Michael A. Zarull

Towards defining aquatic ecosystem health for the Great Lakes

The Canada — U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement defines Areas of Concern as geographic areas that fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or the areas ability to support aquatic life. Impairment of beneficial use is defined by the Agreement as a change in the physical, chemical or biological integrity sufficient to cause any one of 14 designated use impairments. In 1987 the International Joint Commissions Great Lakes Water Quality Board (GLWQB) recommended that criteria be developed to determine when ecosystem conditions have been impacted enough to warrant designation as an Area of Concern and when conditions have improved sufficiently to be delisted. Based on scientific input and policy considerations, the GLWQB adopted, in principle, a set of quantitative and qualitative listing/delisting criteria for each of the 14 use impairments. These criteria can be uniformly applied throughout the basin. Further, the GLWQB recommended future refinement of these criteria based on advances in science and public input.

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.

An Ecosystem Approach to Great Lakes Management: Practical Steps

Abstract Limited success of past approaches to managing the Great Lakes, and mitigating anthro-pogenically induced stress, necessitates the adoption of a broader, ecosystem approach. This report is an outgrowth of a 1994 binational workshop which was convened by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada to identify practical steps that could be taken to implement an ecosystem approach to natural resource management and development in the Great Lakes. An ecosystem approach incorporates the interrelationships among land, air, water, and all living things, including humans, and involves all user groups in comprehensive management. Recent attempts to establish national and international ecosystem-based public policy and management schemes have met with considerable opposition. This opposition is based, in part, on a lack of clarity of terms, theory, and intent in the proposal to apply “ecosystem management.” Despite these uncertainties and lack of detailed understanding, there are several, practical steps that can be implemented immediately. This report presents selected examples of these practical steps for implementing an ecosystem approach in eight sectors, which correspond to the breakout sessions used in the workshop. Selected examples include: providing ecological assessments to landowners for protection and enhancement of unique ecological features; incorporating life cycle assessments into all regulatory and incentive-based initiatives to control point sources; and ensuring that all construction and maintenance projects for structures (e.g., breakwalls, piers) address secondary benefits of incidental habitat. Additional practical steps need to be identified and shared at the working level of watershed and environmental management.

Contaminated Sediment Management in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem

Abstract Contaminated sediment remains a pervasive problem to the restoration and delisting in all of the Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Like many other problems, both identification and implementation of ecologically and economically acceptable solutions is complex. Recognizing the scope of this issue and perceiving that limited progress had been achieved, the International Joint Commission (IJC) asked its Great Lakes Water Quality Board to review the magnitude of the problem and what progress had been made in managing contaminated sediment by Canada and the United States. In addition, the Commission also asked for an identification of obstacles to remediation and recommendations for solutions. This paper provides a synopsis of this work and a summary of an IJC workshop held in June of 1997, in Collingwood, Ontario. Six categories of obstacles to sediment remediation are discussed, potential solutions are identified, and a series of recommendations are proposed. A plan of action to further develop approaches to sediment management and to stimulate additional remediation throughout the basin is also presented.

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.

Remediation of Contaminated Sediments in the Laurentian Great Lakes

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system (Laurentian Great Lakes) extends more than 3200 km inland from the Atlantic Ocean to almost the midpoint of the North American continent. The basic character of the Great Lakes was established during the last glacial retreat in North America, some 10–12 thousand years ago (Hough 1958). There are five large lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario) drained through interconnecting channels or rivers (St. Marys River, the Straits of Mackinac, the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, the Niagara River, and the St. Lawrence River). Combined, this complex has a total surface water area of 246,000 km2, volume of 23,000 km3, and total basin area (land and water) of 774,000 km2. These lakes represent one of the largest bodies of freshwater on Earth, containing approximately 18% of the world’s surface-flowing freshwater. The U.S.-Canada border bisects four of the lakes; however, Lake Michigan is located wholly in the U.S. (Fig. 1).

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.