for every acre lost. The studyfocused primarily on the creation of entirelynew wetlands.

Potential Applicability to Annex 2001ImplementationOne of the benefits of wetland mitigationbanking listed by USEPA is that it consolidatesnumerous small, isolated or fragmented mitiga-tion projects into a single large parcel, resultingin greater ecological benefits. USEPA alsomentions that banking brings scientific andplanning expertise and financial resourcestogether, thereby increasing the likelihood ofsuccess in a way not practical for individualmitigation efforts. These characteristics areconsistent with opinions expressed during theFocus Group and workshop that improvementmeasures need to be within the context ofregional water management/ecosystem restora-tion plans. Such measures would providegreater ecological benefits than many isolatedmeasures throughout the basin.

An example of a similar application is thedevelopment of “restoration banks” that involvestream enhancement projects that target exoticspecies invasions, nutrient reduction, and otherrestoration or enhancement goals. A banksponsor would create credits as it carries outthese projects at the bank site, and these creditswould then be either debited or purchased byclients who are being required to provide aresource improvement in connection with aproposed water withdrawal. The water with-drawals may or may not be tied to the bankprojects. An obvious difference between wet-lands banking and Annex 2001 implementationis that wetlands banking requires a compensa-tion for resources lost. If there is no adverseimpact, then it is not obvious how to scale theresource improvement required for a proposedwater withdrawal. One possibility would be tobase resource improvements on mitigation ofpotential cumulative harm, and to scale indi-vidual resource improvement projects accordingto their contribution to that potential cumula-tive harm (if mitigation of potential harm ispermitted).

Resource Improvement Trust FundSeveral programs exist across the country in whicha fee or tax is paid for a service or product, and the

Great Egret


revenues are collected in a trust fund. The money inthis fund is then used for a variety of programs,including habitat and wetland conservation, andenvironmental restoration and clean-up efforts.

Case Study OverviewThere are many examples of resource improve-ment trust funds. Several are provided below toillustrate the range of these types of programs.

• Minnesota Fishing License:Minnesota Fishing License:Minnesota Fishing License:Minnesota Fishing License:Minnesota Fishing License: The revenuescollected from fishing licenses go into adedicated fund for the Division of Fisheriesand support activities such as stream sur-veys, fishery management, lake rehabilitationand improvements to spawning habitat.

• Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF):Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF):Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF):Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF):Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF):The fund was established in 1976 to pur-chase lands for outdoor recreation and/orthe protection of natural resources and openspace. It also is used to assist in the appro-priate development of land for publicoutdoor education. The MNRTF is sup-ported by annual revenues from the extrac-tion of non-renewable resources, primarilyoil and gas, from state-owned lands.

• Bottle Bills:Bottle Bills:Bottle Bills:Bottle Bills:Bottle Bills: When a soft drink container ispurchased with a deposit and the bottle isdiscarded without redeeming the deposit,this money typically returns to the beveragedistributor who initiated the deposit. How-ever, Massachusetts, Michigan and Califor-nia collect unredeemed deposits and directall or a percentage of the funds to anenvironmental fund. Examples of fundedprojects include hazardous waste cleanups,municipal recycling programs andbrownfields redevelopment.

• Federal Gasoline Excise Tax:Federal Gasoline Excise Tax:Federal Gasoline Excise Tax:Federal Gasoline Excise Tax:Federal Gasoline Excise Tax: The gasoline tax isimposed on the manufacturer (the producer,refiner or importer) and is generally passedon to the consumer. Revenues collected fromthis tax primarily support the HighwayTrust Fund, although 0.1 cent of the moneycollected supports the Leaking Under-ground Storage Tank Trust Fund to helpfund clean-up efforts of leaking gasolinestorage tanks.

The currency in which required future resourceimprovements are measured is dollars.

Definition and Application of Resource ImprovementConceptEach of the funds described above is dedicatedto environmental improvement, with projects

that range from remediation of contaminatedsites to protection and enhancement of wildlifehabitat. The amount of the fee or tax and theuses of the revenues can vary, but the commontheme is that a benefit is created, either by thosethat use the resource (hunting and fishinglicenses) or those who purchase certain prod-ucts (bottle deposits and gasoline taxes).

Associated IssuesThere can be questions about who pays intothese funds, what the fees will be, what projectsget funded, where they are located, and whomakes the project funding decisions. Histori-cally, some of these types of funds have beenredirected into general funds and have not beenused for the original intended purpose. Alterna-tively, authorities may cut back on general fund-based activities, effectively using these fees toaugment the general fund.

Potential Applicability to Annex 2001ImplementationResource improvement trust funds may serve asan example for a “Great Lakes EcologicalRestoration Fund.” This fund could be used tofinance restoration measures such as wetlandsconservation, habitat restoration, or streambankerosion measures that have been identified inwatershed restoration plans. Application of thetrust fund payment procedure may simplifyimplementation of the improvement standard.By creating a uniform payment structure basedon the characteristics of the water withdrawal,the fund could be administered to provide forlocal and/or regional improvements. Theprioritization of projects and management ofthe fund may present challenges. While therewould be interest in addressing local issues andconcerns, there would also be interest inimprovement projects that are consistent withbroader regional water management andecosystem restoration plans. Some states andprovinces already have well-developed water-shed management processes, while others(including Ontario and Québec) are currentlydeveloping new systems of water resourceregulation. A key issue related to this type of aprogram is whether Great Lakes jurisdictionsshould charge a fee for water withdrawals andwhether they have the legal authority to do so.

Endangered Species Act: Habitat ConservationPlansHabitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are a conserva-tion tool under Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Endan-


gered Species Act (ESA) to recover endangered andthreatened species on non-federal lands. More than300 HCPs have been approved, and more than 300are pending.

Case Study OverviewThe goal of a Habitat Conservation Plan is toimprove the survival and recovery of listedspecies. When a “taking” of a listed species mayoccur as a result of a proposed project or action,an incidental take permit is required, and aHabitat Conservation Plan must accompany thepermit application. The ESA defines “take” asany activity that harms a threatened or endan-gered species, and “harm” can include habitatmodification that injures species.

An HCP protects listed and unlisted species,and includes measures to monitor, minimize,and mitigate the impact on the listed species. Itcan apply to an individual landowner or mul-tiple landowners, and may target an entireregion. An HCP has five components:

1. Biological Goals and Objectives: guidingprinciples that reflect the best scientificinformation available;

2. Adaptive Management: method to addressuncertainty and significant data gaps;

3. Monitoring: ensures compliance, gaugeseffectiveness of HCPs and informs choicesunder adaptive management;

4. Permit Duration: varying lengths but up to50 years; and

5. Public Participation: 30 to 60 days for publiccomment.

The environmental currency in which requiredfuture resource improvements are measured ishabitat equivalency.

Definition and Application of Resource ImprovementConceptHabitat Conservation Plans were selected asexamples of an application of the resourceimprovement standard concept because they areused in water withdrawal requests that mayimpact endangered species, and their intent is torestore listed species, including improvementsto degraded habitat and unlisted species. HCPsallow operational activities to occur whileapplying conservation and recovery measures todegraded habitat. The plans lay out measures topreserve, restore, protect and improve listed andunlisted species.

Associated IssuesHabitat Conservation Plans are directed atminimizing and mitigating any “taking” thatmay result from a project. HCPs provide amechanism for water withdrawals to continueand increase in the future, and for the potentialtaking of a listed species. While these plans doinvolve mitigation measures to offset the harm,they go beyond individual species mitigation toinclude ecosystem restoration and improvementmeasures.

Potential Applicability to Annex 2001ImplementationHabitat Conservation Plans may provide amodel to allow for increased water withdrawalswhile improving water dependent naturalresources, degraded habitat and water quality.HCP goals are similar to Annex 2001 objectivesto protect, conserve, restore, improve andmanage use of water. The plan is implementedand monitored to ensure that goals are met.HCPs also provide a mechanism to facilitate avoluntary long-term agreement by diversestakeholders from a large geographic area.

Canadian Fisheries Act: Fish Habitat andPollution Prevention ProvisionsSections 34 through 42 of the Canadian FisheriesAct contain habitat protection and pollutionprovisions. Key among these are sections 35 and 36.Section 35 instructs, “No person shall carry on anywork or undertaking that results in the harmfulalteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.”The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada(DFO) is the only person who can authorize, undercertain conditions, habitat alterations, disruptionsor destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. This casestudy examines the policy and guidelines related toSection 35, focusing on the policy objective of “netgain” in the productive capacity of fish habitats.Section 36 prohibits pollution unless authorized byregulations made by the Governor in Council ofCanada.

Through administrative agreements, DFO hasresponsibility for the habitat provisions of theFisheries Act, and Environment Canada hasresponsibility for the pollution prevention provi-sions. Both agencies work collaboratively in overalladministration and in annual reports on regulatoryactivities to the Canadian Parliament.

Case Study OverviewTo guide the DFO in the day-to-day administra-tion of the habitat provisions of the Fisheries


Act, the Policy for the Management of FishHabitat (1986) was developed. The overallobjective of the policy is to achieve a netgain over time in the productive capacity offisheries resources and includes three goals:fish habitat conservation, restoration, anddevelopment.

A key principle of the first habitat conserva-tion goal is no net loss. DFO uses its reviewand approval process for proposed worksand activities in and around Canadianfisheries waters to achieve a net gain thatprotects the productive capacity of existingfish habitats. The habitat policy objective isimplemented by integrated resource man-agement planning activities related to thethree goals. DFO provides input at the earlystages of watershed planning and identifiesareas where activities that affect fish habitatmay be restricted, areas where habitatrestoration could be implemented andpotential areas where development of fishhabitat could offset habitat losses arising fromother activities.

Determining effective measurements of theproductive capacity of fish habitat on a regionalor national basis is an ongoing topic of studyfor DFO. Capacity measurement provides adecisionmaking currency and, when productivecapacity cannot be measured, DFO looks toeffective substitutes to implement the objectiveof the habitat policy.

Definition and Application of Resource ImprovementConceptThe goal of net gain aims to increase theproductive capacity of fisheries. This goal is

achieved by applying a hierarchy of preferredproject options to the regulatory review processfor proposed activities in and around Canadianfisheries waters. Design considerations, whichprevent impacts, are always the first preference.However, when full prevention of impacts tofish habitat through project redesign or reloca-tion is not possible, the Fisheries Act allowsDFO to authorize the residual harmful alter-ation, disruption or destruction of habitat.Based on the habitat policy and departmentaldirectives, DFO typically does not issue suchauthorizations without acceptable habitatcompensation to offset the residual loss. Thefirst preference is for habitat loss to be offsetthrough the creation of similar habitat at ornear the site. Less preferable options areconsidered and accepted based on specificcircumstances.

Associated IssuesThis example illustrates a program designed tomitigate harmful alterations, disruptions ordestruction of fish habitat. Applicants mustpursue location and design options that willavoid impacts to fish habitats before DFO willconsider authorizing works that would requirehabitat. When a project results in a HADD andthe impacts are judged acceptable, compensa-tory restoration may be required. The prefer-ence is for habitat compensation to occur at ornear the development site, but mitigation mayoccur further from the site where impacts areoccurring. Unlike the wetland mitigation

Yellow Perch

Isle Royale National Park, Lake Superior


banking program, the policy of net gain in fishhabitat is directed at an overall improvementthat goes beyond no net loss in habitat.

Potential Applicability to Annex 2001ImplementationThe net gain policy of habitat for Canada’sfisheries resources is similar to the principle ofa net resource improvement in Annex 2001.Also similar are the Annex principle of “nosignificant adverse impacts” and the no net lossof habitat policy in the act. Actions that areimplemented under the Policy for the Manage-ment of Fish Habitat are mitigative in naturewhereas mitigation is not a component ofAnnex 2001.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) assistslandowners in restoring and protecting wetlands.The program was mandated by Section 1237 of theU.S. Food Security Act of 1985 (PL 99-198), asamended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservationand Trade Act of 1990 (PL-101-624) and theFederal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Actof 1996 (PL-104-127). WRP was reauthorized inthe Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of2002 (Farm Bill).

Case Study OverviewThe Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntaryprogram that provides technical and financialassistance to eligible landowners to restore,enhance and protect wetlands. The U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Re-sources Conservation Service (NRCS) adminis-ters the program. Funding for WRP comesfrom the Commodity Credit Corporation. Theprogram offers three enrollment options:

Permanent Easement.Permanent Easement.Permanent Easement.Permanent Easement.Permanent Easement. This is a conservationeasement in perpetuity. Easement payments forthis option equal the lowest of three amounts:the agricultural value of the land, an estab-lished payment cap, or an amount offered by thelandowner. In addition to paying for the ease-ment, USDA pays 100 percent of the costs ofrestoring the wetland.

30-Year Easement.30-Year Easement.30-Year Easement.30-Year Easement.30-Year Easement. Easement payments throughthis option are 75 percent of what would bepaid for a permanent easement. USDA also pays75 percent of restoration costs.

For both permanent and 30-year easements,USDA pays all costs associated with recordingthe easement in the local land records office,

including recording fees, charges for abstracts,survey and appraisal fees, and title insurance.

Restoration Cost-Share Agreement.Restoration Cost-Share Agreement.Restoration Cost-Share Agreement.Restoration Cost-Share Agreement.Restoration Cost-Share Agreement. This is anagreement (generally for a minimum of 10years) to re-establish degraded or lost wetlandhabitat. USDA pays 75 percent of the cost ofthe restoration activity. This enrollment optiondoes not place an easement on the property.

Definition and Application of Resource ImprovementConceptThe program provides an opportunity forlandowners to receive financial incentives toenhance and restore wetlands in exchange forretiring marginally productive agriculturalland. The program benefits the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River basin by restoring and protect-ing wetland functions and values, and bydeveloping fish and wildlife habitat. Wetlandsalso improve water quality by filtering sedi-ments and chemicals, reducing flooding, andprotecting biological diversity. As of November2001, there have been 1,074,245 acres enrolledin WRP throughout the United States.

To be eligible for WRP, land must be restorableand suitable for wildlife benefits. Examples ofeligible lands include farmed or convertedwetlands; pasture or production forage landwhere the hydrology has been significantlydegraded and can be restored; riparian areaslinked to protected wetlands; and lands adjacentto protected wetlands that contribute signifi-cantly to wetland functions and values. Ineli-gible lands include wetlands converted afterDecember 23, 1985; lands with timber standsestablished under the Conservation ReserveProgram; federal lands; and lands whereconditions make restoration impossible. Thus,any wetlands in this program represent landthat has been reclaimed from prior conversionto agricultural land or which support protectedwetlands, and they create a net gain in GreatLakes basin wetlands. Use of these wetlands inmitigation efforts is prohibited by statute.

Associated IssuesOn acreage subject to a WRP easement, partici-pants control access to the land and may leasethe land for hunting, fishing and other undevel-oped recreational activities. The purchase of aconservation easement by the U.S. governmentdoes not constitute an outright purchase oflands. At any time, a participant may requestthat additional activities be evaluated to deter-mine if they are compatible uses for the site


(e.g., hay cutting, livestock grazing or timberharvesting). Compatible uses are allowed only ifthey are fully consistent with the protection andenhancement of the wetland.

Implementation of WRP has illustrated theneed for funding for technical assistance tolandowners, not just financial assistance. NRCSand its partners, including conservation dis-tricts, provide a great deal of assistance tolandowners as part of restoration activities.These include the design of wetland restorationpractices and oversight of restoration activities.Easement acquisition, which guarantees thatwetlands will be properly maintained, is animportant part of the program, but involves agreat deal of time and effort. NRCS and itspartners also continue to provide assistance tolandowners after completion of restorationactivities. This assistance may be in the form ofreviewing restoration measures, clarifyingtechnical and administrative aspects of theeasement, and providing basic biological andengineering advice on how to achieve optimumresults for wetland dependent species.

WRP benefits the public by restoring andprotecting wetland functions and values. It alsobenefits participants who receive financial andtechnical assistance; experience a reduction inproblems associated with farming potentiallydifficult areas; and have incentives to developwildlife recreational opportunities on their land.

Potential Applicability to Annex 2001ImplementationKey issues related to this type of programinclude:

• Whether the relevant government entityhas the legal authority to acquire and holdeasements;

• The financial costs of both the easementpurchase and cost-share for wetlandsrestoration; and

• The technical ability of the governmententity to design and implement wetlandrestoration.

Partnership agreements between governmententities and NRCS, conservation districts, andenvironmental groups could address the secondand third issues. Also, funding mechanismsother than direct appropriation of funds to aprogram are available, such as the sale of bondsby state or local governments.

Recent PrecedentLess than two years have passed since the signingof Annex 2001 and, given that the Annex has notyet been implemented, precedents are few. However,one case study in Michigan may assist in theresource improvement work called for in theAnnex.

Case Study OverviewThe Perrier Group of America recently beganoperations at a water bottling facility in theMuskegon River watershed in west-centralMichigan. At peak production, the plant willwithdraw approximately 720,000 gallons perday of groundwater for purification, steriliza-tion, bottling and distribution to consumersunder the brand name Ice Mountain.

After conducting an extensive review and publichearing, the Michigan Department of Environ-mental Quality (MDEQ) issued a permit inAugust 2001 for the plant to construct andoperate two wells. Company hydrogeologic testsand analyses reported that there would be nosignificant adverse impacts on adjacent privatewells or on nearby surface waters and wetlands.In addition, studies performed by MDEQreportedly anticipated that water withdrawalswould have no significant impacts on fish andwildlife.

There has been a great amount of interest in,and concern related to this project. Lawsuitswere filed by environmental and tribal groupsconcerned about the impacts to groundwaterlevels and nearby surface water. Another issuehas been whether the sale of bottled wateroutside of the Great Lakes basin constitutes adiversion that would require consent of theGreat Lakes governors under the Water Re-sources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986.The MDEQ concluded that the withdrawal doesnot constitute a diversion based on the custom-ary exemption of water that is used for foodproducts, beverages or bottled water and thetraditional definition of diversions as beingbulk exports out of the Great Lakes basin(MDEQ, 2001). The issue of how much of thewater will remain within the basin and howmuch will be shipped to other states or coun-tries is an ongoing topic of debate.

In anticipation of the implementation of Annex2001, the Perrier Group incorporated severalenvironmental restoration and protectionfeatures into its final project. These actionswere not required by MDEQ and were volun-


tarily initiated. The environmental protectionand restoration features include:

• The endowment of a $500,000 environ-mental stewardship fund to financeeducational and environmental restorationprojects throughout the Muskegon Riverwatershed;

• The acquisition of development rights forover 1,100 acres of land surrounding thewells to protect the groundwater recharge;and

• The installation of over 60 monitoringwells to develop a long-term monitoringnetwork, and data sharing.

The environmental currency in this case iswater quantity and quality. Perrier offered waterquality protections in exchange for waterquantity reductions.

Definition and Application of Resource ImprovementConceptThe intent of the environmental protection andrestoration measures is to provide for an overallimprovement in the Muskegon River watershed.In addition to demonstrating that the opera-tions will have no significant adverse impacts,the applicant will also implement severalmeasures to improve the quality of the water-shed and advance the state of knowledge ofwater resources in the area.

The environmental stewardship fund wasestablished to support efforts and programs thatprotect and enhance natural resources. Anoutside consultant will manage the fund, andboard members will include community stake-holders and a Perrier representative. The boardwill oversee project grants and reach out topotential beneficiaries. This represents animprovement in the watershed by facilitatingprojects that improve water quality, restorenatural wildlife habitat and restore and preservecritical wetlands, streams, and other bodies ofwater.

The undeveloped land surrounding the bottlingfacility is primarily pervious and allows rainwa-ter to infiltrate and replenish the groundwater.Acquiring the land surrounding the wells willprevent the development of this area, minimiz-ing surface runoff and maximizing infiltration.By preserving the 1,100 acres surrounding thewells, the groundwater is also protected fromfuture sources of contamination.

The installation of the monitoring networkserves as an early warning system so thatpumping activities that have any adverseimpacts can be corrected. Also, the data col-lected from these wells, such as aquifier levelsand water quality information, will be sharedwith regulators, universities and the surround-ing communities, allowing the area’s groundwa-ter resources to be better understood.

Associated IssuesThe studies conducted prior to permittingindicated that there would be no significantadverse impacts due to the pumping. Therefore,the voluntary improvement measures definedabove are not intended to mitigate adverseimpacts. Rather, the watershed improvementsare part of the project design. The measures arealso an example of improvements tied directlyto the use, a possible approach to the improve-ment standard. These improvements relate toprotection and restoration of the watershedthat provides the water for the facility.

Potential Applicability to Annex 2001Implementation

The environmental protection and restorationmeasures in the final project plans may providea precedent for future projects. The PerrierGroup is believed to be the first party thatintentionally developed a plan to incorporatethe principles of Directive #3.

One comment expressed during the FocusGroup session was that improvement measuresshould be developed within the context ofregional water management/ecosystem restora-tion plans.

Applying the Resource ImprovementStandard to Implementation

Key QuestionsThe background material provided in previoussections serves as a departure point for discussionson the interpretation and application of the im-provement standard. Following are the types ofquestions that might be considered.

1. At what scale is the resource improvementstandard appropriately applied?a. At what spatial scale is the resource

improvement standard appropriately


applied (e.g., site specific, lake-wide, basin-wide)?

b. At what time scale is the resource improve-ment standard appropriately applied (e.g.,10 years, 50 years)?

2. What options are available for measuringimprovement under the application of theresource improvement standard?

3. To what extent, if any, should mitigation bea consideration in the application of theresource improvement standard?

4. How should cumulative impacts be consid-ered in the application of the resourceimprovement standard?

Summary of Resource Improvement StandardWorkshopThese key questions were posed to participantsduring a workshop on July 31, 2002 in Chicago togenerate ideas of how to implement a resourceimprovement standard. The intent was to informthe discussion rather than form consensus. Partici-pants included members of the Annex WorkingGroup, Project Management Team, StakeholdersAdvisory Committee and numerous other parties.The responses to these questions, both raiseddirectly at the workshop and submitted in writingby attendees, are summarized below.

1. At what scale is the resource improve-ment standard appropriately applied?a. At what spatial scale is the resource

improvement standard appropriatelyapplied (e.g., site specific, lake-wide,basin-wide)?Diverse opinions were expressed on thisissue. Some argued that improvementsshould be located as closely as possible tonew withdrawals, especially for withdraw-als from aquifers, streams and rivers.Others pointed out that the requirement toavoid adverse impacts may make a spatiallink between withdrawal and improvementunnecessary. The importance of flexibilityin location was expressed, based on theneed to find suitable land to accomplisheffective improvements. It was also arguedthat the scale of an improvement shouldbe consistent with the ability to measurethat improvement, relative to a baselinecondition. Some argued that this consider-ation points to local rather than basin- orlake-wide improvements, in part becauseof the great technical difficulty of fore-

casting baseline ecosystem health on along-term scale.On a different spatial issue, a concernabout differences between in-basin andexternal water withdrawals was discussed.Legally, the proposed requirements mightconvey ownership rights to parties outsidethe Great Lakes basin, making GreatLakes waters an ordinary commodity withan established price. Related issues ofriparian law were raised in connectionwith a proposal to withdraw water andrestore Lake Superior coastline.

b. At what time scale is the resourceimprovement standard appropriatelyapplied (e.g., 10 years, 50 years, etc.)?The point was made that restorationprojects take time to produce ecosystembenefits; a lag between initiation of a newwithdrawal and effective resource im-provement could therefore occur. Reac-tions to this idea were diverse: someargued that improvements should beundertaken in advance of new withdraw-als, while others pointed out that delays inapproval for needed withdrawals couldreduce the attractiveness of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River basin to busi-ness.Some argued that any improvementsshould be sustainable indefinitely, whileothers proposed an augmented flow ofservices over time as the appropriatestandard. A temporal match betweenimprovements and the productive life ofwater-withdrawing capital was alsoproposed.The role of changes in hydrologicalconditions over time was also raised: boththe value of water to users and thefunctional value of ecosystem improve-ments may vary as conditions change fromdrought to wet weather.

2. What options are available for measuringimprovement under the application ofthe resource improvement standard?

U.S. and Canadian federal, provincial, andstate governments already are monitoringGreat Lakes ecosystem health, and theseefforts could be used to measure improve-ments. Assessment tools (to support re-source improvement decisionmaking) arealso available or under development, includ-


ing some being initiated by the GreatLakes Protection Fund.

Discussion also focused on measurementof improvements using environmentalcurrencies, including dollar values. Someparticipants expressed interest in a trustfund which could be used to financeimprovement projects. Currencies, such asacres of wetlands or dollar values ofservices provided, would lend simplicity toan improvement standard, but also wouldbe imperfect measures of the true func-tional value of a resource improvement.Concerns raised with dollar valuation ofimprovements included the following: the“selling” of Great Lakes water; facilitatingits export outside of the basin; itscommodification; and uncertainties inquantifying nonhuman services.

3. To what extent, if any, should mitigationbe a consideration in the application ofthe resource improvement standard?

Issues of potential adverse and beneficialimpacts of water uses were discussed, alongwith the relationship of improvements tothose impacts. The point was made thatsignificant adverse impacts are not allowedunder the Annex; policy examples thatmatch improvements to adverse impacts maytherefore not be appropriate prototypes. (Asimilar point was made for cumulativeadverse impacts in the discussion of ques-tion 4: if they are not allowed under theAnnex, then the relevance of measuring ormitigating them is questionable.) There waswide, although not universal, agreementthat mitigation of harm caused by newwithdrawals should not be part of theimprovement standard. Withdrawal ofgroundwater in quantities less than thepotential yield was given as an example of awithdrawal without adverse impacts.

Mitigation of existing harm was alsodiscussed. The argument was made that thisis a category of improvement explicitlyidentified under the Annex and that itshould include in-kind improvements.Several dangers to be avoided were alsoidentified, such as not allowing new users toget double credit for mitigation that alreadywould be required and preventing use of theresource improvement standard as a tool toprohibit water use or manipulate desiredoutcomes from users.

Others argued that potential adverseimpacts could be mitigated as the first stepin any new withdrawal, and that any addi-tional ecosystem enhancements would thenconstitute the required improvements. Ifthis approach is accepted, it was argued,there remains a challenge of achievingfairness in measuring improvements forapplicants with differing circumstances.

Beneficial aspects of municipal and agricul-tural water uses were mentioned, and thepoint was made that human civilization is apart of the Great Lakes ecosystem, alongwith wildlife. Human benefits to GreatLakes users were suggested as a potentialdiscriminator between in-basin and externalusers. Some participants argued that theintent of the Annex is to restrict consump-tive use of diversions outside the basin.Others argued that benefits that are impor-tant to human society, even within the GreatLakes basin, are not necessarily improve-ments to waters and water-related resources,as specified in the Annex.

4. How should cumulative impacts beconsidered in the application of theresource improvement standard?

Both spatial and temporal aspects of thisissue were discussed. These included thesimultaneous contributions of each up-stream user to downstream conditions andthe ultimate cumulative impact of successiveusers in a single location. Both human useand ecosystem impacts were discussed. ANational Environmental Policy Act defini-tion of cumulative impact was suggested asa precedent: “incremental, when added topast, present, and reasonably foreseeablefuture impacts” (40 US CFR 1508.7).

Grand Haven Beach, Mich.


Specific examples were discussed in which itwould be technically challenging to estimatethese cumulative impacts, lending uncer-tainty to implementation of an improvementstandard. One proposed implementationmethod would estimate the cumulativeimpacts of a combination of many with-drawals, including a margin of safety toaccount for uncertainty, and then attributefractions of those potential impacts toindividual users according to their incre-mental withdrawals.


FindingsSuccessful implementation of the Great LakesCharter Annex will, in large part, be determined bythe development and application of a newdecisionmaking standard for water withdrawalproposals, as called for in Directive #3 of theAnnex. Key issues associated with standard devel-opment include: the definition and interpretation ofDirective #3 terminology; transforming the fourassociated principles into straightforward policymeasures; and addressing application issues,including assigning a spatial/temporal scale andpreventing prospective cumulative impacts.

The case study analyses and resource improvementworkshop were the primary tools used to researchdevelopment and application of a resource improve-ment standard. The case studies generally provideexamples of mitigation that have relevance, but notdirect application, to the development of a resourceimprovement standard. None of the case studiesprovides a model for exclusive application to theAnnex’s resource improvement standard, butseveral case studies have elements of resourceimprovement that have been interpreted and appliedin many settings. The workshop focused on four keyquestions and generated several ideas related to thedefinition, interpretation, and application of theresource improvement standard.

Given the potential range of water withdrawalscenarios in the Great Lakes basin, the resourceimprovement standard (and associated process)must be specific enough to provide scientificallysound guidance, yet flexible enough to accommo-date the inherent uniqueness of individual propos-als. A point that was made through the researcheffort is that, because the Annex decisionmakingstandard will require “no significant adverseindividual or cumulative impacts,” the term “mitiga-

tion,” as used in the Annex’s “definition” section,pertains only to resource improvement measuresthat mitigate impacts of existing withdrawals, notthe prospective impacts of the proposed newwithdrawal.

Resource improvement measures should all bedirected toward a common baseline for measure-ment. Consideration should be given to specifyinggoals, objectives, and baseline conditions. Spatialand temporal parameters should be applied to theselection of prospective resource improvementmeasures so that benefits occur in the vicinity ofthe proposed withdrawal and during the lifetime ofthe proposed withdrawal.

A fundamental component of application of aresource improvement standard is the ability tomeasure an improvement. Therefore, considerationmust be given to both the design of an appropriatemethodology, and the data, information and re-source requirements to support it. Data and infor-mation need to be collected on current and prospec-tive ecological conditions to measure the effective-ness of resource improvement measures. Anenvironmental currency must be selected that willbe used to measure the amount of resource im-provement that withdrawal applicants provide.

Recommendations1. Develop precise definitions for terms in

Directive #3 of the Annex; guidance onthe application of spatial and temporaldimensions of “resource improvement”;and a science-based evaluation methodol-ogy that presents acceptable proceduresfor assessing withdrawal proposals.

These activities will serve the interest ofidentifying data, information and evaluationrequirements for water withdrawal assess-ments. Many of the same data and knowl-edge base needs identified in Chapter Fivefor assessing significance of resourceimpacts are also needed for assessingresource improvements. The evaluationmethodology should include both individualand cumulative standpoints and assist inmeasuring the “improvements” associatedwith the attendant conservation, enhance-ment or restoration activity.

2. Continue and improve case study analysisand “scenario testing” to explore applica-tions of a resource improvement stan-dard.


Ongoing work on a suite of projects sup-ported by the Great Lakes Protection Fundshould be carefully reviewed and aug-mented, as needed, by additional “scenariostesting” that leads to efficient and cost-effective methodologies for implementingthe resource improvement standard.

3. Conduct a more thorough study of theresource improvement concept.

Such a study should: 1) look within andbeyond North America for precedents forthe improvement standard in existing lawsand programs, 2) examine actual projectsundertaken under these kinds of laws andprograms, and 3) be pursued in partnershipwith organizations that have a primaryecological “improvement” mission, such asFisheries and Oceans Canada, the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, The Nature Conser-vancy and the World Wildlife Fund.

ReferencesBrouwer, G. 2002. New Jersey Misses Mark in

Mitigation. Civil Engineering. June.Canadian Fisheries Act. Chapter F-14. http://

laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/56082.html. 6 Feb2003.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 1986. “Policyfor the Management of Fish Habitat.”www.ncr.dfo.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/infocentre/legislation-lois/policies/fhm-policy/index_e.asp.6 Feb 2003.


Jones, C.A. 2000. “Economic Valuation of ResourceInjuries in Natural Resource Liability Suits.”Journal of Water Resource Planning and Manage-ment 126(6): 358-365.

Limno-Tech, Inc. 2002. Resource ImprovementStandard: Analysis and Prospective Application(Briefing Paper). Prepared for Great LakesCommission.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.2001. “State Gives OK to Perrier for WaterSupply Well” (Press Release). August 15.

Miller, S., D. Higby, R. Gilbert, C. Davis, J. Clift, A.Buchsbaum, L. Morrison, K. Dimoff, M. Hudonand E. Wessel. 2002. Letter to Don Vonnahmeand Council of Great Lakes Governors. May 6.

Tietenberg, T. 1996. Environmental and NaturalResource Economics. Fourth Edition. New York:Harper Collins.

16 US Code 1539. Endangered Species Act –Exceptions.

7 US CFR 1467. Wetlands Reserve Program.

40 US CFR 1508.20. Regulations for ImplementingNEPA.

43 US CFR 11. Natural Resource Damage Assess-ments.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. WaterQuality Trading Policy. Proposed Policy. FederalRegister: May 15, 2002 (Vol. 67, No. 94), P.34709-34710, FRL-7212-3.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. WetlandsMitigation Banking. www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact16.html. 6 Feb 2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Report toCongress on the Status and Trends of Wetlandsin the Coterminous United States 1986 to 1997.

Zinns, J. 1997. Wetland Mitigation Banking: Statusand Prospects. Mitigation Banking Defined.Congressional Research Service Report. http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Wetlands/wet-8.cfm.

Chapter Seven - Information and Communications - 123

Chapter SevenInformation and Communications

The Need for Scientifically SoundInformationA recurring finding of this project is the lack ofdata and information that members of the scientific,management and policy communities consider to befundamental to scientifically sound decisionsregarding the withdrawal and use of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River water resources. Additionally,numerous recommendations contained in thisreport address specific improvements regardingaccounting of the waters of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system, monitoring water uses, andassessing prospective ecological impacts of suchuse. Under this project, existing data and informa-tion have been assembled and characterized, andgaps have been identified. The next step in thisendeavor is to organize data and information (bothexisting and prospective) so resource managers anddecisionmakers can have ready access to it.

Directive #5 of Annex 2001 calls for “a decisionsupport system that ensures the best availableinformation.” The governors and premiers stipu-lated in the Annex that the “design of an informa-tion gathering system … will include an assessmentof available information and existing systems, acomplete update of data on existing water uses, anidentification of needs, provisions for a betterunderstanding of the role of groundwater, and aplan to implement the ongoing decision supportsystem.” The Annex 2001 implementation processis moving forward, and a governor/premier-appointed Working Group is focusing on thedevelopment of binding agreements. Accurate,consistent, well-documented and easily accessibledata and information should be the foundation ofthe decision support system.

The design of the decision support system willneed to be a collaborative effort involving represen-tatives of all likely decisionmakers, informationproviders and stakeholders. Further, the informa-tion systems that support the decisionmakingprocess will need to be designed for wide publicaccess. Recent developments in Internet technolo-gies will provide essential components in thisendeavor.

The Information Base for a DecisionSupport SystemKey points to consider about data and informationwith respect to the development of a Water Re-sources Management Decision Support System(WRMDSS) are as follows:

• We will likely never have access to all thedata and information that is consideredrelevant to water resources planning andmanagement; hence, decisions will be madewith the best available information.

• Data and information standards will need tobe promoted, developed and implemented asnecessary. Further, metadata (detailedrecords about data sets) will become increas-ingly important to ensure that informationis accurately interpreted and used indecisionmaking.

• Hydrologic and hydraulic data vary indensity, resolution, scale and temporalcharacteristics. Consequently, assessingchanges in the water resources of a water-shed is substantially different than lookingat water resource characteristics on theGreat Lakes. Information must therefore bestructured, managed and delivered atvarious “nested” scales and temporal for-mats.

• Improvements in monitoring of waterwithdrawals and uses throughout the regionwill coincide with a need for increasedsophistication in database design andmaintenance. Commensurate commitmentsto metadata production will be required.

• Scientifically sound data and information onecological conditions and trends are beingcollected under compatible programs, asevidenced by the binational monitoringprograms that are evolving to implementthe State of the Lakes Ecosystem Confer-ence (SOLEC) indicator suite. This data andinformation should be exploited to thefullest extent possible.

• Improvements in computer modeling ofcomplex physical, chemical and biological


processes and associated visualization toolsmay play a crucial role in the WRMDSS.Connectivity between computer modelsdemands greater attention.

• Technological advancements ininteroperable computer networks, geo-graphic information systems (GIS) andwireless communications will create signifi-cant opportunities for seamless and virtualinformation exchange between politicaljurisdictions.

Evolving TechnologiesWhen considering decision support system options,it is important to understand the way communica-tions and technology advances have contributed tochanges in water resources managementdecisionmaking since the signing of the GreatLakes Charter in 1985. Some of the changesinclude the following:

The InternetThe InternetThe InternetThe InternetThe Internet – The Internet has been, in manyrespects, the most significant technological ad-vancement of recent decades. Information isdisseminated almost instantaneously to any numberof stakeholders. Advances in Internet technologyare expected to continue unabated for the foresee-able future. The Internet will most likely be thecornerstone for data and information access for aWRMDSS.

Electronic Communications and CompatibilityElectronic Communications and CompatibilityElectronic Communications and CompatibilityElectronic Communications and CompatibilityElectronic Communications and Compatibility – Theexplosion of the cellular communication industry,the advent of email, and improvements to tradi-tional phone lines are continuing to transformbusiness processes. These new technologies providebroad access to both centrally-managed and distrib-uted data and information.

Real-Time DataReal-Time DataReal-Time DataReal-Time DataReal-Time Data – Advances have been made inautomated and instantaneous dissemination of datafrom remote sampling locales. Almost all waterlevel gauging systems in the region are equippedwith some mechanism for instantaneous interroga-tion and satellite or radio-frequency data relay.Access to real-time data influences managementdecisions for many of the hydropower, commercialnavigation, municipal, industrial and agriculturalusers in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Riversystem.

Integrated Data CollectionIntegrated Data CollectionIntegrated Data CollectionIntegrated Data CollectionIntegrated Data Collection – Positional and temporaldetail has improved tremendously over the last 15years. Water level data are now collected fromgauging sites at 6-minute (U.S.) or 15-minute(Canada) intervals and at mobile sampling locationsusing backpack or hand-held Global PositioningSystem (GPS) units.

Remote SensingRemote SensingRemote SensingRemote SensingRemote Sensing – Satellite and airborne imagery isbecoming much more affordable for operationalapplications. These data have applicability inclassification for land use, land cover and wetlands.Images collected over time can be used to monitorchange.

Data Consistency, Uniformity and Display Data Consistency, Uniformity and Display Data Consistency, Uniformity and Display Data Consistency, Uniformity and Display Data Consistency, Uniformity and Display – Althoughsignificant shortfalls exist in data and informationstandardization, substantial progress has been madeto allow various users to take advantage of waterresources data and information. Gaps in water useinventories are being identified, and reporting isbecoming more uniform and recurrent. Complexprocesses can now be simplified and visualized dueto advancements in computing and Internetresources.

GISGISGISGISGIS – Geographic Information System (GIS)technology has advanced steadily, with improve-ments in distributed processing and relational

database management tools. A current trend isthe development of large-scale multi-jurisdic-tional “web mapping” projects. Web mappingfrequently involves cooperative data servingnodes that deliver products to clients using theInternet. This technology will likely support theanalysis of information needed for water re-sources management decisionmaking.

MetadataMetadataMetadataMetadataMetadata – Metadata in the broadest sense is the“history” of the data, including source, scale,accuracy and processing steps. Substantialprogress has been made in defining data contentstandards for many GIS data themes, but a moresubstantial production of metadata for other datatypes is needed. The power of distributed dataaccess, real-time web mapping, timely computer


modeling and many other applications is compro-mised if metadata are incomplete.

The technological advances noted above have, inmany respects, made the extraction of relevant dataand information as much an “art form” as a science.Therefore, suitable resources must be invested in acareful systems-engineering assessment of theproblems associated with data access, storage andretrieval.

Investments are being made in new wireless andfiber optic delivery mechanisms that should provideresource managers, stakeholders and interestedcitizens with improved abilities to acquire data andinformation across the Internet. Increases incomputer storage capacities will also occur, butlikely will be matched by increased data volumes.Increased computing speeds will continue topromote improvements in computer models andvisualization tools.

These technological advances should promote amore open environment that improves public accessto data and information. Although security consid-erations are likely to increase, effective “work-arounds” are likely to be found. Resource manage-ment decisions should become more sophisticated asabilities improve to acquire and analyze vastquantities of data and information, and to generateapplicable options. Further, managers should beable to more effectively plan for the future, setreasonable targets, develop metrics, monitorprogress and achieve desired results.

Examples of Operational DecisionSupport SystemsA decision support system (DSS) is a broad conceptthat typically involves both descriptive informationsystems as well as standard, prescriptive optimiza-tion approaches. It may be defined as “any and alldata, information, expertise and activities thatcontribute to option selection” (Andriole, 1989).The decision support process consists of threephases of decisionmaking: information gathering,options design and choice. The information gatheringphase typically involves identifying problemsituations, causes and effects, and interrelationships.The information gathering system coordinatesdecision situation analysis by exploring and inte-grating data and information from a wide range ofsources. In the options design phase, the DSStypically supports decisionmakers in the develop-ment of possible alternatives that reflect variousinterests, objectives and evaluation criteria. The

nature of the choice phase depends upon thedecisionmaker’s preferences with respect to theimportance of the evaluation criteria. Decisionsupport systems range from highly deterministicand rule-based formulae to highly interactive andparticipatory processes.

The objective of a computer-based decision supportsystem is to improve planning and decisionmakingby providing useful and scientifically sound infor-mation. It is most effective in collaborativedecisionmaking. Expert or knowledge-basedsystems, and other analytical and modeling tech-niques, have been used to help scientists, managersand policymakers understand the complexity ofphysical and biological systems.

Many examples of decision support systemsdesigned for research applications and demonstra-tion purposes at a regional or watershed level canbe found. Most have been developed to assess theenvironmental impact of natural resources useincluding agricultural, industrial and land useactivities. Others have been applied to potentialcontamination and site suitability problems basedon maximization of multiple criteria and minimiza-tion of threshold (constraint) values. Popular DSS-based software packages, such as IDRISI GIS,STELLA, ExpertChoice and a number of ESRIextensions, allow users to evaluate a decisionproblem through a multiple criteria decisionmaking(MCDM) process. This common approach allowsthe user to assess the relationships between a set ofobjectives and associated attributes. Many of thesoftware packages are becoming “web-enabled,”allowing for wider access and even multi-playergaming exercises.

The DSS framework innovatively supports resourcemanagement and planning by creating an informa-tion framework tailored to the information, commu-nication and technical needs. In addition, it cansupport and promote an informed debate whenmultiple goals and interests must be simultaneouslyaddressed to resolve conflicts and build consensus.

A DSS framework applied to the management ofLake Ellesmare in New Zealand identified variousdecisionmakers and stakeholders and educated themabout differing perceptions on existing lake man-agement problems (Gough and Ward, 1996). Byconcentrating on information gathering andconsultation with affected parties, the frameworkhelps improve the decisionmaking process andestablish criteria for measuring desired outcomes.

The Colorado River Decision Support System(CRDSS) is a fully operational tool that enables


agencies, water users and managers to organize,assess and evaluate a wide range of informationand strategies on reservoir and river operations,water flow impacts, and water allocations. Designedby Riverside Technology, the CRDSS allowsdecisionmakers to analyze historical and real-timehydrologic data, run hydrologic simulation modelsand water rights allocation models, and study theeffects of potential decisions. The primary compo-nent of the CRDSS is the HydroBase database thatincludes streamflow, climate, water rights, diver-sions, well permits, dam safety and land use data.These data feed into the consumptive use model tocalculate the amount of water used by differentinterests. The results from scenario models arecentral to determining present and future uses ofwater. By allowing all applications to use the same,consistent information, this data-centered approachensures data integrity and minimizes data redun-dancy (Bennett et al., 2001).

The Québec Ministry of Environment developed anintegrated modeling system prototype to evaluatethe impacts of municipal, industrial, forestry, andagricultural projects on the water quality and yieldof a river basin (Rousseau et al., 2000). Comprisedof a relational database management system, themodeling system has the ability to use both spatialand attribute data (e.g., digital elevation model,meteorology, soil, gauge locations, simulationresults, livestock production, crop management) togenerate scenarios that add water quality and flowdimensions to watershed assessments.

An operational DSS has also been implemented inthe Great Lakes watershed. RAISON (RegionalAnalysis by Intelligent Systems ON microcomput-ers), developed at the National Water ResearchInstitute of Environment Canada, is designed tohelp Great Lakes basin decisionmakers, managersand advisors locate relevant information for toxicchemicals (Lam and Swayne, 1993; Lam et al., 1995;Booty et al., 2001). The system consists of severallayers of computational modules including adatabase, a spreadsheet, GIS, statistics, expertsystem, contouring, spatial visualization andgraphs. Data on toxic chemicals provides input tothe database table for further statistical analysis oroptimization modeling. The system integrates text,maps, satellite images and other data with a combi-nation of spatial algorithms, models and statisticsto generate specific scenarios.

Information IntegrationThe essence of a DSS is the integration of data,information and knowledge from different sourcesto improve the decisionmaking process. However, asnoted below, several factors can help or hinder thedevelopment and adoption of an integrated DSS forGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River water resourcesmanagement.

Quality of DataQuality of DataQuality of DataQuality of DataQuality of Data – Several issues illustrate the needfor system interoperability and data consistency.Large amounts of raw data are needed that comefrom different collection sources (i.e., water levels,river flows, air temperature, precipitation, meteoro-logical parameters), which must be verified andcorrected for final use. These sources typically arein different formats that must be converted for usein the WRMDSS. Some data must be current, buthistoric information may also be crucial. Highresolution spatial or temporal data may also beessential to the decisionmaking process. In someinstances, geospatial data may have differentpositional accuracies, making them more difficult tointegrate into the WRMDSS.

System and Hardware MaintenanceSystem and Hardware MaintenanceSystem and Hardware MaintenanceSystem and Hardware MaintenanceSystem and Hardware Maintenance – The develop-ment of a WRMDSS should be considered acontinuous process instead of a one-time develop-ment project, and be able to respond to currentneeds, stakeholder interests and future demands.Experiences have shown that, when dealing with alarge set of data types from different sources,database tables and their fields should be carefullydesigned in the initial phase of the project. TheWRMDSS will require data to be frequentlyupdated, as the system will be otherwise useless.

Leadership and ManagementLeadership and ManagementLeadership and ManagementLeadership and ManagementLeadership and Management – Leadership andmanagement set and achieve goals and objectivesthat sustain the value of the investment. Leadershipalso coordinates and communicates betweendifferent agencies across jurisdictions. Emphasisshould be placed on the importance of theWRMDSS as a communications tool that providesan information infrastructure and framework formultiple users to make informed decisions based onthe best available data collected.

Modeling InterconnectivityModeling InterconnectivityModeling InterconnectivityModeling InterconnectivityModeling Interconnectivity - In Chapter five, anextensive inventory is presented on the types ofdescriptive models that may be needed for theWRMDSS. To quantify the range of potentialecological impacts of a particular water withdrawal,a linked modeling framework will be necessary,comprised of groundwater, hydrodynamic, surfacewater quality and ecological effects models.


Information Dissemination – KeyConsiderationsThe manner in which a broad range of informationis displayed and presented will be key to the successthe WRMDSS. Some key considerations follow.

Clearinghouse nodeClearinghouse nodeClearinghouse nodeClearinghouse nodeClearinghouse node – A clearinghouse node is adecentralized system of servers located on theInternet that contains descriptions of availabledigital data known as metadata. Metadata arecollected in a standard format to facilitate queryand consistent presentation across participatingsites. A clearinghouse uses readily available webtechnology for the client side to query, search andpresent search results. By utilizing a standardmethod for these functions, a clearinghouse allowsindividual agencies, consortia and geographicallydefined communities to collectively promote theiravailable digital spatial data.

Integrated and interoperable web pagesIntegrated and interoperable web pagesIntegrated and interoperable web pagesIntegrated and interoperable web pagesIntegrated and interoperable web pages – In promot-ing the availability, quality and requirements fordigital data through a searchable online system,there must be integrated and interoperable webpages that provide a standard data and informationdissemination mechanism to different targetaudiences.

Data warehousesData warehousesData warehousesData warehousesData warehouses – A data warehouse is a databasedesigned to support organizational decisionmaking.It can be updated automatically and structured forrapid online queries. A warehouse stores historicaland consolidated data (e.g., flow records, waterlevels, meteorological parameters) in a commonformat. This component is the most critical elementof a DSS.

Distributed networksDistributed networksDistributed networksDistributed networksDistributed networks – A network, which functionsclosely with a clearinghouse node, is needed toretrieve data from multiple sources. Servers may beinstalled at local, regional or central offices, asdictated by organizational and logistical efficiencies.All clearinghouse servers in a distributed network

are considered “peers” within the clearinghouseactivity; there is no hierarchy among the servers.This permits direct query by any Internet user withminimal transactional processing and duplicationof effort in the collection of digital spatial data.Cooperative digital data collection activities arefostered as well.

Distributed GIS mappingDistributed GIS mappingDistributed GIS mappingDistributed GIS mappingDistributed GIS mapping – Web-based GIS providesa visualization mechanism that allows users toaccess various sources of geospatial data. An openGIS architecture should be able to assess multipleforms of data. Users of geospatial data need toshare data effectively and efficiently.

Enhancing CommunicationsAn important part of the WRMDSS project hasbeen the development of effective communicationstools to provide access to available data and infor-mation. Below is a description of these tools andapproaches and how they may be applied in theWRMDSS design. This listing is not comprehen-sive, but illustrates the array of available tools.

• InternetInternetInternetInternetInternet – A Great Lakes water use websitehas been a centerpiece of project activityand has been finalized with electronicversions of project products and an onlineregional water use database. The site isextensively linked through and highlightedon the Great Lakes Commission-managedGreat Lakes Information Network (GLIN).GLIN is the pre-eminent Internet clearing-house for data and information in the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River region and,among many other services, supports ahydro-meteorological station directory andcoordinated hydrologic/hydraulic data.GLIN also contributes significantly to thewater resources management community viaits “Daily News” feature, an electronic “clipservice” that monitors print, radio andtelevision media coverage of Great Lakesissues. GLIN also provides secure emaildiscussion forums for targeted groups andtopics. The websites and forums wouldsupport the needs of the region’s govern-mental agencies during decisionmakingdeliberations.

• Intranet PortalIntranet PortalIntranet PortalIntranet PortalIntranet Portal – An intranet portal is aninternal communications tool that can beconfigured to include only state, provincialand federal regulatory agencies (and otherkey groups), in the interest of providingsecurity and privacy for confidential infor-


mation exchange and deliberations. Someintranet functions are currently available tothe WRMDSS project team via listservs andcommunity email addresses. The intranetportal can also help researchers coordinateongoing and prospective projects withcolleagues, and provide policymakers andmanagers with data and information for theWRMDSS.

• Online GISOnline GISOnline GISOnline GISOnline GIS – The Great Lakes Commissionsupports new web-based GIS applications asa service to the International Joint Commis-sion (IJC), the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (USACE) and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). The Great Lakes Commission staffis currently developing a GLIN-basedframework for regional metadata clearing-house and web-mapping applications. TheGLIN website could provide an effectiveInternet presence for a coordinated anddistributed GIS that would add a valuabledimension to the WRMDSS.

• Conventional Hard Copy DisseminationConventional Hard Copy DisseminationConventional Hard Copy DisseminationConventional Hard Copy DisseminationConventional Hard Copy Dissemination – TheGreat Lakes Commission’s Advisor newslet-ter is used to disseminate project informa-tion and announcements to more than 3,500policymakers, managers, researchers andother interested parties. Additionally, hardcopies of some products (e.g., water usedatabase report) have been published,publicized and made available to all inter-ested parties. Hard copy products willcontinue to be the preferred medium formany entities in the region to keep currentwith water resources management issuesand should be factored into the WRMDSS.

• Meetings and ConferencesMeetings and ConferencesMeetings and ConferencesMeetings and ConferencesMeetings and Conferences – The annual andsemiannual meetings of the Great LakesCommission have been used to report onprogress, receive feedback, and releaseinterim and final reports. These forums havebeen convenient and cost effective given thatmany of the WRMDSS project participantsattend these meetings. Project findings andrecommendations will also be presented anddiscussed at other related meetings andconferences where Great Lakes issues arediscussed. Face-to-face communicationamong agency officials and with the publicshould continue to be a major vehicle forinformation dissemination and coordinationof decisionmaking, and needs to be explic-itly designed into the WRMDSS.

These communication tools are proven to beeffective, and should be further refined to satisfy theneeds of decisionmakers, managers, scientists andother interested parties.

Findings and RecommendationsA Water Resources Management Decision SupportSystem is essential in supporting and promotingdecisions through informed discussion and debatewhere multiple, and sometimes conflicting, goalsand interests are involved. A variety of informationdissemination and communications tools can beapplied and, among others, include the Internet,intranet portals, online GIS and conventionalcommunications.

Key considerations for integrating data and infor-mation into the WRMDSS include the promotion,development and implementation of data andinformation standards; the variability of hydrologicand hydraulic data in density, resolution, scale andtemporal characteristics; and improvements incomputer modeling and associated visualizationtools.

The WRMDSS design process must also includethe review and evaluation of alternative decisionsupport frameworks – or models – that organizecritical, yet disparate, data and information in a waythat will foster science-based evaluation of with-drawal proposals. Decisionmakers, managers andscientists should be presented with multipleWRMDSS frameworks and be fully involved intesting and evaluation. The initial research, reviewand assessment process should not yield a single,specific alternative, but provide multiple optionsthat decisionmakers (i.e., the Annex WorkingGroup) can consider in reaching their own conclu-sions on which option or suite of options bestmeets the needs of the region.

The WRMDSS should provide easy access torelevant scientific data and information, includingall key data sets and other products of the project:water use data by basin, jurisdiction and sector;consumptive use information; relevant literature(peer-reviewed and “gray”) on ecological impacts;essential questions to assess ecological impacts;computer models; and data/information needed toapply a resource improvement standard.


Recommendations1. Develop integrated Internet web pages to

facilitate data and information exchange,distribution and access.

Commitments should be made by all federal,state and provincial governments across theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River system tocooperate fully in the development of theweb pages. Information should be publiclyaccessible to the greatest extent possible.

2. Develop metadata to accompany allgeospatial and temporal data used in aWater Resources Management DecisionSupport System.

Metadata should be developed to accompanyall geospatial and temporal data used in theWRMDSS; this will benefit decisionmakingby facilitating information discovery,networked GIS mapping, and assessmentand consideration of information uncertain-ties.

3. Incorporate a robust communicationsstrategy into the Water ResourcesManagement Decision Support System,involving a range of interrelated toolssuch as Internet technologies; email andonline discussion groups; and conven-tional communications including printedmaterials, meetings, conferences andsymposia.

The WRMDSS should include a communi-cations strategy. Existing and emergingInternet technologies, as well as email andonline discussion groups, should be viewedas key components of the WRMDSS.Applicable meetings, conferences andsymposia focused on information coordina-tion and continued system developmentshould also be used to facilitate communica-tion.

ReferencesAndriole, S.J. 1989. Handbook of Decision Support

Systems. Philadelphia: TAB Books Inc.Bennett, R.R. J. Byers and R. Seaholm. 2001.

“Colorado’s Decision Support System.” Proceed-ings of Decision Support Systems for WaterResource Management. June 27-30, 2001,Snowbird, Utah.

Booty, W.G., D.C.L. Lam, I.W.S. Wong and P.Siconolfi. 2001. “Design and Implementation ofan Environmental Decision Support System.”Environmental Modeling and Software 16:453-458.

Booty, W.G., I.W.S Wong, D.C.L. Lam, J.P. Kerby andD.F. Kay 1993. “Application of an Expert Systemfor Point Source Water Quality Modeling. InGuariso, G. and B. Page (eds.), CSEIA 93 -Computer Support for Environmental ImpactAssessment, Como, Italy. Elsevier, p.233-244

Gough, J.D. and J.C. Ward. 1996. “EnvironmentalDecisionmaking and Lake Management.” Journalof Environmental Management 48:1-15.


Lam, D.C.L., W.G. Booty, I. Wong, D. Kay, D. and J.P.Kerby. 1995. RAISON Decision Support System:Examples of Applications. NWRI ContributingReport No. 95-151, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.

Lam, D.C.L and D.A. Swayne 1993. “An ExpertSystem Approach of Integrating HydrologicalDatabase, Models and GIS: Application of theRAISON System.” In Kovar, K. and H.P.Nachtnebel (eds.), Application of GIS in Hydrol-ogy and Water Resources Management. IAHSPublication No. 211, Wallingford, UK, p.23-33.

Rousseau, A.N, A. Mailhot, R. Turcotte, M.Duchemin, C. Blanchette, M. Roux, J. Dupontand J.P. Villeneuve. 2000. “GIBSI – An Inte-grated Modeling System Prototype for RiverBasin Management” Hydrobiologia 422/433: 465-475.

Wilson, J.P., H. Mitasova and D.J. Wright. 2000.“Water Resource Applications of GeographicInformation Systems” URISA Journal 12(2): 61-79.

Chapter Eight- Pulling It All Together: Project Synthesis - 131

Chapter EightPulling It All Together: Project Synthesis

IntroductionThe results of this two-year project have beencompiled and presented in this report to ensuretheir immediate use and benefit to water resourcesmanagers, decisionmakers and other interestedparties. Through the inventory and assessment ofavailable water resources data and information,project collaborators have come to realize that,while much is known about the complex nature ofGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River water resources,much more still needs to be learned to advancescience-based decisionmaking.

With the conclusion of this effort, state andprovincial water resources policy experts, managersand decisionmakers will begin to grapple withapplication of project findings and recommenda-tions to the Water Resources Management DecisionSupport System (WRMDSS) called for under theCharter Annex and within the context of existingprovincial, state and federal laws and treaties. Thischapter pulls together the project’s several elementsand, in so doing, will help the region’sdecisionmakers understand and address uncertain-ties associated with the water resource and itsecosystem; address key data and information gaps;and design interoperable and integrated communi-cations, data management and assessment tools.

Using Data and Information to InformDecisionmakingThe primary purpose of this project was to assessthe status of current data and information and toidentify associated gaps and needs. In writing thisreport, a challenge has been to balance the discus-sion and not adopt a “glass half empty” approachwhen critically examining the complexities relatedto data and information for decisionmaking. Muchof the data that is currently available, in fact,adequately addresses the purposes for which it hasbeen gathered, but this data may be inadequate tomeet all future decisionmaking needs. This does notmean that agencies and jurisdictions lack commit-ment or have been negligent, but points to the needfor enhanced planning to identify and accommodatethe evolving nature and associated needs of waterresources management decisionmaking.

Water resource management decisions are madewithin the context of existing state, provincial andfederal laws and treaties, which help establish theparameters for a decision support system. Anexamination of these laws and treaties, many ofwhich were briefly discussed in Chapter one, mayalso help determine which data and information aremost relevant for a new decisionmaking process.

Focusing on Future NeedsWater resource management efforts in the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River basin – including laws,policies, research activities and interjurisdictionalagreements – have historically focused on thephysical implications (i.e., alternation in levels andflows) of water withdrawals from the open lakesand larger tributaries. Over time, however, otherecological dimensions of water withdrawals havegained increased attention. For example:

1. The issue of scale has taken on greaterimportance. The region has come to realizethat the ecological impacts of any givenwater withdrawal are most discernable atthe sub-watershed level. Yet, data andinformation gathering efforts, as well ascomputer modeling and related analyses,have historically focused on a larger-scale,lake-wide or systemwide basis. This sug-gests the need for a fundamental examina-tion of the current water withdrawal impactassessment process in the interest ofsecuring both systemwide and sub-water-shed level perspectives.

2. Enhanced understanding of groundwaterresources suggests the need for a greaterfocus on groundwater research, manage-ment and protection. The role of groundwa-ter in the hydrologic cycle is increasinglyrecognized (though not well understood), asis its contribution to surface water levels andflows.

3. Ecological impacts associated with waterwithdrawals have placed new demands onscientists and managers who have tradition-ally approached water resources projectsprimarily from a hydraulic/hydrologicstandpoint. This suggests the need for an


assessment and refocusing of research, anddevelopment of new multi-disciplinarypartnerships for scientific inquiry anddecision support.

4. A better understanding of the cumulativeimpacts of water withdrawals over spaceand time is a priority need in developing andimplementing the WRMDSS.

Future needs can also be addressed by building oncurrent data collection processes. Water withdrawaland use data and information can assist managersand other decisionmakers in anticipating andplanning for future changes in demand. Thedevelopment and implementation of effective andcomprehensive water management programs(including elements such as water conservation anddrought contingency planning) is problematicbecause water demand information is not readilyavailable.

The Importance of Scale in theAssessment of Water Resources Dataand Information Needs and Gaps“How sensitive is the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver system to impacts associated with waterwithdrawals and diversions, and at what level canthose impacts be ascertained?” This is a fundamen-tal yet complicated question due to a variety offactors. For example, the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver system is no longer a natural one. Changes tothe system, primarily for navigation, hydropowerand riparian purposes, have permanently altered thenatural levels and flows regime. Diversions (bothincoming and outgoing); construction of locks,dams and controlling works; and dredging andriparian encroachment in the interconnectingwaterways have created changes that are orders ofmagnitude greater than any changes that mightoccur from small-scale withdrawals, diversion orexport projects, even when considered cumulatively.In addition, major changes have occurred in naturalhydrologic/hydraulic streamflow regimes due tolargely irreversible land use modifications such astimber cutting, agricultural and transportationdevelopment, and residential expansions. At theglobal scale, climate change may cause additionalalterations to the levels and flows of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River system. Being able todiscriminate between the effects of each of these“forcing functions” will be crucial for an effectiveWRMDSS.

Hydrologic Scale IssuesAs noted in Chapter two, the variability of thehydrologic system and the limitations of hydrologicmeasurements are factors that need to be consid-ered in any decision support process and in theassessment of watershed sensitivities. All hydro-logic and hydraulic phenomena are variable bothtemporally and spatially and can be treated atdifferent scales of time and space, depending on thewater use scenarios being examined. Most of thehydrologic data are reported as long-term averagesat large spatial scales, with no direct measure ofuncertainty. As a consequence, different water usesand hydrologic alterations may have different space-time scales. This is particularly applicable to thewater withdrawal issue. For instance, a withdrawalof a given water quantity from a large water bodycould have very different impacts than a withdrawalof the same quantity from a small water body orstream.

Most hydrologic issues are analyzed within a givendrainage basin or watershed. Watershed boundariesrarely coincide with territorial or jurisdictionalboundaries (Singh, 1992). Watersheds vary tremen-dously in size, literally from a few acres to hundredsof thousands of square miles, such as the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River basin. Large watershedsare comprised of smaller drainage basins, or sub-basins, which can be more manageable units foranalysis.

The ordering of watersheds begins at the largestlevel of the watershed. In Canada, for example, theGreat Lakes basin would be considered the primaryor 1st level watershed. Individual lake watersheds(e.g., Lake Superior) would be considered a second-ary or 2nd level watersheds, the sub-watersheds ofthe individual lakes would be considered tertiary or3rd level watersheds, and so on.

In the United States, the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) has a hydrologic unit classification systemsimilar to Canada’s. The first level of classificationdivides the United States into 21 regions, one ofwhich is the Great Lakes basin (Region 4). Thesecond level divides the 21 regions into 222 sub-regions. A sub-region includes the area drained by ariver system, a reach of a river and its tributaries inthat reach, closed basin(s), or a group of streamsforming a coastal drainage area. The third levelsubdivides many of the sub-regions into 352accounting units, which are portions of sub-regionsor entire sub-regions. The fourth level is thecataloging unit, which is a geographic area repre-senting part or all of a surface drainage basin, a


combination of drainage basins, or a distincthydrologic feature.

These basin levels should not be confused with theHorton-Strahler stream-ordering scheme (Dunneand Leopold, 1978), which increases numericallyfrom headwater streams. The system of streamordering is a method of numbering streams as partof a drainage basin network. The main stream isalways of the highest order. The smallest un-branched mapped tributaries are designated firstorder, streams which receive only first-ordertributaries are second order, larger branches whichreceive only first-order and second-order tributariesare designated third order, and so on.

Assessing Impacts at theSub-watershed LevelThis report has repeatedlystated that the consequencesof different water withdraw-als are not equal across thebasin and that the impactsare most clearly discernableat a sub-watershed level.The impacts of waterwithdrawals must thereforebe considered at variousscales ranging from theGreat Lakes themselves to4th level watersheds. Actionsat the local level that havenot been identified orseriously considered mayhave impacts with regionalimplications. For example, awater withdrawal from asmall stream may not havemeasurable impacts to theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence

River system levels and flows, but the withdrawalcould reduce stream flow to a level that jeopardizesthe habitat of an endangered species that is impor-tant to the region.

Using hierarchical, or nested, watershed designs tosupport water withdrawal decisionmaking is oneapproach that provides opportunities to analyzeconditions at multiple scales of resolution. Eachscale is important to understand the system and therelationship between supply, use and ecologicalimpacts. The Canada/Ontario Water Use andSupply Project has been using this approach tobetter understand the water use and supply andecological impacts at the various scales, as illus-trated in Figure 8-1.

An increasing level of detail can be captured andrepresented as the resolution becomes finer. Indi-vidual withdrawals can be assessed at a local levelto identify water availability, existing uses andecological impacts based on the local watershed’sknown sensitivities. This nested structure alsoallows water use, supply and related impacts to beaggregated from a finer scale and carried throughto higher levels to better assess both individual andcumulative impacts.

Along with scale, understanding the varyingcharacteristics of watersheds is important toassessments of impacts. Size, shape, slope, eleva-tion, density of channels, channel characteristics(depth/width), vegetation, land use, soil type,

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Lake Michigan

Figure 8-1 Conceptualization of nested watersheds


hydrogeology, lakes, wetlands, artificial drainage,water use and ecology represent some of theimportant characteristics of a drainage basin. Thequality and quantity of water resources also variesamong sub-watersheds of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River basin. The amount of precipitation,evaporation and runoff can vary significantly overrelatively small spatial scales, and groundwaterdischarge to streams ranges from 10 percent of thestreamflow to 80 percent of the streamflow(Piggott et al., 2001). Watersheds can also vary inthe uniformity of groundwater flow over time, thetype of land use, and the types of water uses. Thesenatural and anthropogenic factors will all influencea watershed’s ecologic and hydrologic sensitivity.

Understanding specific sub-watershed sensitivitieswill be important to developing informed waterresource management decisions. For example,understanding a watershed’s physical characteris-tics, current surface and groundwater supplies,current water uses, and ecological requirementscould help characterize the watershed’s sensitivitiesto water withdrawals or diversions. Water with-drawal limits, allocation strategies, or other strate-gies could then be targeted on highly sensitivewatersheds that are already stressed by overuse. Acategorization of watersheds in terms of theirsensitivities may be a first step toward providingthe context within which water managementdecisions are made.

The Importance of Groundwater Dataand Information Related to WaterResources DecisionmakingThe issue of scale is also important as it relates tothe availability and use of groundwater resourcesin the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system.Groundwater discharges directly into the GreatLakes and connecting channels, but also providessome tributary stream flow. Groundwater thatdischarges to streams supports instream ecosys-tems by providing base flow and moderating watertemperature. It is particularly important for main-taining water quality during periods of low flows,when almost all the flow in the stream can be fromgroundwater.

While the importance of groundwater discharge tothe health of aquatic ecosystems is recognized,significant data and information gaps concerningthe region’s groundwater resources remain. Forinstance, each aquifer that contributes groundwaterto the Great Lakes or their tributary streams has apotentiometric surface. This surface is similar to the

earth’s surface in that it has groundwater dividesthat are analogous to watershed divides. Groundwa-ter on one side of the divide flows toward the GreatLakes; groundwater on the other side flows awayfrom the Great Lakes. Groundwater and surfacewater divides do not usually share boundaries, andgroundwater divides, unlike surface water divides,are not static and may vary in response to ground-water withdrawals. Some aquifers in certain partsof the Great Lakes region have mapped potentio-metric surfaces and groundwater divides. In theremainder of the region, the area that contributesgroundwater to the Great Lakes is unknown.

On a sub-watershed scale, sufficient streamflow andgroundwater data are available in some, but not all,areas of the basin to predict the likely effects of in-stream and groundwater withdrawals. Expansionof tributary stream gauging and networks forgroundwater and climate monitoring, as well aswater withdrawal data on a sub-watershed scale,will be critical if the WRMDSS is to supportinvestigations in areas which have been heretofore“data poor.” Also, a basinwide groundwater flowmodel is needed to provide information that sup-ports decisions on proposed groundwater with-drawals in the United States and Canada.

Reliable groundwater supplies continue to bereadily available to the majority of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin’s population. However, insome localized cases, inadequate or poor qualitygroundwater supplies have caused local watersupply shortages. For example, Monroe County,Michigan, located in the southeast corner of thestate, relies on groundwater for drinking water andirrigation, but aquifers have been depleted due toquarry operations. Oakland and Macomb Counties,also in southeastern Michigan, likewise haverecently experienced aquifer depletion due to lowrainfall, higher than normal temperatures and rapidresidential development. The interest in protectinggroundwater resources has heightened as a resultof these and other occurrences of localizedgroundwater shortages in various parts of theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. In addition,the recent construction and operation of thePerrier bottling plant near Muskegon, Michiganhas brought this issue to the forefront of publicdiscussion. The groundwater issue and “betterunderstanding its role in the Great Lakes basin” isan identified priority under Directive #6 of theGreat Lakes Charter Annex. These examples pointto the need to consider the importance of ground-water when developing the WRMDSS.


Importance of Data and Informationin Assessing Ecological Impacts ofWater WithdrawalsAs understanding of the complexities of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence River system has improved,concerns have been expressed regarding theecological impacts of water withdrawals, particu-larly in sub-watersheds and the nearshore zone.These ecological impacts are important as theyrelate to the scale issue discussed above. Chaptertwo, which highlights the uncertainty involved withmeasuring components of the Great Lakes waterbalance, points out that, on a lake-wide scale,uncertainties in levels and flows tend to mask thepotential effects (either individual or cumulative) ofany given water withdrawal.

In nearshore areas, biota appears most likely to beaffected by water withdrawals, rather than thoseorganisms which inhabit the deeper portions of theGreat Lakes. However, fish and other aquaticorganisms that live in these deeper areas may bedependent on nearshore areas for food, spawninghabitat and other needs. Also, water withdrawalsmay be only one factor or stressor present incertain watersheds that contribute to the measure-ment of impacts to an aquatic ecosystem. Theimpacts of a single withdrawal may not be measur-able but, combined with other factors such as land-use changes, can result in significant, readilymeasurable impacts.

Better and more site-specific data and informationon the ecological effects associated with waterwithdrawals are needed to support a regional

resource-based decisionmaking standard (beingdeveloped under Directive #3 of the Annex).Activities pursued under this project highlightmany of these data and information needs, as wellas knowledge gaps. The literature reviewed underthe project offers few practical approaches foraddressing questions that relate to cause-effectrelationships and cumulative impacts of changes inlevels and flows, although some studies shed lighton the establishment of monitoring protocols andagendas for scientific research. A key observation isthat the lack of integrative modeling tools cur-rently confounds the assessment of cumulativeecological impacts from multiple stressors. Thisobservation is supported by the outcome of themodel review: no single model can, by itself,quantify the range of potential ecological impactsof a particular water withdrawal scenario.

Continued research and data collection are neces-sary for more certain assessment of ecologicalimpacts (particularly cumulative effects) of waterwithdrawals and diversions. However, these gaps inunderstanding and data cannot be allowed to slowprogress toward building and applying tools forsupporting the decisionmaking process.

The Importance of ConsideringCumulative EffectsAny water withdrawal will have an incrementalcumulative effect on the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceRiver ecosystem over space and time. An individualwithdrawal will have a greater ecological andhydrologic impact locally than further downstream.An individual withdrawal, given persistence over

time, will impact conditions firstwithin its own watershed and thenfurther downstream. Multiplewater withdrawals from any givenGreat Lake may not have measur-able ecological impacts on thatparticular lake, but their cumula-tive ecological effects may bemagnified on the lower St.Lawrence River. The cumulativeecological effects will also be afunction of multiple other factors,or stressors, that can range fromlocal modifications (e.g., sourcewater changes, channelization,sediment loading) to large-scalechanges (e.g., global climatemodification).

Québec City on the St. Lawrence River


The cumulative impacts of one or more waterwithdrawals must be considered in light of timeand space dimensions and the complexities theysuggest for a WRMDSS. A minor withdrawal, forexample, may take place for years before its impactcan be detected from a hydrologic or ecologicalstandpoint. Further, that impact may be detected –at different points in time – at the location of thewithdrawal, in the open waters of the lake basin,and/or far downstream in the St. Lawrence River.

The additive effect of multiple withdrawals is ofsignificant concern as well. Consider, for example, ascenario in which a single minor withdrawal in atributary is found to have no significant adverseimpact on the withdrawal location or the largerGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystem. How-ever, the cumulative impact of multiple withdrawalsof the same quantity (and along the same tributary)may have devastating effects locally and measurableadverse effects on a broader scale. Hence, anyWRMDSS and associated data and informationgathering processes must accommodate the timeand space dimensions associated with the cumula-tive impacts of both individual and multiplewithdrawals. Mechanisms for assessing theseimpacts with any degree of precision have yet to bedeveloped.

The Use of Scenarios/Case Studies toEvaluate Data and InformationDeveloping and working through plausible waterwithdrawal and use scenarios provides a valuableprocess for evaluating data and information needsand gaps. Two scenario evaluation exercises wereconvened under the WRMDSS project that helpedscientists, managers and policymakers focus on keyissues related to the region’s ability to evaluatewater withdrawal and use proposals. One exercisewas convened by the Water Withdrawal and UseTechnical Subcommittee (TSC 3) on September 10-11, 2001, to assist in the identification of waterwithdrawal and use data and information needs.Building upon this exercise, a project-wide sce-narios evaluation workshop was held on May 15-16,2002. This workshop brought a full range ofinterests and expertise to bear on the evaluation ofthree mock water projects. It also informed thediscussion of the full range of data and informationneeds related to the hydrology and hydraulics ofthe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system, waterwithdrawal and use, ecological effects from waterprojects, and associated potential cumulativeimpacts. Additional purposes of the workshop were

to inform the Annex 2001 implementation processabout data and information needs and availability,and to begin conceptualization of informationalcomponents and characteristics of an effectiveWRMDSS.

Some of the observations and ideas generated atthe workshop demonstrate how scenarios/casestudy analyses can enhance understanding of dataand information needs and requirements. Samplesof the observations from the May 15-16 workshopare presented below:

• The ability of current data and the state ofscience to inform cumulative impact assess-ments is limited and must be addressed inthe development and application of anyWRMDSS.

• The relationship between hydrologicchanges and ecological impacts, particularlyrelated to cumulative impacts in thenearshore zone, is not currently well known.For instance, data coverage for wetlands isincomplete, inconsistent, and non-periodic,making it impossible to monitor changesover time.

• When considering a WRMDSS, decisionstandards, data collection programs andmodeling efforts should be applicable todecisionmaking both on large (entire basin)and small (sub-watershed) scales.

• Dedicated, long-term monitoring programscoordinated at the basinwide level arecritical to the success of any decisionmakingprocess.

• Demand forecasting is a useful tool toprovide guidance to any WRMDSS.

• The scenario process is a useful tool that canbe further employed to identify data andinformation needs, test alternatedecisionmaking processes, and identify andassemble the components of a WRMDSS.

Looking Into the Future: Other IssuesInfluencing Water Resources DecisionSupportResearch, management and policy activities need toanticipate and adapt to changes in the near andintermediate future that might significantly affecthow water resources management decisions aremade as well as the data and information require-ments to support the evolving decisionmakingprocess. Any decision support “toolkit” needs to be


as robust as possible to withstand the “test of time”and accommodate changes in the supply, distribu-tion, quality and use of water resources. Unantici-pated ecological stressors will likely arise, compli-cating the region’s ability to manage the resourceeffectively. Technologies will also continue toevolve, some at a very rapid pace. A brief discussionof these issues follows:

• Climate variability is the norm for theregion, not the exception. Long-termclimate changes are likely to occur and willbe accompanied by varying ranges of waterlevels and supply (Great Lakes RegionalAssessment Group, 2000). Advances inclimate prediction and risk assessments areneeded to assist managers in anticipatingthese effects.

• Substantial changes in land use will con-tinue. Residential property development willreduce agricultural lands and urban re-development will continue to be a societalobjective. Agricultural changes are likely tocontinue into more selective “niches,”requiring significant changes in local waterdemands (Thorp et al., 1998). Recreationalopportunities will continue to transform thelandscape (e.g., golf course development)and recreational boating will encouragegreater controls of water levels throughoutthe system (Golf Research Group, 1997).

• Municipalities have been expanding watertreatment capabilities as a major infrastruc-ture investment (Hill, 2002). Service areasare expanding regularly. Also substantialchanges have occurred in the bottled waterand related beverage industries, and societalshifts from tap water to bottled water maycontinue (International Bottled WaterAssociation, 2002).

• A number of ecological stressors willcontinue and, in some cases, will increase inrelevance. Impacts of new exotic or invasivespecies can (and will) complicate theregion’s ability to discriminate betweencauses and effects, particularly in theindicator wetland environments (Glassner-Shwayder, 2000). Coastal wetlands are alsohighly impacted by adjacent land usechanges, hardening of nearby shorelinesand changes in sediment supplies.

• The technological advances experienced inthe last decade are likely to continue.Investments in new wireless and fiber opticdelivery mechanisms will provide scientists,

resource managers, water users and theconcerned citizenry with a greater ability toaccess and process data and information inan efficient manner. Increases in computerstorage capacities will also likely occur tomatch the increased data volumes that areexpected. Increased computing speeds andevolving software tools will make integratedproducts for resource management moreuser friendly.

• These technological advances continue topush resource management protocols intothe public arena, and public involvement inthe decisionmaking process will likelyincrease as a consequence. The level ofsophistication of resource management willalso likely improve. Managers will have theability to access and process vast quantitiesof data and information and better discernoptions for the problems at hand. Further,resource managers will be able to embrace a“systems-engineering” perspective onproblem solving, more effectively planningfor the future, setting reasonable targets,monitoring progress and achieving desiredresults.

Concluding ObservationsThe numerous recommendations of this reportaddress the need to improve the quality and quan-tity of data and information relevant to examiningwater withdrawal and use proposals and theirimpacts.

Some concluding points need to be made regardingthe importance of data and information to guidewater resources management decisionmaking:

• Existing laws, policies, programs andagreements at the state, provincial, federaland binational levels provide the contextwithin which a WRMDSS must be devel-oped and associated data and informationneeds determined;

• Understanding the uncertainties associatedwith available data and information can, inmany cases, be as critical as the informationitself;

• Data needed for decisionmaking on hydro-logic and hydraulic processes throughoutthe system have varied characteristics. Forinstance, sub-watershed level analyses willlikely require denser spatial and temporaldetail than assessments conducted on the


open lakes or for the interconnectingwaterways;

• A pressing need exists to improve thecollection and reporting of accurate,consistent and uniform water withdrawaland use data;

• Much is still unknown about the region’sgroundwater resources. Expansion oftributary stream gauging and groundwatermonitoring networks will be critical inaccessing the data and information neededto support a WRMDSS;

• Using hierarchical, or nested, watersheddesigns to support water withdrawaldecisionmaking is one approach that pro-vides opportunities to analyze conditions atmultiple scales of resolution. Categorizationof watersheds in terms of their sensitivitiesis an important first step;

• Climate change effects could become theprimary stressor to levels and flows and willinfluence demand forecasts, cumulativeimpacts assessments, and even futureindividual water withdrawal decisions. Assuch, understanding the magnitude andnature of potential climate change effectsshould be a research priority;

• Scientifically sound data and information arebeing collected under highly compatibleprograms and should be exploited to thefullest extent to reduce costs. The bestexamples are the binational monitoringprograms evolving to implement the Stateof the Lakes Ecosystem Conference(SOLEC) indicator suite;

• Improving the base of data related to waterwithdrawal and use, surface water andgroundwater resources, and ecological/biological effects will require substantialcommitment on the part of all units ofgovernment;

• To be useful, the commitment to improvethis base of data must be long-term, requir-ing dedicated support for programs overtime;

• While data and information shortfalls arebeing resolved, regional water resourcesmanagement decisions will still need to bemade. Decisionmakers should evaluateprojects using the best available information,tools and decision support options, whilerecognizing their uncertainties. If there isreason to believe that a technology or

activity may result in harm and there isscientific uncertainty regarding the natureand extent of that harm, then measures toanticipate and prevent harm may be neces-sary and justifiable; and

• An implementation plan for this report’srecommendations needs to be developed andimplemented in consultation with relevantstate and provincial officials. This shouldinclude prioritization and costing-out ofrecommendations and a strategy to conductneeded research and policy analysis toaddress and apply them as a WRMDSS isdeveloped.

ReferencesCanada/Ontario Water Use and Supply Project.

2002. Nov 18. www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/water-use/intro-e.html. 23 Dec 2002.

Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Envi-ronmental Planning. New York: W.H. Freemanand Co. p. 498-99.

Glassner-Shwayder, K. July 2000. Briefing Paper:Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species: AProduct of the Great Lakes NonindigenousInvasive Species Workshop, October 20-21, 1999,Chicago, Illinois. Sponsored by U.S. EPA.

Golf Research Group. 1997. U.S. Golf DevelopmentReport. August. www.golf-research.com/usgolf.htm. 9 Dec 2002.

Great Lakes Regional Assessment Group. 2000.Preparing for a Changing Climate: The PotentialConsequences of Climate Variability and Changein the Great Lakes Region. Prepared for U.S.Global Change Research Program. October.Sponsored by U.S. EPA. Ann Arbor, Mich.:University of Michigan Press.

Hill, J.G. 2002. “Bottled Water: The Next DetroitClassic?” Detroit Free Press. February 7.www.freep.com/ocway/water7_20020207.htm.25 Nov 2002.

International Bottled Water Association. 2002.Statistics. Compiled by Beverage MarketingCorp. of New York. www.bottlewater.org/public/BWFacts Home_main.htm. 25 Nov 2002.

Lameka, R. and D. Blake. 2002. Great Lakes WaterWithdrawal and Use Scenario EvaluationWorkshop Summary Paper, May 15-16, 2002,Ann Arbor, Mich. Great Lakes Commission.

Piggott, A, Brown, D. and Moin, S. 2001. Calculatinga Groundwater Legend for Existing GeologicalMapping Data. Environment Canada.

Singh, V.P. 1992. Elementary Hydrology. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Thorp, S., R. Rivers and V. Pebbles. 1997. Impacts ofChanging Land Use. State of the Lakes Ecosys-tem Conference 1996 (Background Paper).October. www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/96/landuse/lu-printversion.PDF. 9 Dec 2002.

Photo Credits - 141

Photo CreditsIn order of appearance:

Executive Summary: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Michigan Sea Grant (photo by Dave Brenner)Chapter 1: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Council of Great Lakes Governors, Office of Sen. Sikkema,

MIChapter 2 Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic SciencesChapter 3: National Park Service (photo by Richard Frear), USACE Chicago District, Great Lakes Commission

(photo by Kevin Yam)Chapter 4: Michigan Sea Grant (photo by Elizabeth LaPorte), Michigan Sea Grant (photo by Dave Brenner),

Michigan Sea Grant (photo by Elizabeth LaPorte);Chapter 5: Don Breneman, Michigan Sea Grant (photo by Dave Brenner), Michigan Sea Grant (photo by Dave

Brenner)Chapter 6: All photos by Michigan Sea Grant (photo by Dave Brenner) except p.116, Isle Royale National Park,

Great Lakes Commission (photo by Michael Schneider)Chapter 7: Martin Molenkamp, Thomas EkerChapter 8: National Park Service Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Dr. Albert Ballert, Michigan Sea Grant

(photo by Dave Brenner).

142 - Photo Credits

Great Lakes CommissionGreat Lakes CommissionGreat Lakes CommissionEisenhower Corporate ParkEisenhower Corporate ParkEisenhower Corporate Park2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #1002805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #1002805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #1002805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #100Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791Phone: 734/971.9135Phone: 734/971.9135Phone: 734/971.9135Fax: 734/971.9150Fax: 734/971.9150Fax: 734/971.9150www.glc.org

The Great Lakes Commission is a binational public agency The Great Lakes Commission is a binational public agency The Great Lakes Commission is a binational public agency The Great Lakes Commission is a binational public agency dedicated to the use, management and protection of the dedicated to the use, management and protection of the dedicated to the use, management and protection of the dedicated to the use, management and protection of the water, land and other natural resources of the Great Lakes-water, land and other natural resources of the Great Lakes-water, land and other natural resources of the Great Lakes-water, land and other natural resources of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. In partnership with the eight Great St. Lawrence system. In partnership with the eight Great St. Lawrence system. In partnership with the eight Great St. Lawrence system. In partnership with the eight Great Lakes states and provinces of Ontario and Québec, the Lakes states and provinces of Ontario and Québec, the Lakes states and provinces of Ontario and Québec, the Lakes states and provinces of Ontario and Québec, the Commission applies sustainable development principles in Commission applies sustainable development principles in Commission applies sustainable development principles in Commission applies sustainable development principles in addressing issues of resource management, environmental addressing issues of resource management, environmental addressing issues of resource management, environmental addressing issues of resource management, environmental protection, transportation and sustainable development. protection, transportation and sustainable development. protection, transportation and sustainable development. protection, transportation and sustainable development. protection, transportation and sustainable development. The Commission provides accurate and objective The Commission provides accurate and objective The Commission provides accurate and objective The Commission provides accurate and objective information on public policy issues; an effective forum for information on public policy issues; an effective forum for information on public policy issues; an effective forum for information on public policy issues; an effective forum for developing and coordinating public policy; and a unifi ed, developing and coordinating public policy; and a unifi ed, developing and coordinating public policy; and a unifi ed, developing and coordinating public policy; and a unifi ed, systemwide voice to advocate member interests.systemwide voice to advocate member interests.systemwide voice to advocate member interests.systemwide voice to advocate member interests.

��

Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:Visit the Water Resources Management Decision Support System project web site:

www.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss/

Toward aToward aToward aWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementWater Resources Management

Decision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support SystemDecision Support Systemfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basinfor the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Status of Data and Information on Water Resources,Water Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological Impacts

Toward a W







Toward a W







Toward a W







Toward a W







Toward a W



rence River BasinStatus of Data and Inform




















pactsPrepared by the Great Lakes Com

mission

Prepared by the Great Lakes Comm

issionPrepared by the Great Lakes Com

mission

May 2003

May 2003

ww

w.glc.org

Water Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological ImpactsWater Use, and Related Ecological Impacts

Prepared by the

Great Lakes Commissionfor the Great Lakes States and Provinces

Supported by the Great Lakes Protection Fund

May 2003Printed on recycled paper

stt toward a water resources management...water rich great lakes-st. lawrence river region has been...

Documents