A Comparison of Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and St. Lawrence River Restoration Plans

Abstract

In the Great Lakes basin ecosystem, Areas of Concern (AOCs) have been identified by federal, state, and provincial governments in locales where general or specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) are not met and remedial actions are necessary to protect or restore beneficial uses. Similarly, two different types of impaired zones were designated in Québec where impaired beneficial uses have to be restored. The federal and provincial governments designated impaired areas in contiguous zones along the river based on the biogeographic regions and the hydrodynamics of the St. Lawrence. The nongovernmental organization (NGO) designated impaired zones in specific degraded locales along the river, similar to the Great Lakes AOCs. In 1985, the eight Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario began to develop Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to restore degraded areas of the Great Lakes. Similarly, Québec's NGO intends to develop plans d’action et de réhabilitation environnementale (PAREs) to restore their designated impaired zones. Both RAPs and PAREs require public participation in the process, but in the governments’ plans to restore designated impaired zones the public is only consulted at certain stages of the process. Another difference is that in Ontario, the governments have formally accepted an obligation through a federal-provincial agreement, to develop and implement RAPs for each AOC whereas in Québec, PAREs have no official recognition from governments. In addition, the Great Lakes RAP process and the two different plans for Québec's impaired zones have developed through three different approaches (iterative, top-down, and bottom-up). This paper compares Ontario and Quebec rehabilitative programs in terms of their respective objectives, organization {public participation, committees, funding) and public information.