John H. Hartig

Implementing Ecosystem-basedManagement: Lessons from the Great Lakes

Under the US-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Program was formalized to identify and implement actions needed to restore beneficial uses in the most polluted areas of the Great Lakes (i.e. Areas of Concern). It was further required that individual RAPs embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach (i.e. an approach which accounts for interrelationships among land, air, water and all living things, including humans, and involves user groups in comprehensive management). Careful review and analysis of the RAP Program offers an opportunity to gain a better understanding of ecosystem-based management for other watersheds, and to identify important principles and elements which contribute to effective implementation. Principles which are considered essential for effective implementation of ecosystem-based management include: (1) broad-based stakeholder involvement; (2) commitment of top leaders; (3) agreement on information needs and interpretation; (4) action planning within a strategic framework; (5) human resource development; (6) results and indicators to measure progress; (7) systematic review and feedback; and (8) stakeholder satisfaction. The Great Lakes RAP experience with ecosystem-based management also demonstrates the need for a transition from a traditional,command-and-control,regulatory approach of governmentalagencies toward a more co-operative,value-added,support-basedrole. Review of RAPs in all 42 Areas of Concern provides compelling evidence that successful application of ecosystem-based management is dependent on broad-based stakeholder involvement in decision making, along with strong partnerships which encourage collaboration, co-operation and adaptability in management actions.

Methods of Restoring Degraded Areas in the Great Lakes

Most, if not all ecosystems throughout the world have been contaminated, depleted or irreversibly altered. Even in our attempts to correct past exploitation, development/redevelopment is still being pursued. Therefore, there is a growing need to integrate ecosystem and social development goals. The integration of these goals, which are often seen as antithetical, demands an understanding of the interrelationships between biotic and abiotic resources and the involvement of industry, government and the public in the management of the ecosystem. Successful restoration cannot be accomplished without adequate knowledge and its effective application through institutional arrangements.

Ecological Benefits of Contaminated Sediment Remediation

Contaminated sediment has been identified as a source of ecological impacts in marine and freshwater systems throughout the world, and the importance of the contaminated sediment management issue continues to increase in all industrialized countries. In many areas, dredging or removal of sediments contaminated with nutrients, metals, oxygen-demanding substances, and persistent toxic organic chemicals has been employed as a form of environmental remediation. In most situations, however, the documentation of the sediment problem has not been quantitatively coupled to ecological impairments. In addition, the lack of long-term, postactivity research and monitoring for most projects has impeded a better understanding of the ecological significance of sediment contamination. Establishing quantitatively the ecological significance of sediment-associated contamination in any area is a difficult time- and resource-consuming exercise. It is, however, absolutely essential that it be done. Such documentation will likely be used as the justification for remedial and rehabilitative action(s) and also as the rationale for proposing when intervention is necessary in one place but not another. Bounding the degree of ecological impact (at least semiquantitatively) provides for realistic expectations for improvement if sediment remediation is to be pursued. It should also provide essential information on linkages that could be used in rehabilitating other ecosystem components such as fish or wildlife habitat. The lack of information coupling contaminated sediment to specific ecological impairments has, in many instances, precluded a clear estimate of how much sediment requires action to be taken, why, and what improvements can be expected to existing impairment(s) over time. Also, it has likely resulted in either a delay in remedial action or abandonment of the option altogether. A clear understanding of ecological links not only provides adequate justification for a cleanup program but also represents a principal consideration in the adoption of nonintervention, alternative strategies. In developing this understanding, it is important to know not only the existing degree of ecological impairment associated with sediment contaminants but also the circumstances under which those relationships and impacts might change (i.e., contaminants become more available and more detrimental). Because contaminated sediment remediation often costs millions of dollars per area, adequate assessment, prediction, and monitoring of recovery would seem obvious. However, experience has shown that this is not always the case, particularly for prediction and monitoring of ecological recovery. This scenario would never happen in the business world and should not occur in the environmental management field.

Peer reviewed: sediment management: deciding when to intervene.

Identification of cleanup options for contaminated sediment requires a solid mix of pragmatism and sound science.

Quantifying aquatic ecosystem health targets

Summary Quantitative, ecosystem-based targets are required to both adequately protect and rehabilitate aquatic environments. To accommodate multi-use of the resource, desired beneficial uses should be identified. This process requires both consensual objectives and technical targets.