Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans: Fostering Adaptive Ecosystem-Based Management Processes

Abstract

Introduction As is well known, the International Joint Commission (IJC) is an institutional mechanism for cooperative problem-solving of water management issues established by the United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. The IJC uses experts, serving in their personal and professional capacities, to undertake independent fact-finding and to provide independent advice for problem resolution. Its processes have compiled agreed-upon and trusted scientific and socioeconomic data, and have interpreted these data in a public fashion in an effort to build broad-based understanding and support for action. In addition, IJC processes are charged to embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach--that is, accounting for the interrelationships between land, air, water, and all living things, including humans, and involving all stakeholders groups in comprehensive management (Hartig and Vallentyne 1989). One of the best examples of the practical application of these processes is the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Program. This paper reviews the history of RAPs in order to ensure continued progress toward the goal of restoring and protecting all uses in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. The concept of Remedial Action Plans Originated from a 1985 recommendation of the IJC's Great Lakes Water Quality Board (Water Quality Board 1985). The Board found that, despite implementation of regulatory pollution control programs, a number of beneficial uses--for example, unrestricted human consumption of fish, successful reproduction of certain sentinel wildlife species, and fish and wildlife habitat--were not being restored, and recommended that comprehensive and systematic RAPs be developed and implemented to restore all beneficial uses in Areas of Concern (Figure 1). The 1987 Protocol amending the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) formalized the RAP program and explicitly defined Areas of Concern as specific geographic areas that fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the GLWQA where such failure has caused, or is likely to cause, impairment of beneficial use or reduction of the area's ability to support aquatic life (Protocol 1987). Impairment of beneficial use means a change in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem sufficient to cause any of fourteen use impairments: - restrictions on fish or wildlife consumption; - tainting of fish and wildlife flavor; - degradation of fish and wildlife populations; - fish tumors or other deformities; - bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems; - degradation of benthos; - restrictions on dredging activities; - eutrophication or undesirable algae; - restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems; - beach closings; - degradation of aesthetics; - added costs to agriculture or industry; - degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; or - loss of fish and wildlife habitat. TABLE 1. A summary of the extent of use impairments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Number of Areas of Concern Use Impairment With Impaired Use (N = 42) Restrictions on fish or wildlife consumption 36 (86%) Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor 4 (10%) Degradation of fish and wildlife populations 30 (71%) Fish tumors or other deformities 20 (48%) Bird or animal deformities or reproductive 14 (33%) problems Degradation of benthos 35 (83%) Restrictions on dredging activities 36 (86%) Eutrophication or undesirable algae 21 (50%) Restrictions on drinking water consumption, 12 (29%) or taste and odor problems Beach closings 24 (57%) Degradation of aesthetics 25 (60%) Added costs to agriculture or industry 7 (17%) Degradation of phytoplankton or 10 (24%) zooplankton populations Loss of fish and wildlife habitat 34 (81%) A summary of the extent of use impairments in Areas of Concern is presented in Table 1. …