ASSESSING ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
By
Amanda G. Guthrie

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Fisheries and Wildlife — Master of Science
2017

ABSTRACT
ASSESSING ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
By
Amanda G. Guthrie
Ecosystem-based management incorporates biotic, abiotic, and social components into
natural resource management decisions to promote natural resource sustainability. Fishery
management in the Great Lakes basin has been facilitated by the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission (GLFC) as the GLFC has taken a lead role in supporting ecosystem-based
management for Great Lakes fisheries. The GLFC hosts Lake Committee meetings which began
in the 1960s. Additionally the GLFC sponsored the Salmonid Community on Oligotrophic Lakes
(SCOL) workshop in 1971 that furthered understanding about anthropogenic stressors on fish
communities, advancing management and research discussions in the basin.
I explored 1) the role of the GLFC in developing ecosystem-based management
principles in 1970-1975 through Lake Committee Meetings, and 2) how the structure of the Lake
Committee meetings and SCOL influenced fishery management agency views towards
ecosystem-based management principles. I confirmed that the GLFC facilitated management
agencies to share fisheries management decisions and concerns across jurisdictions. SCOL was
found to influence fishery management agencies to view management through a more
comprehensive ecosystem perspective leading to a community and ecosystem perspective.
Overall, ecosystem-based management principles were developing in the basin in 1970-1975
primarily through a fisheries perspective as resource managers moved from a single species type
approach to an ecosystem perspective which was facilitated by the GLFC activities.

To Mom, Dad, Aubrey, and Nick
for always supporting me and
encouraging me to pursue my dreams.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am greatly appreciative of the support and guidance from my thesis committee: Drs.
William W. Taylor, Andrew M. Muir, and Ken Frank. Dr. Taylor, my main advisor, continually
provided support, wisdom, and feedback throughout the research process. I grew substantially as
a researcher and a professional because of Dr. Taylor, and highly valued his extensive
knowledge of fisheries in the Great Lakes basin and globally. Dr. Muir instilled in me a
framework to develop and implement research projects. Our discussions will lay a strong
foundation for future work. Dr. Frank graciously guided me through learning and conducting
research about social networks. I value Dr. Frank’s openness and authenticity as it gave me
inspiration throughout my research.
Friends and colleges have provided guidance, motivation, and support during my
research. Members of the Taylor lab offered me valuable feedback that improved the clarity of
my work and were always available for discussions to assist me in developing my research.
Thank you Andrew Carlson, Betsy Riley, Dr. Joe Nohner, Molly Good, So-Jung Youn, and
Tomena Scholze. Betsy Riley, thank you for your assistance in developing my content analysis
framework. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Louise Chavarie for her encouragement and
feedback throughout the research process.
Numerous funding sources provided me with the opportunity to advance my career.
Throughout my time at Michigan State I received funding from the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, United States Geological Survey, Michigan State University Graduate School,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the American Institute of Fisheries Biologists.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... viii
THESIS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
DEFINING ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 1
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN .................................................................................................. 4
THESIS PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 1: A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING ECOSYSTEM-BASED
MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES IN THE GREAT LAKES ........................................................ 12
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 12
METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 16
Data ….................................................................................................................................. 16
Document Content Analysis ............................................................................................... 17
Intercoder reliability ............................................................................................................ 20
ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 21
Intercoder reliability and assumptions ................................................................................. 21
Assessing management priorities ….................................................................................... 22
Assessing the emphasis of EBM principles …..................................................................... 23
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Management priorities ......................................................................................................... 23
Typical focus of EBM principles ........................................................................................ 25
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 29
All lakes ............................................................................................................................... 29
Environmental emphasis: Lake Erie …............................................................................... 30
Fishery emphasis: Lakes Michigan, Ontario, Huron, and Superior .................................... 33
Framework implications ...................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN DEVELOPING
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES IN THE GREAT LAKES ................ 38
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 38
METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 42
Data .................................................................................................................................. 42
Cluster analysis ................................................................................................................ 43
Core-periphery analysis ................................................................................................... 45
Document Content Analysis ............................................................................................ 46
Influence model ............................................................................................................... 47
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 50
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 55
v

SYNTHESIS ................................................................................................................................ 61
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................ 64

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Ecosystem-based management (EBM) principles and explanations as adapted from
Grumbine (1994) and Christensen et al. (1996).…………………………………………………18
Table 2. Priority level for each of the 12 ecosystem-based management (EBM) principles
(Grumbine 1994; Christensen et al. 1996) for Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and
Superior, as determined by the standardized proportions of the discussions at Great Lakes
Fishery Commission Lake Committee meetings during 1970-1975. The EBM principle humans
embedded in nature was shortened to humans in nature. Within each priority category, principles
are alphabetized and do not denote rank order.………………………………………………… 24
Table 3. Core actors (e.g., management agencies, and GLFC representatives) in the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission network in 1972 and 1970-1975 as determined by 2-mode categorical coreperiphery analysis. An X indicated a core actor. If an organization changed names after the study
began in 1970 the name change was denoted in italics under the name, noting the name the
current name of the organization or the prior name of the organization in 1970……………… 52
Table 4. Core meetings in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission network in 1972 and 1970-1975
as determined by 2-mode categorical core-periphery analysis. Core meetings during 1970-1975
were marked by X while the core periphery found in 1972 were marked by a dot •.…………. 53
Table 5. Results from 12 separate influence models that assessed an agency’s statements of ρ
estimates (first value) and standard deviations (in parenthesis) for each EBM principle model. Pvalues less than 0.05 are denoted by *, less than 0.01 are denoted by **, less than 0.001 are
denoted by ***………………………………………………………………………………… 54

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Schematic showing the delineation between ecosystem-based management (EBM) and
single-sector natural resource management. EBM focuses on all components while single-sector
management focuses on one component (e.g., the biotic component) of ecosystems…………… 2
Figure 2. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Erie Committee meetings
from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other six EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).……………………………………………………………………… 26
Figure 3. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Huron Committee meetings
from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other seven EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).……………………………………………………………………… 27
Figure 4. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Michigan Committee
meetings from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other four EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).……………………………………………………………………… 27
Figure 5. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Ontario Committee meetings
from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other six EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).……………………………………………………………………… 28
Figure 6. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Superior Committee meetings
from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other six EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).……………………………………………………………………… 28
Figure 7. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) network of actors and meetings from
1970-1975 and the Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes (SCOL) in 1972 did not have
any clusters although it had a core-periphery structure. Core actors and core meetings were
denoted by colored circles and squares, respectively. SCOL was denoted by a dark blue square
and was determined to be a core meeting. Periphery actors and periphery meetings were denoted
by white circles and squares, respectively……………………………………………………… 51

viii

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

EBM..................................................................................................ecosystem-based management
GLFC............................................................................................Great Lakes Fishery Commission
GLWQA...............................................................................Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
IJC...................................................................................................International Joint Commission
TVA......................................................................................................Tennessee Valley Authority
SCOL.......................................................................Salmonid Communities of Oligotrophic Lakes
SPC....................................................................................................Scientific Protocol Committee

ix

THESIS INTRODUCTION
DEFINING ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
Interest in ecosystem-based management in the Great Lakes basin was largely derived
from the recognition that historical management approaches (e.g., single species maximum
sustainable fishery yield targets) were inadequate to mitigate collective environmental
degradation compounded by multiple sources (e.g., toxins, eutrophication, and overexploitation)
in the Great Lakes (Christie et al. 1986). Ecosystems are environmental systems comprised of
exchanges among abiotic and biotic processes and are considered to be basic units of nature
(Tansley 1935). Ecosystem-based management (EBM) incorporates abiotic (e.g., physical,
chemical), biotic (e.g., species, communities), and social (e.g., economy, human values)
components in decision making, aiming to increase natural resource sustainability (Grumbine
1994; Slocombe 1998; Curtin and Prellezo 2010). Specifically, ecosystem-based management
incorporates 12 different principles to encompass a social-ecological management perspective
into applied research and decision making about natural resource use and conservation: (1)
adaptive management, (2) data collection, (3) dynamic ecosystems, (4) ecological boundaries,
(5) ecological integrity, (6) hierarchical context, (7) human values, (8) humans embedded in
nature, (9) interagency cooperation, (10) management evaluation, (11) organizational change,
(12) sustainability, refer to Table 1 in Chapter 1 for definitions (Grumbine 1994; Christensen et
al. 1996).
EBM was innovative because it incorporated interactions among humans and the
environment as components of an overarching social-ecological system (Christie et al. 1986;
Folke et al. 2005). A social-ecological system unifies human actions with biotic and abiotic
processes as one interacting system, and contends the difference between social and ecological

1

systems is arbitrary (Folke et al. 2005). Additionally, EBM strives to bridge multiple resource
sectors (e.g., limnology, fishery, economy) to collectively manage ecosystems rather than
treating them as independent sectors (Slocombe 1993). Ecosystem-based management can be
viewed as natural resource management decisions filtered through a diverging social-ecological
lens focused on the whole ecosystem (i.e., biotic, abiotic, social components). Single sector,
conventional management is too narrow in scope to capture the dynamics of ecosystems and
focuses on one component of the ecosystem, discounting ecological interrelationships and
dependencies among sectors (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Schematic showing the delineation between ecosystem-based management (EBM) and
single-sector natural resource management. EBM focuses on all components while single-sector
management focuses on one component (e.g., the biotic component) of ecosystems.

2

Ecosystem-based management originated decades after we began to understand
ecosystems as systematic units of the natural world. Forbes (1887) characterized lakes as a
microcosm: a small, self-contained unit where all the “elemental forces” were interacting within
a system. Forbes viewed lakes as a system of complex species inter-relationships. Before the
1910s, European lakes were characterized as either alpine or baltic (Moss et al. 1994). August
Thienemann and Einar Naumann recognized similarities between geography, chemistry, oxygen,
and plankton across lakes which were related to lake characteristics (Moss et al. 1994). Therefore
Theinemann and Naumann expanded terms developed by Karl A. Webber, oligotrophic and
eutrophic lakes, to include biological and physical factors in lake categorizations (Moss et al.
1994). Creating consistent terminology to define lake productivity allowed comparisons among
lakes across regions (e.g., Lake Superior, Great Slave Lake, Lake Vättern) (Hutchinson 1969).
Tansley (1935) was the first to codify the term “ecosystem” which highlighted environments as
systems of interactions (e.g., biological, physical, chemical) that included organisms.
The first natural resource policy document in the Great Lakes basin to formally include
an ecosystem-based approach to management was the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA) (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 1978; Imperial et al. 1993;
Slocombe 1998). The GLWQA articulated the connection between the Great Lakes watershed
and ecosystem components, including toxic water affecting fish and therefore human health
(Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 1978; Christie et al. 1986; Imperial et al. 1993). The
Agreement demonstrated that the United States and Canada jointly agreed on the need for the
development of interdisciplinary collaboration for natural resource management, and the
incorporation of humans and ecosystems under one management framework.

3

Understanding the processes and mechanisms that stimulated the conceptualization of
EBM in the Great Lakes basin can provide a deeper understanding of ecosystem-based
management values and principles, and can support a more thorough evaluation and
implementation of ecosystem-based management principles in natural resource management
plans and research. Additionally, examining fishery and water management in the Great Lakes
basin demonstrates the importance of binational management and documents the progressive
decisions of natural resource managers in the Great Lakes basin. Current and future natural
resource management policies are often amendments or modifications of past management
decisions (e.g., Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement), demonstrating a need to evaluate
historical decisions that created the foundation for recent and current natural resource
management agreements and decisions in the Great Lakes basin. The goal of this study was to
investigate the historical development of ecosystem-based management in the Great Lakes basin
to demonstrate how the transition to ecosystem-based management supported Great Lakes
fisheries.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT IN THE
GREAT LAKES BASIN
Ecosystem-based management concepts arose during the 1970s in the Great Lakes basin
in response to increased awareness of the links between anthropogenic toxins and pollution,
water quality, fish contamination, and human health (Christie et al. 1986). The region was highly
polluted and degraded by industrialization (Murphy et al. 2013).
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other toxins
were present in Great Lakes waters (Baumann and Michael Whittle 1988; Murphy et al. 2013),

4

accumulating in fish and transferred to humans through fish consumption, ultimately resulting in
fish consumption regulations in the basin (Busch et al. 1975; Bhavsar et al. 2011).
The Great Lakes have been significantly altered since European settlement during the late
1700s and early 1800s (Koelz 1926; Gaden 2007). Settlers introduced non-native fishes, altered
basin ecology through using new technology (e.g., dams), changed chemical and nutrient cycling
due to logging, wastefully extracted fish, polluted the Great Lakes watershed with lumber
sawdust and steamboat ash, and depleted fish stocks by commercial fishing (Koelz 1926; Smith
1972; Mandrak and Cudmore 2013; Murphy et al. 2013). Lake Ontario was the first lake to be
settled by Europeans and consequently was the first to experience dramatic ecosystem changes
(Francis et al. 1979). Lake Ontario fishers began seine fishing in 1807 followed by fishing on
Lake Erie in 1815, Lake Huron in 1935, and Lake Superior in 1960 (Koelz 1926). The year
fishing started on Lake Michigan is unknown, although it is presumed to have occurred before
Lake Huron (Koelz 1926). Additionally, settlers dug canals for easier access to the Atlantic
Ocean, thereby opening the lakes to invasive species (Smith 1972) which resulted in dramatic
ecological and fish community changes in the basin.
During the New Deal Era (1933-1937) in the US, waterways were highly developed
which fueled economic growth (MacKenzie 1996). During the 1940s, World War II created a
demand for industrialization and the development of war materials (e.g., rubber, steel) in the
Great Lakes basin (Murphy et al. 2013). Demand for industrialization and economic growth led
to unconstrained development and chemical pollution causing environmental degradation which
led to ecological disturbance. Excessive contamination and pollution (e.g., DDT) led to an
increased environmental awareness (e.g., Silent Spring by Rachael Carson, 1962) that sparked a
revolutionary period in the 1970s that focused on natural resource conservation and

5

rehabilitation. Awareness of environmental concerns influenced natural resource management as
there was public and political desire to collectively manage our Great Lakes resources across
disciplines, ultimately contributing to the conceptualization of ecosystem-based management in
the basin (Christie et al. 1986; Harris et al. 1987).
Cross-jurisdictional fisheries management in the Great Lakes basin, since 1955, is
facilitated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). The GLFC was established by the
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries (1954) to bring managers and scientists together to
mitigate sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) invasions, to develop a vibrant research program,
and to coordinate essential joint management efforts to rehabilitate fisheries in the Great Lakes
and connecting waterways, with the ultimate goal of maintaining a healthy, sustainable Great
Lakes fishery (Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries 1954). The formation of the GLFC did not
alter the jurisdictional powers of the state, provincial, or federal management agencies, which
was a stipulation of the agencies as they did not want to lose their jurisdictional control (Gaden
et al. 2013). During the 1960s, Lake Committees, annual lake-specific management meetings,
were formed to report on management actions and concerns across the basin. The meetings
ultimately fostered a collaborative environment in the Great Lakes basin culminating in A Joint
Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (1981), henceforth called “Joint
Strategic Plan” (GLFC 1981; Gaden 2007; Gaden et al. 2008).
The Canada-United States 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement provided
authority for the International Joint Commission (IJC) to coordinate water quality management
(e.g., limiting phosphorus inputs) (Hartig and Kelso 1998). The International Joint Commission
was established between Canada and the United States through the Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909 to jointly manage transboundary waters between the two countries. Additionally, in 1972,

6

the United States passed the US Federal Water Pollution Control Act, known as the Clean Water
Act (US EPA 2013a, 2013b), which developed federal standards for water quality that were
enforced by the US Environmental Protection Agency (MacKenzie 1996; Murphy et al. 2013).
Both the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and Clean Water Act demonstrated the political
awareness and initiative that resulted in more stringent water quality regulations.
In 1977, the IJC Great Lakes Science Advisory Board completed a 5-year review of the
implementation of 1972 GLWQA and realized water quality conditions continued to deteriorate
because of non-point source pollution. Additionally, the Canada-United States University
Seminar in 1976-77, comprised of academics and civic servants, suggested interpreting water
quality goals through ecological restoration and rehabilitation (Francis et al. 1979). Through the
recommendations from the IJC Science Advisory Board and the University Seminar, IJC
recognized the need to manage water quality using a broader perspective, ultimately
conceptualizing an ecosystem approach to water management (Francis et al. 1979). The new
natural resource management philosophy was presented to and accepted by the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission in 1977, and the GLFC and IJC agreed to work together under an
ecosystem approach (Francis et al. 1979).
Lake Committee attendees suggested the Great Lakes Fishery Commission work with the
International Joint Commission to include fisheries in their water quality management even
before the GLWQA was created. In Lake Erie Committee Meeting Minutes (1970) , it was
documented that:
“Mr. Baldwin stated that the Commission had drawn the attention of the
International Joint Commission (IJC) to the problem of pesticides and urged that
the welfare of fish and other aquatic life be given greater consideration in

7

controlling pollution. The Commission might proceed further by more closely
coordinating the environmental work of fishery agencies and submitting more
detailed recommendations”
The link between fish and water quality was legally realized in the 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement as the purpose of the agreement was to cooperatively
“restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
waters of the Great Lakes basin Ecosystem.”
The agreement defined the “Great Lakes basin Ecosystem” as
“the interacting components of air, land, water and living organisms,
including man, within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River at or
upstream from the point at which this river becomes the international
boundary between Canada and the United States” (Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement 1978).
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 linked humans and ecology as one
interacting system and took a large-scale, watershed-based approach to water quality
management which is directly comparable to a social-ecological system perspective in
ecosystem-based management (Lynch 2001).
Furthermore, the mechanism underlying the development of EBM principles in the basin
can partially be attributed to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission institutional support (Francis
1988). In 1964, as the Lake Committees were formalized, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
requested senior representatives from fishery management agencies to attend Lake Committee
meetings (Gaden 2007), thus creating continued interactions among senior staff members across
jurisdictions. The fishery management network facilitated through the Lake Committee structure,

8

permitted high-level agency representatives to develop relationships across jurisdictional borders
through expected and continued attendance at annual meetings. The interactions at Lake
Committee meetings likely fostered trust between jurisdictions and laid the groundwork for
ecosystem-based management.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission formally accepted the role of coordinating fishery
management agencies under “lakewide-basinwide perspectives” for an ecosystem approach to
management in A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (1981). In
addition to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Joint Strategic Plan was signed by federal
(i.e., Canada, US), state, provincial, and later tribal management agencies that have jurisdiction
in the Great Lakes basin, demonstrating the commitment of Great Lakes basin fishery
management agencies to collaborative, ecosystem-based management. Cross-jurisdictional
collaboration is necessary for EBM to be implemented as ecosystems can span multiple
jurisdictions (Grumbine 1997; Post et al. 2007).
Further supporting the development of ecosystem-based management in the Great Lakes
basin was the Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes (SCOL) workshop, held by the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission (Loftus and Regier 1972). This workshop was held in 1971 for
invited European and North American researchers. Attendees used European and North
American cold water oligotrophic lakes as study replicates to assess anthropogenic stressors on
salmonid communities, notably assess stressors from fishing practices, eutrophication, and
nonnative species (Loftus and Regier 1972; Regier 2013). The SCOL workshop presented a
hierarchical context for fisheries as it viewed salmonids as components of interacting
communities, and viewed ecological integrity as a necessary consideration for fisheries by

9

examining the relationship of eutrophication on fish, promoting concepts (e.g., ecological
integrity, hierarchal context) that underlie ecosystem-based management.

THESIS PURPOSE
The 1970s were marked by an era of environmental awareness in North America and
were hypothesized to be critical in the development of EBM for natural resources in the Great
Lakes basin. In 1972, the US Clean Water Act and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
were enacted, demonstrating a binational commitment to stringent water quality standards (Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement 1972; US EPA 2013b). A special journal issue in Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences published the proceedings from the Salmonid
Community on Oligotrophic Lakes workshop (Loftus and Regier 1972). SCOL was a novel
workshop as attendees assessed anthropogenic stressors on fish communities, not on species, and
thus was an advancement from conventional single species perspectives.
My goal was to understand how the Great Lakes Fishery Commission facilitated the
development and the spread of ideas that supported ecosystem-based management for Great
Lakes fisheries. The three primary objectives of my thesis were to: i) evaluate the
conceptualization of ecosystem-based management in the Great Lakes basin from 1970-1975, the
formative years of the North American environmental movement, ii.) determine if and how ideas
about ecosystem-based management flowed through the Great Lakes basin fishery management
networks from 1970-1975 as a result of Lake Committee meetings and the GLFC-sponsored
workshop on Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes, and iii.) identify key agencies that
assisted the spread of knowledge to support ecosystem-based management principles across
jurisdictions in the Great Lakes basin.

10

This thesis is comprised of an introduction, two chapters, and a synopsis. The first
chapter presents an evaluation framework that was used to assess the development of ecosystembased management principles in the Great Lakes basin (objective i). The second chapter
evaluates the spread of such principles via fishery management networks and how ideas were
altered due to attendance by jurisdictional managers at Lake Committee meetings and the
Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes workshop (objective ii, objective iii). The thesis is
concluded by a synopsis that highlights the role of institutional structure and function for
multijurisdictional natural resource management.

11

CHAPTER 1: A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING ECOSYSTEM-BASED
MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES IN THE GREAT LAKES

INTRODUCTION
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) occurs when decisions about natural resource use
and conservation practices are based on the interrelationships of the entire social-ecological
system (Grumbine 1994; Christensen et al. 1996; Leech et al. 2009). Ecosystem-based
management has been heralded as a radical shift for management processes in natural resource
systems where conventional, single-species management practices (e.g., single species maximum
sustainable yield fishery targets) have been implemented, often without success (Pikitch 2004;
McClanahan et al. 2015; Long et al. 2015). EBM principles have been implemented by natural
resource managers, policy makers, and professionals in recent years (Jennings et al. 2014)
because EBM is accepted as a superior means to sustainably manage natural resources. EBM
more accurately accounts for ecological interrelationships, dependencies, and stressors in natural
resource management decisions than traditional management techniques (Curtice et al. 2012).
Science, management, and policy evolutions develop through a process of knowledge
accumulation leading to a rapid change, but the impact of the “revolutionary” transition is only
fully recognized retrospectively (Kuhn 1970; Rotmans et al. 2001). Management and policy
revolutions face strong resistance to change through institutional inertia (Rotmans et al. 2001)
and changes commonly occur during short time periods with increased opportunities to influence
policy, termed policy windows (Kingdon 1984; Rotmans et al. 2001). Ecosystem-based
management has been considered a revolutionary natural resource management paradigm that
has evolved as the understanding of the importance of ecosystems developed (Hartig et al. 1996;

12

Berkes 2012). For new management principles to be implemented in natural resource policy
there needs to be an opening in a policy window to allow policy changes to occur.
Ecosystem-based management has become a commonly recommended natural resource
management paradigm, yet there are few assessments evaluating the success or failure of
implementing ecosystem-based management principles. Developing an EBM plan occurs via
eight steps: (1) set goals, (2) assess natural and social resources, (3) diagnose problems, (3)
create a plan, (4) adopt actions to address the problems, (5) organize agencies and actions, (6)
implement the plan, (7) evaluate progress towards goals, and (8) maintain and/or update the plan
(Taylor et al. 1995). Evaluation is an essential step in the natural resource management process
as evaluations can be used to assess the effectiveness of management decisions. BorgstrĂśm et al.
(2015) developed a matrix to evaluate the extent ecosystem-based management was being
implemented in management plans and applied the assessment matrix to coastal management
plans in Sweden. The assessment matrix is comprised of rows itemizing ecosystem aspects:
Biodiversity, Relations and Ecological Processes, Changes and Uncertainty, Scales,
Anthropogenic Processes. The matrix columns are ecosystem-based management phases: system
description, goals, strategies/measures, and monitoring evaluation. The extent of each of these
concepts (e.g., system description and biodiversity) is categorized as low, medium, high which
are uniquely defined for each matrix relationship (BorgstrĂśm et al. 2015). The assessment matrix
is generalizable to other natural resource plans due its broad categories, yet it cannot be used to
assess small changes in EBM principles as conceptualization and implementation of EBM
principles evolved and progressed through time.
In this study I developed an ecosystem-based management framework based on literature
definitions of EBM and applied the necessary framework to Great Lakes fishery management

13

discussions from 1970-1975. In order to analyze the extent that ecosystem-based management
principles were considered by fishery managers during the formative years of ecosystem-based
management in the Great Lakes basin, I chose the Great Lakes basin as a study region because
fisheries and aquatic resource managers in the basin developed international policies that
formally endorsed ecosystem-based management in the 1970s. The endorsement of EBM in the
basin is demonstrated by the principles included in the binational water resource management
plan, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) of 1978 that was enacted by the
United States and Canada (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 1978). The GLWQA of 1978
was the first amendment to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972 and the GLWQA
included ecosystem considerations linking water quality with ecosystem implications (e.g., fish
production) and humans (e.g., human health).
As the 5-year review of the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was
commencing in 1977, there was an awareness based on the International Joint Commission (IJC)
Great Lakes Research Advisory and the Canada-United States University Seminar in 1976-77
that water quality restoration was linked with ecological rehabilitation (Francis et al. 1979). This
abiotic-biotic connection, an underlying principle in the ecosystem approach, was proposed to
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), a US-Canada Commission established to facilitate
fisheries management, support and conduct fishery research, recommend policy and management
changes, and reduce sea lamprey populations (Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries 1954). The
GLFC instructed its Scientific Advisory Committee (i.e., researchers that counsel Commissioner
and fishery managers; currently the GLFC Board of Technical Experts) to review the
practicability of an ecosystem approach for implementation in the Great Lakes. The GLFC
endorsed the ecosystem approach and accepted a “lead agency” role where applicable (Francis et

14

al. 1979). The comprehensive approach to water management was considered novel in the basin
because the GLWQA included ecosystem rehabilitation that focused on the linkages between
water quality, fish production, contaminants, and human health.
At the same time, another endeavor to integrate basin-wide water management was
occurring in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as the TVA adopted a basin-wide approach
to water management by including economic considerations on water management. The TVA
was not implementing an ecosystem-based approach as the primary management focus was
navigation and flood control, not ecosystems (McKinley 1950; Mackenzie 1997). Past natural
resource management plans or agreements chiefly focused on improving water quality or
benefits of water without purposely integrating ecological and socio-economic-political linkages
into decisions or actions.
Examination of the development and implementation of EBM principles can provide
insights about how management evolves and potentially how best to facilitate an ecosystembased approach to management by considering the political and natural environment that
stimulated concept development. Applying the ecosystem-based management framework
developed herein to historical fishery management discussions and decisions in the Great Lakes
basin can elucidate the public, managerial, and political environments necessary (e.g.,
environmental awareness, policy windows) for enactment of new management paradigms into
plans and policy. Management policies and agreements (e.g., Clean Water Act, Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement) have been amended since their original implementation in the 1970s,
and the original formulation of those policies still influences natural resource management and
policies today.

15

In the Great Lakes basin, bottom-up decisions were needed as top down management
control was not effective (e.g., fish populations were crashing); fishery management jurisdictions
would not revoke their control of fishery jurisdictions (Gaden et al. 2013). The effectiveness of
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is founded upon their non-regulatory, yet federally
supported, binational treaty-based mandate. Understanding when, how, why, and the contexts in
which ecosystem-based management developed and assessing its successes or failures can
improve our understanding of the importance of ecosystem-based management for current and
future implementation of natural resource management regimes.
The goal of this paper was to understand the development of ecosystem-based
management for Great Lakes fisheries preceding the implementation of the first Great Lakes
ecosystem-based management policy, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1978. The
objectives were to document and evaluate the conceptualization of ecosystem-based management
in the Great Lakes basin from 1970-1975, the beginning of an era of environmental awareness
and change in natural resource management. For this study, an ecosystem-based management
principle evaluation framework was created to assess the development and evolution of
ecosystem-based management principles in the Great Lakes basin through studying the six years
of discussions from 1970-1975 among fishery managers at Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Lake Committee meetings.

METHODS
Data
Since the 1960s, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission hosted annual Lake Committee
meetings for natural resource management agency representatives from the various jurisdictions

16

to discuss the status of fisheries, past management actions, future management decisions, and
research (Gaden 2007; “GLFC” 2017). The Lake Committee meetings were used for agencies to
convene on a regular basis and arrange for joint management of Great Lakes natural resources,
namely supporting economically desirable species (e.g., lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush), and
reducing the invasive sea lamprey (Pekorngzon marinus) population that hindered the production
of the species of common concern. Minutes were recorded for each meeting and are maintained
by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA (http://www.glfc.org/).
Meeting minutes from 1970-1975, the formative years of the North American
environmental movement, were used for data collection to understand the processes and
developments that occurred before a formal natural resource management and policy shift
towards ecosystem-based management through the enactment of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978 and A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (1981).
The duration of annual Lake Committee meetings ranged from 3 to 11 hours. Median meeting
durations were 8.5 hours for Lake Erie, 3.4 hours for Lake Huron, 6.9 hours for Lake Michigan,
6.3 hours for Lake Ontario, 6.4 hours for Lake Superior. Meeting duration was used as a
standardizing metric to compare meetings across lakes and time. Each lake hosted its annual
meeting in March at different locations across the basin.

Document Content Analysis
Content analysis is a systematic method used to capture concepts in documents through
the use of coding rules (Rourke et al. 2001). Code rules are a classification system to capture
distinct content within a document (e.g., topics in a discussion: ecological integrity or adaptive
management). The purpose of content analysis is to concisely and reproducibly analyze the

17

underlying principles of a message (Stemler 2001). I developed code rules to use as a framework
to evaluate discussions about ecosystem-based management principles. Code rules were based on
literature definitions of EBM (Grumbine 1994; Christensen et al. 1996) that were iteratively
adapted through discussions with another researcher to improve clarity of the final definition and
reduce coding bias (Stemler 2001).
Each Lake Committee meeting was coded based on a priori literature definitions of
ecosystem-based management; twelve principles were derived from (Grumbine 1994;
Christensen et al. 1996)) and were used to develop reproducible ecosystem-based management
code rules. EBM principles were: (1) adaptive management, (2) data collection, (3) dynamic
ecosystems, (4) ecological boundaries, (5) ecological integrity, (6) hierarchical context, (7)
human values, (8) humans embedded in nature, (9) interagency cooperation, (10) management
evaluation, (11) organizational change, (12) sustainability (see Table 1 for explanations).

Table 1. Ecosystem-based management (EBM) principles and explanations as adapted from
Grumbine (1994) and Christensen et al. (1996).

EBM Principle

Explanation

Adaptive
management

Adaptive management takes the approach of management as a natural
experiment and accepts uncertainty as a component of natural resource
management decisions.
Data should be collected across multiple scales (e.g., lake-wide,
stream-specific) and sectors (e.g., fisheries, water quality, habitat) to
assess patterns and processes occurring across a region.
Ecosystems may have multiple states and large temporal fluctuations,
and should not be forced into one state, nor should managers assume an
ecological state is stable.
Ecological boundaries can be defined structurally (e.g., geomorphic
boundaries) or functionally (e.g., species interactions) and connectivity
(e.g., species dispersal) should be assessed to understand the temporal
and spatial scales of management (Post et al. 2007).

Data collection

Dynamic
ecosystems
Ecological
boundaries

18

Table 1 (cont’d)
Ecological integrity

Hierarchical
context
Human values
Humans embedded
in nature
Interagency
cooperation

Management
evaluation
Organizational
change
Sustainability

Desired species should be viewed as a component of ecological
patterns (e.g., habitat characteristics, species distributions) and
processes (e.g., species restoration, natural reproduction, and
disturbance) that are necessary components of sustainable ecosystems.
A hierarchical context incorporates a systems view that accounts for
the relationships across levels (e.g., habitats, stocks, populations,
communities) in ecosystems.
Human values influence the priorities and goals of management and
actions of resource users.
Humans are components of the ecosystem and their actions affect
biotic and abiotic ecological relationships.
Collaboration should occur across jurisdictional boundaries to reflect
ecological boundaries, and among sectors (e.g., limnology, fisheries)
and institutions (e.g., state legislature, non-governmental organizations)
involved in the region. Actors should be aware of the broader political
environment.
Management decisions about resource conservation and use should be
monitored and linked to the effect of these changes in the management
region.
Natural resource management organizations should have their structure
and operations reflect and adapt to current and emerging values and
partnerships.
Management decisions and goals incorporate a long term focus that
supports resource use for future years.

The coding unit, the base unit for content analysis, was determined based on the
messages (e.g., EBM principles, Table 1) and syntax (e.g., bullets, paragraphs) in the documents
(Rourke et al. 2001). If there was a shift in the topic discussed within a paragraph, subcategories
were marked (e.g., numbered points), or the speaker changed, the segment was split into separate
coding units based on these shifts. These separations were done to systemically and accurately
capture the discussions about EBM principles at the meeting between different management
agencies. The principle that best captured the statement was assigned to each unit. Statements
without sufficient context (“Mr. Wright reported on lake trout research” Lake Superior
Committee 1975), or relevant details (“The tentative agenda was adopted with no changes” Lake

19

Huron Committee 1970) were excluded. Appendices were omitted in the content analysis as
appendix details were not explicitly linked to the meeting minutes (“Mr. Byrne summarized
plantings made by Ontario in 1972 and listed plantings proposed for 1973 (Appendix XIV)”
Lake Ontario Committee 1972). In total, 30 Lake Committee meetings were analyzed resulting
in 3,182 sections that were coded based on ecosystem-based management principles.
Additional code rules were developed to capture the emphasis of each unit analyzed.
Emphasis of each statement was assessed to determine the fisheries context (i.e., focused solely
on fishery considerations [sea lamprey wounding, fish stocking]) or alternatively, an
environmental context (i.e., ecological components other than or in addition to fishery
considerations) of EBM principle in that discussion. Linking social-ecological components (e.g.,
human values about shoreline development) with fisheries components (e.g., fish predator-prey
dynamics) in discussions and management decisions is a major element in ecosystem-based
management (Link and Browman 2014). Understanding the emphasis (i.e., fisheries or
environmental) of each coded discussion can demonstrate the transition between classical singlespecies fishery management and ecosystem-based management (Link and Browman 2014).

Intercoder reliability
Two researchers independently coded the same content (n=100) and the results were
compared to assess reproducibility of coding. Each unit (i.e., discussion segment) was coded
using the twelve EBM principles and two emphasis categories (i.e., fisheries or environment),
resulting in each coded segment linked to one of the twelve EBM principles and one emphasis.
All code rules (12 ecosystem-based management principles and fisheries versus environment
emphasis) were verified to be systematic interpretations of the message through intercoder

20

agreement. Cohen’s Kappa was calculated to evaluate intercoder reliability as it is a rigorous test
that accounts for probability of agreement between coders due to chance (Cohen 1960). Cohen’s
Kappa was calculated using the following equation:
𝑘=

𝑝𝑜 − 𝑝𝑐
,
1 − 𝑝𝑐

where po is the proportion of units coded the same between coders, and pc is the proportion of
coding units that would be similar based on chance. Equal probability was assumed for coding
each unit in any of the 12 ecosystem-based management categories (Table 1) or in either of the
two emphasis categories (i.e., fishery or environmental) by each coder. Using Cohen’s Kappa,
intercoder agreement was determined to demonstrate substantial agreement if greater than 0.60
agreement was observed (Landis and Koch 1977).

ANALYSIS
Intercoder reliability and assumptions
Cohen’s Kappa for the 12 EBM principles was 0.652 and for management emphasis (i.e.,
environment or fisheries) it was 0.625. Both are above the “substantial” agreement level (Landis
and Koch 1977) indicating a reproducible coding scheme. To standardize data across meeting
durations, I calculated the total proportion that each EBM principle was discussed per meeting.
Additionally, I calculated the proportion that each EBM principle had an environmental or
fisheries focus per meeting. I assumed that EBM principles that were discussed in greater
proportion were considered a higher priority than other EBM principles and were a focus of the
meeting as that concept was discussed more extensively. Discussions among management
agencies were assumed to reflect fishery management concerns and decisions.

21

Assessing management priorities
To assess changes in the proportion that each principle was discussed over the study
period (1970-1975), I used Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM-ANOVA) in SPSS
Statistics (IBM Corp. 2012; Gotelli and Ellison 2012). Proportion data was arcsine transformed
to meet normality assumptions. Sphericity was not assumed, therefore Wilks’ Lambda was used
to assess significance of RM-ANOVA (Gotelli and Ellison 2012). Each of the five great lakes
was assessed individually, resulting in five RM-ANOVAs. These RM-ANOVA allowed for
multiple measurements to be evaluated at multiple time points (i.e., 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975). For this analysis, each EBM principle was considered an independent “subject”
assessed over the 6 years evaluated and each year considered a repeated measurement, as
described by the equation:
𝑦𝑖𝑗 = 𝜇 + 𝛼𝑖 + τ𝑗 + ɛ𝑖𝑗 ,
where Îźk is the overall mean proportion that principle i was stated over 1970-1975
Îąi is difference between the mean and principle i per year
τj is the effect of time j for all principles
ɛijk is the error of principle i at time j.
To assess the prioritization of EBM principles discussed for each lake, the mean
proportion that each principle was discussed was placed into low, medium, and high priority
categories. Low priority EBM principles were the four least discussed proportions. High priority
EBM principles were the four most discussed principles. Medium priority EBM principles were
the middle four EBM principles that were discussed but were not a high or low priority.

22

Assessing the emphasis of EBM principles
Paired t-tests compared proportion of fishery emphasis to environmental emphasis within
each principle, within each lake to assess if there was a difference in the emphasis (i.e.,
environmental or fishery) for each EBM principle, relating the principle to the structure and
dynamics of each lake (IBM Corp. 2012; Sokal and Rohlf 2012). Proportions of EBM principles
with an environmental emphasis and fishery emphasis were arcsine transformed to meet
normality assumptions. Paired t-tests were used to evaluate the emphasis of EBM principles for
each of the Great Lakes.

RESULTS
Management priorities
For all lakes no change over time was detected in the proportion that each EBM principle
was discussed. Changes in the portions of EBM principles might have occurred during this time
period although there is a potential that no change was detected due to the small sample size. A
lack of a significant difference of EBM principle proportions during the study period suggested
that management priorities may have remained constant through the study period and the
proportions may be valid reflections of management priorities at that time.
Management discussions at Lake Committee meetings prioritized similar management
principles. The ecosystem-based management principles, data collection, and management
evaluation were considered high priority EBM principles among all lakes. Adaptive
management, organizational change, and sustainability were commonly low priority EBM
principles rarely discussed for most of the lakes. All low, medium, and high prioritizations for
EBM principle per each lake are listed in Table 2.

23

Table 2. Priority level for each of the 12 ecosystem-based management (EBM) principles
(Grumbine 1994; Christensen et al. 1996) for Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and
Superior, as determined by the standardized proportions of the discussions at Great Lakes
Fishery Commission Lake Committee meetings during 1970-1975. The EBM principle humans
embedded in nature was shortened to humans in nature. Within each priority category, principles
are alphabetized and do not denote rank order.
Lake

Low Priority

Medium Priority

High Priority

Erie

Adaptive Management
Dynamic Ecosystems
Organizational Change
Sustainability

Ecological Integrity
Ecosystem Boundaries
Hierarchical Context
Human Values

Data Collection
Humans in Nature
Interagency Cooperation
Management Evaluation

Huron

Dynamic Ecosystems
Interagency Cooperation
Organizational Change
Sustainability

Adaptive Management
Hierarchical Context
Humans in Nature
Human Values

Data Collection
Ecological Integrity
Ecosystem Boundaries
Management Evaluation

Ecosystem Boundaries
Human Values
Hierarchical Context
Interagency Cooperation

Data Collection
Ecological Integrity
Humans in Nature
Management Evaluation

Ontario

Adaptive Management
Dynamic Ecosystems
Ecosystem Boundaries
Sustainability

Hierarchical Context
Humans in Nature
Human Values
Organizational Change

Data Collection
Ecological Integrity
Interagency Cooperation
Management Evaluation

Superior

Adaptive Management
Dynamic Ecosystems
Organizational Change
Sustainability

Human Values
Interagency Cooperation
Ecological Integrity
Ecosystem Boundaries

Data Collection
Hierarchical Context
Humans in Nature
Management Evaluation

Dynamic Ecosystems
Adaptive Management
Organizational Change
Michigan Sustainability

24

Typical focus of EBM principles
EBM principles discussed at Lake Committee meetings typically had a stronger fishery
focus than environmental focus. For example, the following statement was coded as ecological
boundaries with an environmental focus:
“Coho movement and recapture studies would be increased. Greater amounts of
gillnet would be fished and different methods of sampling tried. The direction
and strength of water currents would be studied in relation to water temperature
in an attempt to predict where major concentrations of Coho would be at
different times in the year.” (Lake Erie Committee meeting 1970).
The following statement was coded as ecological boundaries with a fishery focus:
“Electrophoresis techniques to distinguish sub-species of walleye or walleye of
different origin were being tested and one year's collection of data as being
assessed”. (Lake Erie Committee meeting 1970).
The former statement included considerations of the boundaries of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) movement in relation to water characteristics. The latter statement focused on defining
fishery stocks and boundaries based only on the fish species, walleye (Sander vitreus).
Data collection, dynamic ecosystems, ecological boundaries, human values, and humans
embedded in nature were often discussed with a fishery emphasis in the Lake Erie Committee
meetings. There was a significantly higher environmental emphasis than fisheries emphasis
during Lake Erie Committee meetings for ecological integrity (Figure 2). Lake Erie Committee
meetings were the only Lake Committee meetings to have an EBM principle with a higher
environmental emphasis than fisheries emphasis. Adaptive management, data collection,
ecological boundaries, interagency cooperation, and management evaluation were discussed with

25

a fishery emphasis in the Lake Huron Committee meetings (Figure 3). Data collection,
ecological boundaries, human values, humans embedded in nature, interagency cooperation, and
management evaluation were most often discussed with a fisheries emphasis in the Lake
Michigan Committee meetings (Figure 4). Lake Ontario Committee meetings had a significantly
higher proportion of principles with a fishery focus for adaptive management, data collection,
ecological boundaries, human values, humans embedded in nature, and management evaluation
(Figure 5). Lake Superior Committee meetings had a significantly higher fishery emphasis than
ecological emphasis for data collection, ecosystem boundaries, hierarchical context, interagency
cooperation, and management evaluation (Figure 6). Across all lakes, two EBM principles,
organizational change and sustainability (refer to Table 1 for explanations), were similar between
a fisheries and environmental emphasis. Sustainability was discussed infrequently during the
Lake Committee meetings and therefore was not a focus of discussions.

Figure 2. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Erie Committee meetings
from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other six EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).

26

Figure 3. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Huron Committee meetings
from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other seven EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).

Figure 4. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Michigan Committee
meetings from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other four EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).

27

Figure 5. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Ontario Committee meetings
from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other six EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).

Figure 6. Mean proportion (y-axis) of ecosystem-based management principles (x-axis; refer to
Table 1 for definitions) with a significant difference in the fishery versus an environment
emphasis discussed during Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Superior Committee meetings
from 1970-1975 (all P<0.05; the other six EBM principles not displayed did not differ
significantly in emphasis).

28

DISCUSSION
All lakes
Cooperation across agencies was evident during all meetings as all Lake Committee
meetings often engaged in discussions among members about data collection and management
evaluation. Gaden (2007) determined that Lake Committee meetings facilitated cooperation
among jurisdictions and natural resource management agencies. Cooperation was necessary for
Great Lakes basin ecosystem-based management to occur as lake ecosystems span multiple
jurisdictions and actions in one jurisdiction can influence the other jurisdictions. Developing a
cooperative environment was a challenge that spanned decades as jurisdictions did not want to
revoke their specific governance power to other agencies or jurisdictions (Gaden et al. 2013).
The collective use of the Lake Committee meetings to discuss data collection and management
evaluation demonstrated the role of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission as a non-binding, binational agency that brought natural resource jurisdictions together for discussion about Great
Lakes fisheries. Lake Committee meetings facilitated cooperation among natural resource
management agencies through routine interactions and fostered cross-jurisdictional cooperation
(Gaden 2007), a necessity as ecosystem boundaries often do not coincide with human-delineated
(i.e., jurisdictional) boundaries (Grumbine 1994; Post et al. 2007).
Across the Great Lakes basin, the ecosystem-based management principle, organizational
change, was often a low priority yet evidence of organizational change occurred as management
agencies were restructured during the study period. Numerous federal, provincial, and state
fishery management agencies were renamed, separated or combined, which reflects changing
priorities that were happening at the time. As an example, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
was reorganized with most functions transferred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

29

Administration and some functions transferred to the newly established Environmental
Protection Agency (“NOAA History” n.d.). Organizational change is an EBM principle because
natural resource management institutions should reflect institutional values and partnerships and
the institutions were adopting larger ecosystem perspectives. As organizations were restructuring
(e.g., combining and dividing existing organizations) and changing their names to reflect the
institutional focus, the organizations were adapting to the emerging ecosystem-based
perspectives of the time.
Across all Great Lakes, low priority (i.e., not frequently discussed) EBM principles were
sustainability, dynamic ecosystems, and adaptive management. Sustainability and dynamic
ecosystem principles were developed after my study period ended as the concern during the
1970s for fisheries management was to recover fishery stocks since environmental conditions
were extensively degraded (Moll et al. 2013), as opposed to a focus on the integration of fishery
and environmental concerns in management decisions. Adaptive management was formally
proposed by C.S. Holling (1978), after my study period (1970-1975), thus this was not a
commonly known perspective at that time. It has been shown in the literature that these three
principles were not recognized before the early 1970s and if there was detection of these
principles, it might be due to incorrect interpretation of the statements. Therefore, the lack of
sustainability, dynamic ecosystem, and adaptive management discussions validated the
framework because these principles were not detected.

Environmental emphasis: Lake Erie
Management decisions or discussions for Lake Erie during my study period mostly had a
fisheries emphasis with the exception that discussions about ecological integrity had an

30

environmental emphasis. Two high priorities discussed at the Lake Erie Committee meetings, in
addition to data collection and management evaluation, were humans embedded in nature and
interagency cooperation. The humans embedded in nature principle, although with a fishery
emphasis, is an incorporation of humans as components of ecosystems, not solely seen as
external stressors. The inclusion of humans into ecological systems is one of the underlying
principle for Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, which is considered as the first
EBM policy in the Great Lakes basin (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 1978). The view of
humans as components of nature was developed in the basin before policies formally stated it,
demonstrating a time lag between idea development and natural resource management policy
implementation.
Lake Erie was at the forefront of developing ecosystem-based management principles.
An ecosystem perspective of fishery management corresponds with the extensive anthropogenic
pollution, contamination, and environmental degradation that occurred in Lake Erie. The Lake
Erie walleye population crashed in 1957 and remained at low abundances due to environmental
and fishing stressors (Hatch et al. 1987). In 1969, the Ontario Water Resources Commission
tested walleye tissue samples for mercury concentrations and found them to be above the US
Food and Drug Administration level of 0.5 Îźg/g, stimulating commercial fishing bans in Canada
and the US beginning in 1970 (Leach and Nepszy 1976; Thomas and Jaquet 1976; Hatch et al.
1987). Due to fishery closures, Lake Erie walleye stocks increased resulting in the production of
strong year classes and thus were able to rebound (Hatch et al. 1987).
In 1973, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission facilitated a meeting that developed a
binational management plan and the Scientific Protocol Committee (SPC) to assess walleye
population dynamics and abundance (Hatch et al. 1987). The Scientific Protocol Committee was

31

binational and therefore matched the high prioritization of interagency cooperation during Lake
Erie Committee meetings. Discussions and advice from the Scientific Protocol Committee was
seen to have influenced the Lake Erie Committee meeting discussions. Attendees at the Lake
Erie Committee meetings occasionally referenced work of the SPC:
“It was expected that procedures developed by the walleye SPC would provide
essential guidelines for the development of perch management. It was generally
agreed that for the moment it would be unwise for the walleye subCommittee to
dilute any of its efforts, specifically towards yellow perch management. The
general consensus reached was that objectives remained unchanged. Many
pressing problems remained throughout the Lake Erie basin, and that the best
that could be done for the present was to await development of an agreeable
management plan for walleyes, and then attempt to apply this to yellow perch
management”(“Lake Erie Committee Meeting Minutes” 1974).
The SPC, as a cross-jurisdictional committee, supported interagency collaboration as
management agencies endorsed and supported SPC decisions.
Lake Erie Committee meeting attendees developed a unique perspective of ecological
integrity through an environmental focus because of walleye mercury contamination, which
indicated a large environmental change was needed to expand the perspectives of fishery
managers to include environmental considerations in management decisions. The walleye
mercury contamination illuminated the fish-water-humans link (Hatch et al. 1987) and, therefore,
necessitated an integrated perspective of all ecological components in management decisions.
Lake Erie fishery managers therefore adopted a novel ecological perspective which presumably

32

led to further development of EBM principles with an ecological perspective beyond the study
period.

Fishery emphasis: Lakes Michigan, Ontario, Huron, and Superior
Discussions during Lakes Michigan, Ontario, Huron, and Superior Committee meetings
did not have any ecosystem-based management principles with a significant ecological emphasis.
All principles with a detectable significant difference had a fisheries emphasis. The strong
fishery emphasis during management discussions for Lakes Michigan, Ontario, Huron, and
Superior can be attributed to fishery management considerations dependent upon each respective
lake.
Lake Michigan fishery managers began stocking lake trout in 1965 (Muir et al. 2013),
and successfully introduced pacific salmon to Lake Michigan before other lakes in the Great
Lakes basin (Claramunt et al. 2013). As Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake entirely within
US borders, stocking decisions in Lake Michigan were not subject to formal objections from
Canada, whereas other lakes were binational and thus could be subject to stronger criticisms
from Canada. Coho salmon were introduced in 1966 and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) in 1967 (Dettmers et al. 2012; Claramunt et al. 2013). Pacific salmon were
introduced to Lake Michigan to reduce invasive alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) abundance and
to develop a recreational salmon sport fishery (Dettmers et al. 2012; Claramunt et al. 2013;
Eshenroder and Lantry 2013). Fishery management was concentrated on stocking fish and
developing a sport fishery, which explains the fishery emphasis in discussions about EBM
principles for Lake Michigan during 1970-1975. Attendees at the Lake Michigan Committee
meetings highly prioritized humans embedded in nature. Fishery managers realized there were

33

anthropogenic stressors (e.g., pollution, contamination) influencing the Lake Michigan
ecosystem, yet anthropogenic stressors were determined to be less critical than fishery stressors
(e.g., overexploitation, nonnative species effects) (Wells and McLain 1972, 1973).
Lake Ontario, similar to Lake Erie, was strongly degraded due to anthropogenic stressors
(e.g., dissolved solids, eutrophication, pollution), and was presumed to be the first lake to have
dramatic changes in fishery stocks (Francis et al. 1979). Yet surprisingly, environmental
concerns or awareness was not detected as a significant discussion emphasis at the Lake Ontario
Committee meetings. Half of the ecosystem-based management principles discussed by the Lake
Ontario Committee attendees had a strong fisheries emphasis showing the focus of the
management discussions was often fishery focused and not fully encompassing the ecosystem
and interactions.
Lake Huron fishery managers during the early 1970s were focused on fishery concerns
rather than environmental concerns. Lake Huron lake trout fisheries were in decline since the
early 1900s. Lake trout populations collapsed in 1935, years earlier than in Lakes Michigan and
Superior due to overfishing (Muir et al. 2013). The rate of human settlement along Lake Huron
coasts was comparably slower than Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Ontario; therefore Lake Huron
had a comparably slower anthropogenic eutrophication process (Berst and Spangler 1972).
Saginaw Bay water quality was poor, compared to other regions in Lake Huron and may have
influenced the decline of Coregonus ciscoes (Coregonus spp) species in Lake Huron (Berst and
Spangler 1972). As the anthropogenic impacts on regions in Lake Huron were spatially varied,
the awareness of incorporating ecosystem consideration in management actions was likely also
varied. Overall, the major stressors on lake trout populations in Lake Huron were overfishing and
sea lamprey predation which explains why environmental issues were of lessor concern in

34

comparison to fishery stressors (Berst and Spangler 1972; Muir et al. 2013). Fishery managers
noted potential concerns for fisheries due to heated water and radioactive pollution emitted by
electric generating power plants, but any potential effects were not measureable at that time due
to the time lag between environmental stressors and any detectable effects (Berst and Spangler
1973). Therefore, there was preliminary evidence of ecosystem considerations for management
actions but there was not data available at the time to influence management decisions. Fishery
managers thus focused on fishery stressors, not environmental concerns, matching the fishery
focus that was detected for EBM principles discussed at the Lake Huron Committee meeting.
During 1970-1975, fishery management in Lake Superior was primarily focused on lake
trout rehabilitation and control of sea lamprey. Lake Superior was not significantly impacted by
anthropogenic pollution, contamination, or agriculture and was less disturbed compared to the
other Great Lakes because regions around the lake were less developed (Lawrie and Rahrer
1973). Furthermore, effective sea lamprey control combined with stocking of hatchery lake trout
had led to increased lake trout abundances (Swanson and Swedberg 1980). In the 1980s, catch of
wild lake trout surpassed the catch of stocked trout demonstrating successful natural recruitment
in Lake Superior (Muir et al. 2013). Additionally, lake trout rehabilitation in Lake Superior has
also been attributed to the knowledge gained from the GLFC-sponsored Salmonid Community of
Oligotrophic (SCOL) workshop published in 1972 (Bronte et al. 2003). The goal of the SCOL
workshop was to compare salmonid fish communities across different oligotrophic lakes in
different regions of the world to improve understanding of the structure and dynamics of fish
communities in oligotrophic lakes, like Lake Superior (Swanson and Swedberg 1980).

35

Framework implications
Using content analysis to assess ecosystem-based management principles in reports (e.g.,
policy or management documents) or discussions was a useful framework to evaluate the
development and progress of ecosystem-based management. Use of the framework and
comparing the extent of principles discussed can describe the progression of, or lack thereof,
ecosystem-based management principles through time within the Lake Committees. The
ecosystem-based management content analysis framework captured that an EBM principle,
ecological integrity, was discussed with an environmental emphasis during Lake Erie
Committees. The EBM framework also confirmed that the Lake Committee meetings were an
effective forum for data sharing and management evaluation.
Overall, my analysis indicated most ecosystem-based management principles were
discussed (often with a fishery emphasis) in the Great Lakes basin during 1970-1975.
Ecosystem-based management principles were discussed in the basin at all Lake Committee
meetings, but EBM principles were not typically viewed within a social-ecological or
environmental context during this time period. As there was not a social-ecological perspective
for fishery management discussions, ecosystem-based management was not occurring in the
basin in 1970-1975. Yet, the principles were being developed and understood through a fishery
perspective (e.g., ecosystem boundaries based on fish migrations). A fishery perspective of
ecosystem-based management principles later expanded to include environmental concerns when
the fishery perspective was ineffective in developing sustainable fisheries. Expansion of
management perspectives due to environmental concerns was demonstrated when Lake Erie
managers adopted an environmental perspective for ecological integrity during high levels of
mercury contamination in walleye.

36

The use of this framework to assess historical fishery management discussions showed
ecosystem-based management principles gradually developed over time across different lakes
prior to formal fishery and water management ecosystem-based management policies. The
development of ecosystem-based management principles in the Great Lakes basin occurred
during management meetings facilitated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The meetings
supported discussions across jurisdictions which led to lake-wide awareness and understanding
of management implications. The Great Lakes were at different levels of environmental
degradation and therefore had different focuses and emphasis to address management concerns
specific to each lake. The differences between lakes was evident in the different discussions at
each of the Lake Committee meetings. The significant environmental changes (e.g., mercury
contamination) in Lake Erie caused the fishery managers to adopt a more holistic perspective of
the lake through a human-fish-water linkage and laid the foundation for ecosystem-based
management in the Great Lakes basin. Since the 1970s, natural resource and fishery management
has expanded its perspective to include larger scales, global outlooks, ecological interactions and
processes, yet these principles are based on the fundamental roots of the “human-fish-water”
linkage (Taylor et al. 2013) that was developing in the basin in the later part of the 1960’s and
early 1970s.

37

CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN DEVELOPING
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES IN THE GREAT LAKES

INTRODUCTION
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) incorporates abiotic (e.g., physical, chemical),
biotic (e.g., species, communities), and social (e.g., economy, values) components in decision
making, aiming to increase natural resource sustainability (Grumbine 1994; Slocombe 1998;
Curtin and Prellezo 2010). Ecosystem-based management diverges from traditional, sector-based
fisheries management techniques (e.g., single species stock assessment) as it incorporates other
ecological dynamics (e.g., habitat characteristics, food web interactions) that are directly or
indirectly related to fisheries productivity. Because ecosystem-based management differs from
past natural resource management paradigms, the development of EBM principles provides a
beneficial case study to evaluate how new ideas are developed and then incorporated through
natural resource policy and management networks. I used 12 established ecosystem-based
management principles; (1) adaptive management, (2) data collection, (3) dynamic ecosystems,
(4) ecological boundaries, (5) ecological integrity, (6) hierarchical context, (7) human values, (8)
humans embedded in nature, (9) interagency cooperation, (10) management evaluation, (11)
organizational change, (12) sustainability, (Grumbine 1994; Christensen et al. 1996) to track the
flow of knowledge with respect to the development of EBM in the Great Lakes basin (refer to
Chapter 1, Table 1 for EBM principle explanations).
Tracking knowledge flow among natural resource management agencies allows us to
understand how novel management principles (e.g., ecosystem-based management principles)
were communicated and transferred across jurisdictions throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Managers and decision makers in the Great Lakes basin were leaders in the development of

38

ecosystem-based management principles as Canada and the United States mutually agreed on an
EBM approach in 1978 through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement 1978). Understanding how information is conveyed among agencies
enhances our command of decision making as it demonstrates how interactions among groups
affect management perspectives within agencies. Individuals or groups of people are connected
to each other through communication networks among those individuals or groups (e.g.,
meetings, emails) (Frank 1996). The structure of networks can be assessed to evaluate
characteristics of relationships among individuals or groups and how these relationships facilitate
knowledge flow in the network (Burt 1976; Frank 1996). Interagency cooperation, which can be
driven by communication and knowledge flow between organizations, is one of the 12 principles
of EBM as it is necessary to work along ecosystem-boundaries rather than jurisdictional
boundaries as changes or management decisions in one jurisdiction may have effects in
surrounding jurisdictions (Grumbine 1994; Post et al. 2007).
Institutional support (e.g., management endorsement from institutions) is fundamental for
the establishment of ecosystem-based management. EBM is a comprehensive and
interdisciplinary natural resource use and conservation strategy that incudes various sectors,
regions, and viewpoints for natural resource regulations (e.g., water quality and fisheries
productivity) (Imperial et al. 1993; Imperial 1999). For ecosystem-based management goals to be
sustained, institutions need to develop relationships characterized as an “institutional ecosystem”
to effectively and collectively address the causes of environmental disturbances at ecosystem–
scales and –perspectives (Imperial 1999). Binational institutions (e.g., International Joint
Commission, Great Lakes Fishery Commission) in the Great Lakes basin have supported
ecosystem-based management across management jurisdictions as the overarching institutions

39

facilitated communication between jurisdictions. Coordination of Great Lakes fishery
management is facilitated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), a Canada-US
organization that was established by the Convention of Great Lakes Fisheries (1954). The GLFC
was formed as there was increasing awareness of the need to cross-jurisdictionally manage the
impacts of the invasive Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) on valuable Great Lakes fisheries
(Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries 1954).
The GLFC promotes collaborative fisheries management by hosting meetings that are
attended by provincial, state, and federal fisheries management agencies in the Great Lakes
basin. At annual GLFC Lake Committee meetings (i.e., annual lake-specific fishery management
meetings) management agencies meet to discuss previous, current and future fishery
management decisions (Gaden 2007). Attendees at the meetings include GLFC Commissioners
(i.e., four federally selected representatives from each country), GLFC Scientific Advisory
Committee (i.e., researchers that counsel fishery managers; the Committee is currently named
the GLFC Board of Technical Experts), and natural resource management representatives (e.g.,
federal, state and provincial management agencies). The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is
unique as it supports discussions through a non-binding, binational agreement and does not
jeopardize individual jurisdictional management powers (Gaden et al. 2013). Management
agency cooperation with the GLFC is voluntary (Gaden et al. 2008, 2013), although the GLFC is
supported by Canada and the United States and derives influence through federal support.
In addition to Lake Committee meetings, the GLFC has sponsored workshops for
researchers across North America and Europe to develop generalizable theories about fish
communities to improve fisheries management and ecosystem understanding. Proceedings from
the first workshop Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes (SCOL) was published in 1972

40

as a special issue in Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (Loftus and Regier
1972). SCOL bolstered the development of ecosystem-based management in the Great Lakes
basin as it sought to understand human stressors on oligotrophic fish populations across lakes,
particularly the impact of fishing practices, eutrophication, and non-native species (Loftus and
Regier 1972; Regier 2013). The Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes workshop was
innovative as attendees viewed oligotrophic (low nutrient, high oxygen) lakes across North
America and Europe as replicate case studies to assess different stressors affecting fish
communities and therefore was able to assess anthropogenic influences on the lakes (Loftus and
Regier 1972).
The goal of this study was to investigate the role of the GLFC in the facilitation and
development of ecosystem-based management principles in the Great Lakes basin to better
understand the role of institutional structure for collaborative natural resource management. The
two primary research objectives were to i) identify key proponents (e.g., management agencies)
that influenced the development of ecosystem-based management principles in the Great Lakes
basin and ii) evaluate the relationships and flow of knowledge about ecosystem-based
management principles among the proponents through GLFC Lake Committee meetings and
SCOL. I hypothesized that SCOL and Lake Committee influenced the development of
ecosystem-based management principles because these were meetings were forums for
discussions among management agency jurisdictions.

41

METHODS
Data
To identify natural resource management agencies (e.g., Michigan Department of Natural
Resources) and GLFC representatives (e.g., Commissioners, Scientific Advisory Committee,
Secretariat) participating in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission network (i.e., Lake Committee
meetings and SCOL) during 1970-1975, Lake Committee meeting minutes and the publication
abstracts from the SCOL workshop were used to collect attendance data at respective meetings.
Attendance data were collected from the attendance list included in meeting minutes for Lake
Committees and through the authors of the publications in the SCOL special journal issue in the
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (1972).
The GLFC network data were comprised of two modes (i.e., types of data) (Borgatti and
Everett 1997). One mode was comprised of the agency/GLFC representatives, henceforth
referred to as an actor; the other mode was comprised of meetings that an actor attended (i.e.,
Lake Committee meeting, SCOL workshop), henceforth referenced to as a meeting. Each mode
was separated into sub-units, or nodes (Borgatti and Everett 1997), to reflect either an individual
actor or meeting (e.g., one node represents the Lake Erie Committee meeting in 1971 and
another node represents the Lake Erie Committee meeting in 1972). In the network, actor nodes
were linked to a meeting node if the actor attended that meeting. The network was comprised of
30 Lake Committee meetings and each Lake Committee meeting was represented by a separate
node. There were 36 publications in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
special journal issue for SCOL; these data were combined under one node to represent the SCOL
workshop as a single meeting. In total, the GLFC fishery management network from 1970-1975
was comprised of 46 actors and 31 meetings. I assumed if an actor attended a meeting they had

42

exposure to the other actors at the meeting and to the discussions as recorded in the meeting
minutes or content in the publications.
Members of the GLFC Scientific Advisory Committee and Commissioners attended
SCOL, as evident by individual attendance data. Links among individuals that were GLFC
representatives in Lake Committee meetings that also attended SCOL were not captured in this
analysis due to data limitations. These individuals were categorized as GLFC representatives for
Lake Committee meetings and were categorized by their employment organization for SCOL
and therefore the network doesn’t encompass all connections between institutions. For example,
one participant attended SCOL and was recorded as an attendee under University of Toronto but
he was recorded under Scientific Advisory Committee at Lake Committee meetings. The
participant had different roles in the two positons and therefore the institutional connection (i.e.,
University of Toronto to Lake Committee meetings) was not recorded in the GLFC network.
Finding employment affiliations for GLFC Commissioners and Scientific Advisors was not
practicable as employment data from the 1970s was not readily available. In this analysis,
management agency and GLFC representative attendance data characterized the roles of these
actors during 1970-1975, rather than the role of individuals, and provided valuable insight to
institutional roles in developing ecosystem-based management.

Cluster analysis
Kliquefinder (Frank 1995) was used to determine if there were clusters (i.e., cohesive
subgroups) evident in the GLFC network, defined as the 1970-1975 Lake Committee meetings,
and SCOL. Clusters are comprised of actors that more often interact with other actors in their
cluster and have minimal or less interaction with actors outside their clusters demonstrating
either integration or segregation among actors. In the GLFC network, network ties are among
43

actors and meetings, therefore clusters represent groups of actors connected to a group of
meetings (i.e., the clusters are comprised of agencies that attended similar meetings). Primary
groups (i.e., the cluster an actor or meeting is in), as assessed through cluster analysis, informally
influence beliefs and behaviors of members within clusters (Kadushin 1966).
Kliquefinder (Frank 1995) assessed the number of clusters in the GLFC network by
iteratively rearranging the nodes (actors and meetings) till the ties among actors and meetings are
optimized into clusters. Actors in clusters had strong connections to meetings within that cluster
and had fewer connections to meetings in other clusters. Cluster optimization was determined by
the log odds ratio (θ1), which compared the number of ties within and between cluster (Frank
1995)
θ1 =

(presence of ties inside subgroups)(absence of ties outside subgroups)
(presence of ties outside subgroups)(absence of ties inside subgroups)

Statistical significance of θ1 was assessed by comparing the calculated θ1 value to a
distribution of simulated θ1 values. Monte Carlo simulations (i.e., random rearrangements of the
network data) were created and analyzed for clusters producing a distribution of simulated θ1
values. This allows for a statistical analysis of θ1 values to determine if the original data were
comprised of statistically significant clusters or a factor of the optimization method.
To assess the GLFC network structure among actors and their connection to meetings,
cluster analysis was conducted using actor attendance at Lake Committee meetings and SCOL.
Understanding the network connections highlights the collaborative nature of the meetings, and
collaboration is a necessary component of ecosystem-based management. For each meeting, the
actor was weighted by the number of representatives that were in attendance for that meeting to
emphasize actors with more individuals attending and therefore potentially had greater
prominence or influence in meetings. Additionally, high attendance at meetings could indicate
44

the actor viewed the meeting favorably. Cluster analysis was performed based on meeting
attendance in individual years (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975) and based on meeting
attendance pooled across the study period (1970-1975) to assess the institutional relationships
through this time period as institutions needed to collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries to
enact ecosystem-based management. For all cluster analyses, Monte Carlo data simulations were
performed to create a sampling distribution of θ1 to assess the significance of clusters found in
the GLFC network (Frank 1995).

Core-periphery analysis
To assess the actors and meetings that were structurally central (core) in the network,
two-mode categorical core-periphery analysis was conducted using Ucinet6 (Borgatti et al.
2002). Attendance data were not weighted for this analysis as core-periphery analysis was used
to measure the overlap between actors and meetings, irrespective of number of actor
representatives. The core consists of central actors and meetings; actors are closely connected to
other actors through mutual attendance at meetings that were highly attended. The periphery
consisted of actors and meetings that were loosely connected through meetings that were not
well attended. Core-periphery analysis was conducted for actors and meetings within each year
(1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975) and across the entire study period (1970-1975) to
determine if there were changes or trends across years or a trend over multiple years. The
strength of core-periphery relationships was assessed by comparing the density of connections of
core actors and core meetings to 1: the highest density possible as it indicates all connections are
saturated. The density of the periphery actors and periphery meetings was compared to 0: the
lowest density possible resulting in no connections between the periphery actors and meetings.

45

Document Content Analysis
The focus of the discussions at the Lake Committee meetings from 1970-1975 and SCOL
(1972) were determined using content analysis though explicit code rules to assess the content of
the discussions (Stemler 2001; Elo and Kyngäs 2008). The use of content analysis to understand
themes in text is applicable to “verbal material” (e.g., conversations, documents), including
written documentation and thus an applicable method to capture EBM principles in Lake
Committee meeting minutes and SCOL publications (McTavish and Pirro 1990). Lake
Committee meeting minutes and SCOL publication abstracts were coded using 12 a priori
literature-based principles of ecosystem-based management: (1) adaptive management, (2) data
collection, (3) dynamic ecosystems, (4) ecological boundaries, (5) ecological integrity, (6)
hierarchical context, (7) human values, (8) humans embedded in nature, (9) interagency
cooperation, (10) management evaluation, (11) organizational change, (12) sustainability, (refer
to Chapter 1, Table 1 for explanations; Grumbine 1994; Christensen et al. 1996).
The code unit for the Lake Committee meetings was determined based on the messages
(e.g., principles stated) and the document syntax (e.g., paragraphs, bullets) (Rourke et al. 2001).
A section was split into smaller units if 1) the principle that was discussed changed, 2) the
speaker changed, or 3) there were bullets or listed sections as these were independent
components. Coded units were linked to the speaker. The code unit for the SCOL abstracts was a
sentence (Rourke et al. 2001). All SCOL coded units were attributed to the authors of the
respective manuscripts. Statements that were not relevant for assessing ecosystem-based
management (e.g., the start time of the meeting) or did not have sufficient context to understand
the statement, were excluded. In total, 4,051 segments were coded based on the 12 ecosystembased management principles determined from the literature to represent EBM. Two researchers

46

independently coded subsections (n=113) of Lake Committee meetings minutes and SCOL
abstracts to assess reproducibility of the code rules, termed intercoder agreement. Intercoder
agreement was calculated using Cohen’s Kappa:
𝑘=

𝑝𝑜 − 𝑝𝑐
,
1 − 𝑝𝑐

Where po is the proportion agreed upon between the coders while pc is the proportion agreed
upon due to chance (Cohen 1960). Kappa was 0.652, above the value set for “substantial”
agreement (Landis and Koch 1977); therefore coding bias is not likely to influence results.

Influence model
Coded discussions reflected an actor’s views about the 12 principles of ecosystem-based
management during the year the discussions were stated. Actors were linked to the coded units
they stated during the meeting or if they were authors of the coded units from SCOL publication
abstracts. An actor was defined as the management agency or the GLFC affiliation of the
individual attendees. Individuals were assumed to be speaking as a representative for their
agency and discussions were most often attributed to the agency. For example, the following
segment from the Lake Erie Committee minutes in 1970 demonstrated the attribution of a
statement to an agency (Pennsylvania Fish Commission), not an individual:
“Pennsylvania reported natural spawning in Elk Creek Park Run (a tributary to
Elk Creek) and New York spawning in three tributaries of Cattaraugus Creek
(Clear, Big Indian, and Little Indian). Many eggs were noted on the gravel bottom
in Elk Creek with one eyed egg being found and others appearing viable. Some
natural spawning was observed in Young's Creek in Ontario. Natural spawning in

47

other Pennsylvania tributaries might have occurred had it not been for weirs
constructed near the mouths.”
To understand the flow of knowledge among actors as facilitated by the Lake Committee
meetings and SCOL workshop, an influence model was developed based on the actors’
statements. The statements for each of the 12 principles was a proxy for their views about the
importance of ecosystem-based management principles. An influence model was developed to
calculate the extent that interactions between actors (e.g., actor A talked with actor B three times)
influenced the actors’ belief across time (e.g., actor A’s views after three interactions with actor
B). As the discussions were proxies for the beliefs of an actor, an influence model was used and
accounted for an actor’s initial views and assessed the extent an actor’s belief was changed
relative to the actor’s network connections. The network included in this analysis was two mode
(i.e., actors linked to meetings) and thus the actors were assumed to be influenced by their
attendance at Lake Committee meetings and SCOL.
An agency’s views towards each ecosystem-based management principle was determined
by the proportion that the agency stated concepts that correspond to an ecosystem-based
management principle during the Lake Committee meetings or SCOL. Proportions were
standardized to meeting length to account for the variation in meeting duration. To assess the
impact of the Lake Committee meetings and SCOL on an actor’s view of ecosystem-based
management principle, an influence model was developed using the content analysis from Lake
Committee meetings (1970-1975) and SCOL publication abstracts (1972). Ecosystem-based
management principles were modeled independently.

48

𝐸𝐵𝑀𝑎,𝐸,𝑚1975 =
𝐸𝐵𝑀 𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓𝑎,𝐸,𝑚1970−75
𝑚

+ [𝜌1 ∑ 𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑎,𝑚1972−74 × 𝐸𝐵𝑀 𝐸,𝑚
𝑚=1

1972−74

]

+ [ 𝜌2 (Attendancea,scol × EBME,scol )]
+𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛 + 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛,
Where EBMa,E,m1975 is the mean proportion that agency, a, stated ecosystem-based management
principle, E, during Lake Committee meetings in 1975.
EBM Belief a,E,m1970-71 is the proportion that agency, a, stated ecosystem-based management
principle, E, during Lake Committee meetings between 1970 and 1971.
Attendancea,m1972-74 is the mean weighted attendance of actor, a, attendance at Lake Committee
meetings. Committee meetings attendances were averaged separately for each lake (e.g., Lake
Erie Committee meeting attendance from 1972-1974 were averaged separately from Lake
Ontario Committee meeting attendance from 1972-1974.)
EBMm,E,1972-74 is the mean proportion that ecosystem-based management principle, E, was spoken
at Lake Committee meetings between 1972-74. Mean averages for EBM proportions were
averaged separately for each lake, similar to Attendancea,m1972-74.
Attendancea,SCOL is the mean weighted attendance of actor, a, attendance at the Salmonid
Communities of Oligotrophic Lakes workshop.
EBME,SCOL is the mean proportion that ecosystem-based management principle, E, was spoken at
the Salmonid Communities of Oligotrophic Lakes workshop.
Canadian and American were binary variables denoting actor nationality

49

I assumed if an actor attended a meeting the actor was exposed to discussions about
ecosystem-based management principles at the meeting (EBMa,E,m1972-74). Weighted attendance
data were averaged (Attendancea,m1972-74) and standardized proportion of ecosystem-based
management principles was averaged (EBMm,E,1972-74), as longitudinal data (1972, 1973, 1974)
were collinear (highly correlated) if they were separate model terms.

RESULTS
No significant clusters were found in individual years (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974,
1975) or across the study period (1970-1975). The lack of clusters means actors in the Great
Lakes basin were not grouped based on lakes, regions, institution type (e.g., federal, state) or
nationality. Clusters or subgroups within the network can be barriers to collaboration as clusters
represent limited connections among groups, allowing the clusters to work independently (Bodin
and Crona 2009).
A core-periphery structure suggested some actors and meetings were more central in
GLFC network than other actors or meetings. Core-periphery structure was detected in 1972,
with the core density value 0.704 and periphery value 0.047, compared to an idealized coreperiphery structure with core density values of 1 and periphery density values of 0 (Hanneman
and Riddle 2005). A core-periphery structure was also detected in combined years 1970-1975
(Figure 7), with the core density value 0.669 and periphery value 0.049. All the core actors that
were established prior to 1972 (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources was named in 1972) were
also core actors across 1970-1975 as shown in Table 3. Core meetings in 1972 were Lake Erie,
Lake Superior, and SCOL. No core meetings (e.g., uniquely highly attended) occurred in 1970 or
1973, thus no meeting was more dominantly attended (refer to Table 4).

50

Figure 7. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) network of actors and meetings from
1970-1975 and the Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes (SCOL) in 1972 did not have
any clusters although it had a core-periphery structure. Core actors and core meetings were
denoted by colored circles and squares, respectively. SCOL was denoted by a dark blue square
and was determined to be a core meeting. Periphery actors and periphery meetings were denoted
by white circles and squares, respectively.

51

Table 3. Core actors (e.g., management agencies, and GLFC representatives) in the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission network in 1972 and 1970-1975 as determined by 2-mode categorical coreperiphery analysis. An X indicated a core actor. If an organization changed names after the study
began in 1970 the name change was denoted in italics under the name, noting the name the
current name of the organization or the prior name of the organization in 1970.
Actors
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
became US Fish and Wildlife Service
Canada Department of Environment
became Environment and Climate Change Canada
Center for Great Lakes Studies, Wisconsin
Commissioner *
Cornell University
European Institutions (5 organizations)
Fisheries Research Board of Canada
Fisheries Research Institute, Washington
Illinois Department of Conservation
became Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Meeting Observer *
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Ontario Department of Lands and Forests
became Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
was Ontario Department of Lands and Forests
Scientific Advisory Committee *
Secretariat
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
was Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
* No organization affiliation listed

52

1972
X

1970-1975
X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Table 4. Core meetings in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission network in 1972 and 1970-1975
as determined by 2-mode categorical core-periphery analysis. Core meetings during 1970-1975
were marked by X while the core periphery found in 1972 were marked by a dot •.
Lake Committee
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
Lake Ontario
Lake Superior
SCOL

1970

1971
X
X

X

1972
•

1973

X
X
X•
X•

1974
X
X
X

1975
X
X
X

Influence models were individually run for each ecosystem-based management principle.
Beliefs about an EBM principle prior to 1972 were often strong indicators of the actor’s view of
that principle in 1975. Lake Committee meetings were shown to influence two principles (data
collection, interagency cooperation), SCOL influenced four principles (hierarchical context,
ecosystem boundaries, ecological integrity, organizational change), and Canadian actors
influenced three principles (data collection, humans embedded in nature, sustainability). There
were no significant relationships noted in management evaluation, adaptive management, and
dynamic ecosystems or US actors (Table 5), demonstrating these principles were not influenced
during this period.

53

Table 5. Results from 12 separate influence models that assessed an agency’s statements of ρ
estimates (first value) and standard deviations (in parenthesis) for each EBM principle model. Pvalues less than 0.05 are denoted by *, less than 0.01 are denoted by **, less than 0.001 are
denoted by ***.

EBM Principle

LC meetings
(1970-1971)

Adaptive
Management

0.76980
(0.5916)

LC
meetings
(1972-74)
-0.0003
(0.0081)

Data Collection

-0.0168
(0.0357)

Dynamic Ecosystems

SCOL

USA

Canada

-0.0017
(0.0041)

0.0141
(0.0152)

0.0223
(0.0236)

0.0032 ***
(0.0008)

0.0002
(0.0002)

0.0151
(0.0304)

0.1686 **
(0.0476)

0.2538
(0.2105)

0.0036
(0.0030)

0.000006
(0.0001)

0.0072
(0.0067)

-0.0083
(0.0112)

Ecological Integrity

0.3979**
(0.1208)

0.0027
(0.0019)

0.0001*
(0.00006)

0.0049
(0.0445)

0.0374
(0.0683)

Ecosystem
Boundaries

0.16378
(0.1681)

0.0029
(0.0033)

0.0033 **
(0.0009)

0.0735
(0.0520)

0.1533
(0.0820)

Hierarchical Context

0.3875**
(0.0264)

0.0207
(0.0123)

0.0002**
(0.00007)

0.0663
(0.0363)

0.0114
(0.0647)

Humans Embedded
in Nature

0.2113 *
(0.0991)
0.5507 **
(0.1670)

0.0031
(0.0024)
0.0028
(0.0031)

0.0089
(0.0337)
-0.00003
(0.0002)

-0.0048
(0.0348)
-0.0372
(0.0871)

0.0103
(0.0541)
0.2897*
(0.1384)

Interagency
Cooperation

0.8443 ***
(0.3061)

0.0043 *
(0.0018)

0.0026
(0.0032)

0.0228
(0.0359)

0.0325
(0.0572)

Management
Evaluation

0.2981
(0.1571)

0.0011
(0.0022)

0.0022
(0.0012)

0.0716
(0.0761)

0.2115
(0.1223)

Organizational
Change

0.0829
(0.3291)

0.0042
(0.0034)

0.0110 *
(0.0042)

0.00248
(0.0155)

-0.0131
(0.0243)

Sustainability

1.507 *
(0.6347)

0.0005
(0.0129)

-0.0010
(0.0043)

-0.0119
(0.0324)

0.1369**
(0.0503)

Human Values

54

DISCUSSION
From my analysis, it appears that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission facilitated
management agencies across the basin to work as one unit as no clusters were detected within or
across all years (1970-1975). Three types of misfits can occur between natural resource
management institutions and ecosystems: jurisdictional divisions, limited single-sector
perspectives, and lack of adaptability to technology (Young 2003). As evident through the
absence of clustering, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission bridged a jurisdictional
fragmentation in large part through annual Lake Committee meetings which provided a forum
for collaboration for the whole network in all jurisdictions. Collaboration across jurisdictions is
an EBM principle as it is necessary to work along ecological boundaries rather than jurisdictional
boundaries (Grumbine 1994).
Throughout 1970-1975, core actors and meetings were present in 1972 (primarily driven
by the inclusion of SCOL in the network) and in 1970-1975. Core meetings in 1972 included
SCOL, Lakes Erie and Superior Committee meetings. SCOL introduced actors to the GLFC
network by including European and North American researchers and fishery managers. SCOL
was determined to be a core meeting (i.e., highly attended) as it had a high diversity of actors
attending the meeting and attendees had exposure to many institutional views at that meeting.
The employment location (e.g., Toronto, Canada) of the SCOL organizers potentially
attributed to Lake Erie being a core meeting in 1972 as SCOL organizers, Henry Regier and Ken
Loftus, were based in the Toronto area, near the Lower Lakes (Lake Erie, Lake Ontario)
potentially influencing which actors were invited or attended SCOL. As SCOL attendees were
invited, there may have been a bias for the organizers to invite other actors from the Lower
Lakes (Lakes Erie and Ontario) irrespective of the oligotrophic lake focus for SCOL that more

55

directly related to the Upper Lakes (Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron). The determination of
Lake Superior as a core meeting, in conjunction to SCOL, was anticipated as Lake Superior is a
dominant oligotrophic lake that was heavily focused on its salmonid communities and was the
last lake to retain some diversity of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) forms and their natural
Coregonid prey (Muir et al. 2013).
The GLFC acted as a bridging institution that facilitated links between the science and
policy interface cross jurisdictionally, promoting data sharing, conflict resolution, and
knowledge transfer across the various actors through these meetings (Berkes 2009; Kowalski and
Jenkins 2015). The importance of the role of the GLFC in the fishery network is further
highlighted as the GLFC Secretariat, Commissioners, and Science Advisory Board were core
actors during the study period and thus were important actors. The role and position of the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission provided them the opportunity to have a unique perspective of the
management decisions and their impact on the ecological status among all the lakes.
Other core actors (i.e., actors that attended many meetings) in the network went through
organizational changes throughout the study period, potentially demonstrating organizational
restructuring to adapt to developing natural resource management values. Organizational change
is an EBM principle as it is necessary for organizations to adapt to emerging values, and the
complexity of implementing ecosystem-based management (Grumbine 1994). As examples of
such organizational change noted in the Great Lakes basin during this time period, the Bureau of
Sport Fish and Wildlife become a component of US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974 (“Fish and
Wildlife Service” n.d.). The Ontario Department of Lands and Forests became the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources in 1972 (“Archives of Ontario” n.d.). Both the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources and Ontario Department of Lands and Forests were in the core, showing their

56

continued prominence in the Great Lakes basin and GLFC Lake Committee meetings before and
after the organizational change. These reorganizations demonstrate that there was an awareness
by the management agencies that organizations needed to change to reflect that values and goals
at that time.
Across all years evaluated (1970-1975), there were core meetings that occurred in 1970
or 1973. However, each lake had a core meeting at least twice; Lake Michigan has a core
meeting three times. The relative equal proportions of all lakes having core meetings showed
unity of all the Great Lakes as there was no lake dominating the fishery management network in
the Great Lakes basin. The lack of a bias towards one lake coincides with the lack of clusters in
the network which supported data sharing and knowledge flow across the network (Bodin and
Crona 2009).
The impact of SCOL on the GLFC network structure depended on the temporal scale of
the analysis. In 1972, the core meetings included Lakes Erie and Superior, and SCOL. Across all
years (1970-1975), the core meetings in 1972 were Lakes Michigan, Ontario, Superior and
SCOL. Analysis using six years of network data compared to the annual snapshots demonstrated
the influence of the Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes workshop was dependent on
the temporal scale used. Additionally, Lake Erie was considered a core meeting in 1972 using
annual network data but the Lake Erie Committee meeting in 1972 was not considered a core
meeting over the full study period. Additionally, the study period included three years after
findings from SCOL were published, and the influence of SCOL has extended beyond the study
period and Great Lakes region as findings are still referenced in current literature.
Actor views about hierarchical context, ecological integrity, interagency cooperation,
human values, and sustainability were associated with their actor’s prior views that were

57

expressed in 1970 and 1971. The influence of SCOL on ecologically-driven EBM principles
showed that ecological perspectives for management were already present in the region, as
evident in this study. The increase in environmental concerns corresponded to the burgeoning
environmental movement during the late 1960s and early 1970s in North America that translated
into the development of ecosystem-based management approaches for fisheries in the 1980s
(Minns 2014).
Many Lake Committee members did not recall using the Lake Committee meetings to
develop cross-jurisdictional regulations or management objectives, although the meetings were
used for agencies to share information and standardized stocking protocols (Gaden 2007). The
only two significant EBM principles for Lake Committees from 1972-1974 were data collection
and interagency cooperation, as Lake Committee meeting discussions during this time period
often pertained to fishery stocking decisions. Collective discussions at Lake Committee meetings
however is a precursor for higher level agreements that were necessary for ecosystem-based
management to occur. Collaborations and data sharing potentially developed trust among actors
and therefore potentially expanded collaboration in future years and common agreement as to
regulation design and implementation.
SCOL significantly influenced discussions about hierarchical context, ecosystem
boundaries, ecological integrity, and organizational change. Hierarchical context, ecosystem
boundaries, ecological integrity were ecologically focused and the motivation of SCOL was to
assess anthropogenic stressors on fish communities (Loftus and Regier 1972; Regier 2013). The
impact of SCOL on organizational change was unexpected as this was not a stated focus of
SCOL and it likely occurred due to the influx of new researchers and their ideas into the Great
Lakes Basin management network. It was expected that there would be a time lag in

58

organizations restructuring or re-organizing after new EBM principles were implemented.
Increased discussions of the EBM principle organizational change after attendance at SCOL may
be attributed to the influence of other actors that were introduced to the network from outside the
basin.
The spread of knowledge due to Lake Committee meetings and SCOL demonstrated that
the GLFC facilitated the development of ecosystem-based management through hosting
meetings for fishery management agencies across Great Lakes basin jurisdictions. During 19701975, ecosystem-based management principles were developing in the basin and knowledge was
spread among attendees at the Lake Committee meetings and SCOL. Lake Committees meeting
from 1970-1975 and SCOL were shown to collectively influence change in the GLFC network
through their different roles and influenced the development of different EBM principles.
Collectively, the Lake Committees and SCOL were important for the development of
different EBM strategies in the Great Lakes basin. Lake Committees were composed of
management agency representatives, whereas SCOL included academics and researchers from
North America and Europe and thus the influence of SCOL was different from the influence of
the Lake Committee meetings. Across all influence models, if a principle was significantly
discussed in Lake Committees 1972-1974 it was not significantly related to discussions at
SCOL; the reverse is also true – any principle that was significantly related to SCOL discussions
was not significantly related to Lake Committee meetings from 1972-1974, showing there were
different impacts among Lake Committee meetings and SCOL.
The study period captured a quick snapshot after the SCOL workshop yet further
integration of SCOL findings into Great Lakes fisheries management programs was presumed to
have had a time lag. Discussions held during SCOL influenced the actors that attended the

59

workshop and the impact of those changes to other actors that did not attend SCOL was delayed.
The different influences of SCOL and Lake Committees demonstrated the different roles each
meeting type has in the network, related to the different actors that were in attendance, and
presumably demonstrated a time lag in knowledge diffusion.
In 1981, the GLFC and Great Lakes management agencies adopted A Joint Strategic Plan
for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, henceforth referred to as “Joint Strategic Plan”. The
Joint Strategic Plan was conceived by management agencies and the GLFC as there was an
awareness of the need to more actively manage fishery restoration in the basin (Gaden et al.
2008). The Joint Strategic Plan further outlined the role of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
in coordinating fishery management to support ecosystem-based management. Fishery
management agencies can be viewed within three “pillars” (overlapping jurisdictional entities) of
Great Lakes fishery management agencies: (1) State, Provincial, Tribal Management; (2) the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission; (3) Federal Legislated Mandates (Gaden et al. 2008). The
GLFC structure has evolved to a hierarchical structure allowing for management agency and
research to be incorporated at multiple levels. The evolution of the GLFC structure reflects the
flexibility and coordination role of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission through time and its
important role as a bridging institution in the basin that resulted in the spread of knowledge of
EBM principles.

60

SYNTHESIS

My thesis demonstrated that development of ecosystem-based management occurred in
the Great Lakes basin through meetings facilitated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Largely, the principles of ecosystem-based management were developing in the basin in the early
1970s under a fisheries perspective, rather than an ecological perspective, before the formal
implementation of ecosystem-based management in the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. At this time the International Joint Commission (IJC) and Great Lakes Fishery
Commission (GLFC) agreed on a holistic approach to managing the Great Lakes basin. Since
Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries was created in 1981, the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission has been formally coordinating ecosystem-based management in the
Great Lakes basin.
The Unites States of America and Canada agreed to jointly adopt an ecosystem approach
to managing the Great Lakes beginning with the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
but principles and practices supporting ecosystem-based management existed before the formal
implementation in the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In the 1970s, fishery
managers linked water and fish within the basin and urged the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
to work with the International Joint Commission to include ecological linkages in natural
resource and water policies (Francis et al. 1979). In 1977, the GLFC and IJC agreed to adopt an
ecosystem approach for management, before the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972
was amended to formally include ecosystem-based management principles in 1978 (Francis et al.
1979).

61

Development of ecosystem-based management in the Great Lakes basin can be attributed
to numerous events, particularly fishery management discussions in Lake Erie in the early 1970s,
and the Salmonid Community on Oligotrophic Lakes (SCOL) workshop which was held in 1972
to understand the influence of humans on salmonid communities in oligotrophic lakes. Lakes
Erie fishery managers adopted an environmental approach, not solely a fisheries approach, in
understanding the lake ecosystems for fishery management decisions. At the time, Lake Erie
fisheries were contaminated and harmful to humans due to environmental exposure of mercury.
The inclusion of environmental considerations led to the development of ecosystem-based
management principles in fishery management discussions in Lake Erie and eventually
environmental and ecosystem considerations spread to all Great Lakes. The majority of
ecosystem-based management principles were discussed at the Lake Committee meetings,
although under a fisheries emphasis and not an environmental emphasis which is necessary for
ecosystem-based management. The SCOL workshop reaffirmed and introduced ecosystem-based
management principles (hierarchical context, ecosystem boundaries, ecological integrity, and
organizational change) in the basin by discussing these principles though management and
research contexts.
SCOL workshop organizers added a diversity of fisheries and aquatic researchers (e.g.,
European researchers) to the GLFC fishery management network through their selection of the
attendees to attend the Salmonid Community of Oligotrophic Lakes workshop. SCOL attendees
discussed a new approach to understanding fisheries as the attendees viewed lakes as comparable
units for study to assess anthropogenic stressors on fish communities (Loftus and Regier 1972;
Regier 2013). Previously, it was common for researchers to view lakes as independent and
incomparable systems (Loftus 1976) and thus there was a limited perspective about the lake

62

ecosystems. SCOL attendees’ discussions were novel as the attendees adopted community-based
landscape-informed approaches to understand fisheries. Furthermore the SCOL workshop was
the first workshop hosted by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and laid the foundation for
other seminal workshops that advanced the understanding and management of the Great Lakes
Fishery community (e.g., PERCIS, Percid International Symposium [Stevenson 1977], SLIS, Sea
Lamprey International Symposium [Fetterolf Jr. 1980], STOCS, Stock Concept International
Symposium [Fetterolf Jr. 1981]).
The emergence of ecosystem-based management principles in the Great Lakes basin can
be attributed to a large degree to the role of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission as a binational
fishery organization designed to facilitate the restoration and coordinated management of species
of common concern between the United States and Canada. The Lake Committee meetings
facilitated the flow of data and management evaluations between fishery jurisdictions enabling
the various jurisdiction to harmonize their management programs leading to greater success of
this basin-wide approach. The Lake Committee meetings, although held in different locations
and occurring on different dates, interacted as one unit. This integration was seen in my study
results as there were no clusters found in the Lake Committee network. Additionally, the core
agencies within the network (highly connected agencies) included the GLFC representatives
(Commissioners, Scientific Advisory Committee) and secretariat; again emphasizing their
importance as a facilitator of fisheries knowledge and practice.
In 1981 the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and Great Lakes basin fishery management
agencies signed A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries to create more
extensive collaborative structure that was built on the Lake Committees relationships (Dochoda
and Jones 2003). The new GLFC meeting structure was hierarchical through the creation of new

63

committees and new committee roles. For example, Technical Committees reported to Lake
Committees that reported to the newly developed Council of Lake Committees. This hierarchical
meeting structure was created to enhance collaboration across jurisdictions through a bottom-up
management process that was informed by fisheries professionals (Gaden et al. 2008), and has
been the basis for the noted successful cooperative fishery management in the basin for decades.
The structure of the GLFC thus has evolved to promote the implementation of ecosystem-based
management as fishery management agencies work across jurisdictions to encompass the Great
Lakes ecosystem for management decisions. Overall, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
facilitated the spread of knowledge through coordinating management across jurisdiction in the
basin and supporting holistic, ecosystem-based management since the 1970s.

64

LITERATURE CITED

65

LITERATURE CITED

Archives of Ontario. (n.d.).
http://ao.minisisinc.com/scripts/mwimain.dll/144/ARCH_AUTHORITY/AUTH_DESC_
DET_REP/SISN%203695?SESSIONSEARCH#hist.
Baumann, P. C., and D. Michael Whittle. 1988. The status of selected organics in the Laurentian
Great Lakes: an overview of DDT, PCBs, dioxins, furans, and aromatic hydrocarbons.
Aquatic Toxicology 11(3):241–257.
Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5):1692–
1702.
Berkes, F. 2012. Implementing ecosystem-based management: evolution or revolution? Fish &
Fisheries 13(4):465–476.
Berst, A. H., and G. R. Spangler. 1972. Lake Huron: Effects of Exploitation, Introductions, and
Eutrophication on the Salmonid Community. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 29(6):877–887.
Berst, A. H., and G. R. Spangler. 1973. Lake Huron The ecology of the Fish Community and
Man’s Effects on It. Page 49. Great Lakes Fishey Commission, Technical Report 21.
Bhavsar, S. P., E. Awad, C. G. Mahon, and S. Petro. 2011. Great Lakes fish consumption
advisories: is mercury a concern? Ecotoxicology 20(7):1588–1598.
Bodin, Ö., and B. I. Crona. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance:
What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19(3):366–
374.
Borgatti, S. P., and M. G. Everett. 1997. Network analysis of 2-mode data. Social Networks
19(3):243–269.
Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Evertt, and L. C. Freeman. 2002. Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for
Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies., Harvard, MA.
Borgström, S., Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona. 2015. Developing an analytical
framework for assessing progress toward ecosystem-based management. Ambio;
Stockholm 44:357–369.
Boundary Waters Treaty. 1909.

66

Bronte, C. R., M. P. Ebener, D. R. Schreiner, D. S. DeVault, M. M. Petzold, D. A. Jensen, C.
Richards, and S. J. Lozano. 2003. Fish community change in Lake Superior, 1970–2000.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60(12):1552–1574.
Burt, R. S. 1976. Positions in Networks. Social Forces 55(1):93–122.
Busch, W.-D. N., R. L. Scholl, and W. L. Hartman. 1975. Environmental Factors Affecting the
Strength of Walleye Stizostedion vitreum vitreumYear-Classes in Western Lake Erie,
1960-70. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32(10):1733–1743.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Penguin Books, in association with Hamish Hamilton, London.
Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antonio, R. Francis, J. F.
Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, and
R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee
on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 6(3):665–
691.
Christie, W. J., M. Becker, J. W. Cowden, and J. R. Vallentyne. 1986. Managing the Great Lakes
Basin as a Home. Journal of Great Lakes Research 12(1):2–17.
Claramunt, R. M., C. P. Madenjian, and D. F. Clapp. 2013. Pacific Salmonines in the Great
Lakes Basin. Pages 609–650 Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management. Michigan
State University Press.
Cohen, J. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement 20(1):37–46.
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. 1954.
Curtice, C., D. C. Dunn, J. J. Roberts, S. D. Carr, and P. N. Halpin. 2012. Why Ecosystem-Based
Management May Fail without Changes to Tool Development and Financing. BioScience
62(5):508–515.
Curtin, R., and R. Prellezo. 2010. Understanding marine ecosystem based management: A
literature review. Marine Policy 34(5):821–830.
Dettmers, J. M., C. I. Goddard, and K. D. Smith. 2012. Management of Alewife Using Pacific
Salmon in the Great Lakes: Whether to Manage for Economics or the Ecosystem?
Fisheries 37(11):495–501.
Dochoda, M. R., and M. L. Jones. 2003. Managing Great Lakes Fisheries under Multiple and
Diverse Authorities. Toledo Journal of Great Lakes’ Law, Science & Policy 5:405–426.
Elo, S., and H. Kyngäs. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 62(1):107–115.

67

Eshenroder, R. L., and B. F. Lantry. 2013. Recent Changes in Successional State of the DeepWater Fish Communities of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario and Management
Implications. Pages 137–166 Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management. Michigan
State University Press.
Fetterolf Jr., C. M. 1980. Why a Great Lakes Fishery Commission and Why a Sea Lamprey
International Symposium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
37(11):1588–1593.
Fetterolf Jr., C. M. 1981. Stock Concept International Symposium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 38(12):iii–v.
Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). https://www.fws.gov/help/about_us.html.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological
Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30(1):441–473.
Forbes, S. A. 1887. The Lake as a Microcosm. Pages 77–87 Bulletin of the Scientific
Association. Peoria, Peoroa, Illinois.
Forbes, S. A. 1925. The Lake as a Microcosm. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin
15(9):535–550.
Francis, G. R. 1988. Institutions and Ecosystem Redevelopment in Great Lakes America with
Reference to Baltic Europe. Ambio 17(2):106–111.
Francis, G. R., J. J. Magnuson, H. A. Regier, and D. R. Talhelm. 1979. Rehabilitating Great
Lakes Ecosystems. Page 107. Technical Report 37.
Frank, K. A. 1995. Identifying cohesive subgroups. Social Networks 17(1):27–56.
Frank, K. A. 1996. Mapping interactions within and between cohesive subgroups. Social
Networks 18(2):93–119.
Gaden, M. E. 2007. Bridging jurisdictional divides: Collective action through a Joint Strategic
Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ph.D., University of Michigan, United
States -- Michigan.
Gaden, M., C. Goddard, and J. Read. 2013. Multi-Jurisdictional Management of the Shared
Great Lakes Fishery: Transcending Conflict and Diffuse Political Authority. Pages 305–
338 Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management. Michigan State University Press.
Gaden, M., C. Krueger, C. Goddard, and G. Barnhart. 2008. A Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of Great Lakes fisheries: A cooperative regime in a multi-jurisdictional
setting. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 11(1):50–60.
GLFC. 1981. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries.

68

Gotelli, N. J., and A. M. Ellison. 2012. A Primer of Ecological Statistics2 edition. Sinauer
Associates is an imprint of Oxford University Press, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 1972.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 1978.
Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What Is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27–38.
Grumbine, R. E. 1997. Reflections on “What is Ecosystem Management?” Conservation Biology
11(1):41–47.
Hanneman, R. A., and M. Riddle. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. University of
California, Riverside, Riverside, CA.
Harris, H. j., P. e. Sager, C. j. Yarbrough, and H. j. Day. 1987. Evolution of Water Resource
Management: A Laurentian Great Lakes Case Study. International Journal of
Environmental Studies 29(1):53.
Hartig, J. H., and J. R. M. Kelso. 1998. Fish habitat rehabilitation and conservation in the Great
Lakes: Moving from opportunism to scientifically defensible management. Pages 324–
334 in L. R. Benaka, editor. Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. Amer
Fisheries Soc, Bethesda.
Hartig, J. H., R. L. Thomas, and E. Iwachewski. 1996. Lessons from practical application of an
ecosystem approach in management of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Lakes & Reservoirs:
Research & Management 2(3–4):137–145.
Hatch, R. W., S. J. Nepszy, K. M. Muth, and C. T. Baker. 1987. Dynamics of the Recovery of
the Western Lake Erie Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) Stock. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44(S2):s15–s22.
Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1969. Eutrophication, Past and Present. Page Eutrophication: Causes,
Consequences, Correctives; Proceedings of a Symposium. National Academies.
IBM Corp. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY.
Imperial, M. T. 1999. Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based Management: The
Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management
24(4):449–465.
Imperial, M. T., T. Hennessey, and D. Robadue Jr. 1993. The evolution of adaptive management
for estuarine ecosystems: the National Estuary Program and its precursors. Ocean &
Coastal Management 20(2):147–180.

69

Jennings, S., A. D. M. Smith, E. A. Fulton, and D. C. Smith. 2014. The ecosystem approach to
fisheries: management at the dynamic interface between biodiversity conservation and
sustainable use. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1322(1):48–60.
Joint Strategic Plan Committees. 2017. . http://www.glfc.org/joint-strategic-plancommittees.php.
Kadushin, C. 1966. The Friends and Supporters of Psychotherapy: On Social Circles in Urban
Life. American Sociological Review 31(6):786–802.
Kingdon, J. W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. TBS The Book Service Ltd,
Boston.
Koelz, W., N. 1926. Fishing industry of the Great Lakes. Page 65. Bureau of Fisheries Document
1001.
Kowalski, A. A., and L. D. Jenkins. 2015. The role of bridging organizations in environmental
management: examining social networks in working groups. Ecology and Society 26
(2)(2).
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lake Erie Committee Meeting Minutes. 1970. Detroit, MI.
Lake Erie Committee Meeting Minutes. 1974. Buffalo, NY.
Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical
Data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174.
Lawrie, A. H., and J. F. Rahrer. 1973. Lake Superior A Case History of the Lake and its
Fisheries. Page 78. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Technical Report 19.
Leach, J. H., and S. J. Nepszy. 1976. The Fish Community in Lake Erie. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 33(3):622–638.
Leech, S., A. Wiensczyk, and J. Turner. 2009. Ecosystem management: A practitioners’ guide.
Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(2).
Link, J. S., and H. I. Browman. 2014. Integrating what? Levels of marine ecosystem-based
assessment and management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71(5):1170–1173.
Loftus, K. H. 1976. A New Approach to Fisheries Management and F. E. J. Fry’s Role in Its
Development. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33(2):321–325.
Loftus, K. H., and H. A. Regier. 1972. Introduction to the Proceedings of the 1971 Symposium
on Salmonid Communities in Oligotrophic Lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 29(6):613–616.

70

Long, R. D., A. Charles, and R. L. Stephenson. 2015. Key principles of marine ecosystem-based
management. Marine Policy 57:53–60.
Lynch, K. D. 2001. Formation and implications of interorganizational networks among fisheries
stakeholder organizations in Michigan’s Pere Marquette River watershed. Ph.D.
Michigan State University, United States -- Michigan.
MacKenzie, S. H. 1996. Integrated resource planning and management: the ecosystem approach
in the Great Lakes basin. Island Press, Washington, D,C.
Mackenzie, S. H. 1997. Toward Integrated Resource Management: Lessons About the
Ecosystem Approach from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Environmental Management
21(2):173–183.
Mandrak, N. E., and B. Cudmore. 2013. Fish Species at Risk and Non-Native Fishes in the Great
Lakes Basin: Past, Present, and Future. Pages 167–202 Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and
Management. Michigan State University Press.
McClanahan, T. R., N. a. J. Graham, M. A. MacNeil, and J. E. Cinner. 2015. Biomass-based
targets and the management of multispecies coral reef fisheries. Conservation Biology
29(2):409–417.
McKinley, C. 1950. The Valley Authority and Its Alternatives. The American Political Science
Review 44(3):607–631.
McTavish, D. G., and E. B. Pirro. 1990. Contextual content analysis. Quality and Quantity
24(3):245–265.
Minns, C. K. 2014. Management of Great Lakes fisheries: Progressions and lessons. Aquatic
Ecosystem Health & Management 17(4):382–393.
Moll, R. A., C. Sellinger, E. S. Rutherford, J. L. Johnson, M. R. Fainter, and J. E. Gannon. 2013.
The Great Lakes:: An Overview of Their Formation, Geology, Physics, and Chemistry.
Pages 3–30 Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management. Michigan State University
Press.
Moss, B., P. Johnes, and G. Phillips. 1994. August Thienemann and Loch Lomond — an
approach to the design of a system for monitoring the state of north-temperate standing
waters. Hydrobiologia 290(1–3):1–12.
Muir, A. M., C. C. Krueger, and M. J. Hansen. 2013. Re-Establishing Lake Trout in the
Laurentian Great Lakes:: Past, Present, and Future. Pages 533–588 Great Lakes Fisheries
Policy and Management. Michigan State University Press.
Murphy, C. A., S. P. Bhavsar, and N. Gandhi. 2013. Contaminants in Great Lakes Fish Historical
Current and Emerging Concerns. Pages 23–258 in W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch, and N. J.

71

Leonard, editors. Great Lakes fisheries policy & management a binational perspective.
Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.
NOAA History. (n.d.). . http://www.history.noaa.gov/legacy/noaahistory_7.html.
Pikitch, E. K. 2004. ECOLOGY: Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management. Science
305(5682):346–347.
Post, D. M., M. W. Doyle, J. L. Sabo, and J. C. Finlay. 2007. The problem of boundaries in
defining ecosystems: A potential landmine for uniting geomorphology and ecology.
Geomorphology 89(1–2):111–126.
Regier, H. A. 2013. Perspectives on an ecosystem approach to ecogenic challenges in the Great
Laurentian Basin and beyond. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 16(1):6–19.
Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. van Asselt. 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition
management in public policy. Foresight 3(1):15–31.
Rourke, L., T. Anderson, D. R. Garrison, and W. Archer. 2001. Methodological Issues in the
Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education (IJAIED) 12:8–22.
Slocombe, D. S. 1993. Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management. BioScience 43(9):612–
622.
Slocombe, D. S. 1998. Defining Goals and Criteria for Ecosystem-Based Management.
Environmental Management 22(4):483–493.
Smith, S. H. 1972. Factors of Ecologic Succession in Oligotrophic Fish Communities of the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29(6):717–
730.
Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 2012. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in
biological research. W.H. Freeman, New York.
Stemler, S. 2001. An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research & evaluation
7(17):137.
Stevenson, J. C. 1977. Editor’s Foreword. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
34(10):1445–1446.
Swanson, B. L., and D. V. Swedberg. 1980. Decline and Recovery of the Lake Superior Gull
Island Reef Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) Population and the Role of Sea Lamprey
(Petromyzon marinus) Predation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
37(11):2074–2080.
Tansley, A. G. 1935. The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Ecology
16(3):284–307.
72

Taylor, W. W., C. P. Ferreri, F. L. Poston, and J. M. Robertson. 1995. Educating fisheries
professionals using a watershed approach to emphasize the ecosystem paradigm.
Fisheries. 20(9):6.
Taylor, W. W., K. B. Mueller, and J. T. Martin. 2013. EPILOGUE: Fisheries Sustainability and
Water Policy: The Need to Think Beyond the Basin Boundaries. Pages 787–792 Great
Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management. Michigan State University Press.
Thomas, R. L., and J.-M. Jaquet. 1976. Mercury in the Surficial Sediments of Lake Erie. Journal
of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33(3):404–412.
US EPA, O. 2013a, February 22. Summary of the Clean Water Act. Overviews and Factsheets.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act.
US EPA, O. 2013b, February 22. History of the Clean Water Act. Overviews and Factsheets.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act.
Wells, L., and A. McLain. 1973. Lake Michigan Man’s Effects on Native Fish Stocks and Other
Biota. Page 63. Great Lakes Fishey Commission, Technical Report 20.
Wells, L., and A. L. McLain. 1972. Lake Michigan: Effects of Exploitation, Introductions, and
Eutrophication on the Salmonid Community. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 29(6):889–898.
Young, O. R. 2003. Environmental Governance: The Role of Institutions in Causing and
Confronting Environmental Problems. International Environmental Agreements
3(4):377–393.

73