Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management最新文献

{"title":"The Rouge River Area of Concern - A multi-year, multi-level successful approach to restoration of Impaired Beneficial Uses","authors":"J. Ridgway, K. Cave, A. Demaria, J. O'meara, J. Hartig","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816","url":null,"abstract":"Citizen outcry in the 1960s led to passage of the 1972 U.S. Clean Water Act. Expansion of industrial permitting and availability of federal grants to municipalities controlled industrial waste and untreated municipal sewage entering the Rouge River. However, many sources persisted – notably wet weather discharges, stormwater runoff, and contaminated sediments. This remaining pollution led state officials to cooperatively craft the Rouge River Remedial Action Plan in 1985. This plan addressed all pollution sources, but was not substantially implemented until 1993 when the federal government, encouraged by Congressmen Dingell and Knollenberg, committed to the Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. The federal government ultimately delivered $350 million that was matched by $700 million in local funds. Efforts have been sustained through multi-year state and federal grants, with additional funding from local communities and other stakeholders. Early focus of the Rouge Project was on untreated sewage from combined sewer overflows, but quickly expanded to address other impairments from sanitary sewer overflows, stormwater runoff, illicit connections and failing septic systems. With major sewage discharges under control, efforts shifted to remediating contaminated sediments and improving in-stream water quality and habitat. In total, over 380 projects were completed by 75 communities and agencies at a cost of over $1 billion since 1988, resulting in improved water, sediment, and biological quality. Prior to the U.S. Clean Water Act, the Rouge River nearly continuously failed to meet water quality standards. After decades of effort and investment, it now rarely violates standards. This miraculous recovery was initiated by a small handful of citizens, facilitated by local municipal leaders, and supported by the federal government. The Rouge River is a model for how a holistic, ecosystem approach to water pollution can result in cost-effective and greater and faster achievement of restoration, while meeting local needs.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"398 - 408"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42131025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Life after delisting: The Collingwood Harbour story","authors":"G. Krantzberg, M. Rich","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1526609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1526609","url":null,"abstract":"The authors of Annex 2 in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement recognized that the federal governments needed to cooperate with state and provincial governments, and ensure the public is consulted throughout the development and implementation of the Remedial Action Plans. This article demonstrates how public involvement in Remedial Action Plans is much more than consultation, that it enables participatory decision-making and capacity building. The story of the completion of the Collingwood Harbour Remedial Action Plan and its subsequent legacy in the form of the Environment Network, illustrates that with the proper effort directed to citizen engagement and public ownership of this process, a legacy of entrepreneurial innovation can be achieved that builds the capacity to sustain environmental recovery in support of enhancing the community and the economy.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"378 - 386"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1526609","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49195664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Revisiting governance principles for effective Remedial Action Plan implementation and capacity building","authors":"G. Krantzberg","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1536501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1536501","url":null,"abstract":"The creation of Remedial Action Plans for the Great Lakes Areas of Concern was an experiment in addressing anthropogenic stress on human and nonhuman uses of the nearshore zones, invoking new governance paradigms. This article examines how positive governance attributes and negative governance deficits can benefit from an adaptive governance approach. More specifically, it explores best practises in governance for environmental management and suggests a framework in which Areas of Concern approaches can achieve adaptive capacity. This research also aims to identify gaps in current governance arrangements in the ongoing effort to regenerate excellence in the Areas of Concern, with a view forward to nearshore governance frameworks under both Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Protocol of 2012.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"470 - 477"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1536501","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46634029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Achievements and lessons learned from the 32-year old Canada-U.S. effort to restore Impaired Beneficial Uses in Great Lakes Areas of Concern","authors":"J. Hartig, G. Krantzberg, M. Munawar, M. Doss, M. Child, R. Kalinauskas, L. Richman, C. Blair","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1539603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1539603","url":null,"abstract":"Since 1985, governments and stakeholders have been developing and implementing remedial action plans to restore beneficial use impairments in polluted areas of the Great Lakes called Areas of Concern. Initially, progress was slow because of severity and geographic extent of the problems, lack of clarity on use of an ecosystem approach, time commitments for effective involvement of stakeholders, evolution of management programs, and need to secure restoration funding. Over time, many of these constraints have been overcome. Presently, as of 2017, seven Areas of Concern have been delisted, two have been designated as Areas of Concern in Recovery, and 18 have implemented all remedial actions deemed necessary for use restoration. Although progress has been made, much remains to be done to restore all impaired uses and delist all Areas of Concern. Notable achievements include: use of an ecosystem approach and requisite governance frameworks, contaminated sediment remediation, habitat rehabilitation, and control of eutrophication. Lessons learned are presented to help complete the cleanup of Areas of concern and help others restore degraded aquatic ecosystems worldwide.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"506 - 520"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1539603","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47626619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Eutrophication in three Canadian Areas of Concern: Phytoplankton and major nutrient interactions","authors":"M. Munawar, M. Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1530895","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1530895","url":null,"abstract":"The Bay of Quinte, Hamilton Harbour and Toronto Harbour are all coastal regions of Lake Ontario that have experienced eutrophication and all have been designated as ‘Areas of Concern’ under the terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. An assessment of the phytoplankton communities in relation to nutrient (P,N,Si) regimes was undertaken during 2015 (Bay of Quinte) and 2016 (Hamilton Harbour and Toronto Harbour) in order to compare and contrast the dynamics of eutrophication in the three ecosystems. Bay of Quinte was found to be phosphorus and silica enriched, but nitrogen limited which resulted in a phytoplankton community dominated by both filamentous diatoms and diazotrophic (N–fixing) cyanobacteria. Hamiton Harbour was phosphorus and nitrogen enriched, but silica depleted with a community dominated by small and large phytoflagellates in addition to experiencing cyanobacteria blooms. Toronto Harbour, by contrast, showed only moderate phosphorus enrichment and no nitrogen limitation, but some silica depletion; phytoplankton was dominated by smaller flagellates and pennate diatoms. Our findings suggest that while phosphorus was a key factor causing cultural eutrophication, other nutrients including nitrogen and silica also had important roles in determining the biomass and composition of the algal standing crop. Future management activities need to consider how the interactions of phosphorus with other nutrients (nitrogen, silica) affect the dynamics of the phytoplankton community in order to promote the recovery of eutrophic ecosystems.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"421 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1530895","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49607465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Use of collaborative funding to implement the Remedial Action Plan for the St. Louis River Area of Concern, Minnesota, USA","authors":"N. French, T. Dekker, J. Hartig","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1527136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1527136","url":null,"abstract":"In the late 1800s and early 1900s, collaborative funding by some of the nation’s leading tycoons led to development of Duluth, Minnesota and the surrounding area. This included Andrew Carnegie, Jay Cooke, Andrew Mellon, J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, to name a few. This tremendous period of growth and expansion included major industrial developments, including grain, lumber, iron mining, manufacturing, rail, shipping and shipbuilding, and associated development of the frontier. Although critical to the development of a vital community, these activities took a toll through unchecked alteration of natural habitat and contamination of St. Louis River estuary sediments. These adverse legacy impacts, which occurred well before the establishment of our current environmental regulatory framework, became well recognized in 1985 when the International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board identified the St. Louis River as an Area of Concern requiring the development and implementation of a remedial action plan to restore all impaired beneficial uses. This commitment to Remedial Action Plans was then codified in the 1987 Protocol to the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The initial Stage 1 Remedial Action Plans for the St Louis River Area of Concern was completed in 1992 with the initial Stage 2 Remedial Action Plan completed in 1995, followed by periodic updates through 2012. However, these updates did not have budgets and action timelines necessary to secure the financial commitments to implement identified actions. Establishment of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in 2010 led to the 2013 Remedial Action Plan update (i.e. Stage 2 Remedial Action Plan) that included a business plan that identified specific actions, timelines, and budget estimates. Minnesota began implementing recommendations utilizing collaborative funding through a partnership approach. Ninety-nine percent of the actions identified in the Remedial Action Plan have been completed or are currently underway. Funding needs and sources have been clearly identified and the project is on track to complete major actions by 2020 and remove all beneficial use impairments and delist as an Area of Concern, dependent upon confirmation of use restoration, by 2025.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"409 - 420"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1527136","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47352364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Habitat rehabilitation in the Detroit River Area of Concern","authors":"J. Hartig, C. Sanders, R. Wyma, J. Boase, E. Roseman","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1536437","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1536437","url":null,"abstract":"Loss and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat is a long-standing issue in the Detroit River. The Detroit River Remedial Action Plan helped agencies and stakeholder groups reach agreement on impaired beneficial uses, including loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and helped mobilize all stakeholders to rehabilitate habitat. Many organizations played key roles, including the Detroit River Public Advisory Council, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup, State of the Strait Conferences, American and Canadian Heritage River Initiatives, Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, and Western Lake Erie Watersheds Priority Natural Area. Accomplishments include: 14 habitat restoration projects on both the Canadian and U.S. side of the Detroit River; 53 soft shoreline engineering projects in the watershed; nine fish spawning reefs in the river, Common Tern habitat in four locations; and many wetland and green infrastructure projects. Based on Detroit River habitat restoration efforts over the last 32 years, the following advice is offered: reach agreement on severity and geographic extent of the problem; practice adaptive management; involve habitat experts up front in project design; establish quantitative targets for project success; ensure sound multidisciplinary technical support; start with demonstration projects; treat habitat projects as experiments; involve citizen scientists in monitoring; measure benefits; communicate and celebrate successes; promote education and outreach.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"458 - 469"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1536437","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48254296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Symmetry and solitude: Status and lessons learned from binational Areas of Concern","authors":"M. Child, J. Read, J. Ridal, M. Twiss","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1521188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1521188","url":null,"abstract":"Areas of Concern are geographically distinct areas within the waters of the Great Lakes that are contaminated to the extent that they were originally identified by the International Joint Commission’s Water Quality Board and later codified in the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as areas requiring remedial actions. Five of the 43 Areas of Concern are binational (Canada, USA), and are located on every river or connecting channel that drains a Great Lake. Implementing an ecosystem approach, as called for in the Agreement, presents unique challenges for binational Areas of Concern due to multiple jurisdictions and communities, and hence greater institutional, program and participatory complexity. Our review of progress in each of the binational Areas of Concern suggests that a binational and ecosystem-oriented approach is underway in the St. Marys, St. Clair and Detroit River Areas of Concern, while the Niagara River and St. Lawrence River Areas of Concern are proceeding on decidedly more independent domestic tracks. Our case study analysis of the Detroit River and St. Lawrence River Areas of Concern suggest that well developed and formal governance frameworks, the establishment of informal networks, and maintaining flexibility within a science-focused approach create conditions better suited to a binational, ecosystem-oriented means of remediation.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"478 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1521188","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43233731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial","authors":"M. Munawar","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1538865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1538865","url":null,"abstract":"The story of Great Lakes protection and management can be traced as far back as the signing of Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 between the United States and Great Britain (signed on behalf of Canada), which dealt with the principles and mechanisms of preventing and resolving disputes about water quality and quantity across the border (United States and Great Britain, 1909). The Boundary Waters Treaty resulted in the formation of an independent advisor, namely the International Joint Commission, for preventing any disputes between the two countries. More recently a binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed in 1972 (GLWQA, 2012) between the United States and Canada (with revisions in 1978, 1987 and 2012) committing to the restoration, protection and use of an ecosystem approach (Vallentyne and Beeton, 1988; Vallentyne and Munawar, 1993). The GLWQA set water quality objectives to prevent the further pollution of boundary waters of the Great Lakes. The primary focus of the 1972 GLWQA was controlling cultural eutrophication by reducing phosphorus inputs from point and nonpoint sources. A major contribution behind the GLWQA was the excellent empirical evidence by Vollenweider et al. (1974), which indicated that cultural eutrophication was caused by excessive phosphorus loadings. The wide applicability of Vollenweider’s empirical relationships resulted in regulations for sewage treatment plants, regulations on phosphate levels in detergents, reductions in nonpoint phosphorus loadings, and establishment of total phosphorus loading reduction targets. Similar abatement actions were also implemented in European lakes (Will en, 2001). Another major scientific initiative adopted in 1985 through Canada-United States cooperation under the GLWQA, was the development of remedial action plans to restore beneficial use impairments in Areas of Concern-AOCs (IJC, 1985; 1987; Hartig and Thomas, 1988; Hartig and Vallentyne, 1989; Hartig and Zarull, 1992; Minns et al., 2011). Forty-three AOCs were identified: 12 in Canada, 26 in the United States and 5 shared bi-nationally. These restoration efforts have been underway for over 30 years, resulting in substantial progress and many ongoing challenges. In 2017, in conjunction with the 32 anniversary of the onset of remedial action plans to restore AOCs, the Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management Society (AEHMS), International Association for Great Lakes Research (IAGLR), Great Lakes Commission, International Joint Commission, and the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge co-sponsored a two-day symposium titled “Restoring Great Lakes Areas of Concern” at the 2017 annual IAGLR conference in Detroit, Michigan. A binational Symposium Steering Committee was established to coordinate the event. The symposium attracted a large number of delegates. Twenty-six papers, originating from both countries, were presented with a panel discussion at the end of the symposium which generated discussion about achievements, ","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"370 - 372"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1538865","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43262027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Remedies for improving Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans: A Policy Delphi study","authors":"C. McLaughlin, G. Krantzberg","doi":"10.1080/14634988.2018.1529433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1529433","url":null,"abstract":"Remedial Action Plans continue to be the principal program to operationalize an ecosystem approach to the restoration of degraded locations across the Laurentian Great Lakes called Areas of Concern. Initiated in 1985, the progress of Remedial Action Plans on balance has been slow and disappointing. The Remedial Action Plan program has been continued following revisions to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 2012 despite very little systematic inspection of its strengths and limitations. Further, the 2012 Agreement calls for a “nearshore framework” with no clarity on the process for understanding place-based governance methods as developed under these Remedial Action Plans. In this context, we conducted a three-round anonymous online Policy Delphi study involving several dozen experts in the development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans from across the Great Lakes basin within government, industry, academia and civil society. Round 1 collected their direct knowledge of the strengths and limitations of Remedial Action Plans. We distilled that knowledge and asked study participants in Round 2 to further reflect on what worked and what did not work in their experience as Remedial Action Plan practitioners. We found an expected diversity of opinion on what ails the program in Round 2, but an unexpected consensus on the desire to move forward with seven governance options that emerged and were ranked by participants in Round 3. Rankings also indicated a consensus that the options were somewhat feasible and likely to succeed as enhancements to the current governance of Remedial Action Plans. Importantly, the results relate to both the structure and attributes of these collaborative processes, and we therefore stress the need to focus on the predominant tendencies and characteristics that underline Remedial Action Plan processes. These findings will have broad significance for evolving place-based nearshore restoration strategies in the Great Lakes and elsewhere as such programs are initiated.","PeriodicalId":8125,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management","volume":"21 1","pages":"493 - 505"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14634988.2018.1529433","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43707049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}