Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans

I recently had a conversation with a friend about how frustrating it is in university to spend so much time writing papers and projects that no one ever reads aside from yourself and the professor or the TA. A lot of effort goes into these essays, but its not fulfilling work because they're never going to inform anybody or make any changes in the world. After your marked assignments comes back to you, it gets filed away never to see the light of day again or gets chucked into the recycling bin. It might just float around in the electronic space of your laptop for a couple years, until you decide to clean up your hard drive and finally put it in the trash bin.

I've decided that despite the rolling eyes I might get from some friends, I'm going to post parts of a project that I spent many annoying hours writing. At least it will be out there and maybe google statistics will pick up that the topic is becoming increasingly important which in turn will motivate decision makers to move their butt. Okay, that's a lot of wishful thinking and I really have no idea how google works but I hope you catch my drift by this point.

This particular topic was for my Resource Management class last term. I tried to condense it as much as I could.

Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans

The Great Lakes are one of Canada’s most important resources, with 42 million people living in its basin and half drawing their drinking water from the lakes (Podolsky & MacDonald, 2008). They also support 45% of Canada’s industrial capacity and a $100 million commercial fishing industry (Environment Canada, 2010), not to mention the wildlife that calls them home.

The Problem

The state of the Great Lakes is deteriorating. Here's an attempt to list all that threatens the ecological integrity and water quality of the Lakes:

• Canadian facilities releasing and transferring ginormous amounts of pollutants

• Invasive species

• Water withdrawal

• Physical alteration of shorelines

• Changes in land use 

•  Hydroelectric generation

• Recreational boating and tourism 

• Climate change

Effect of climate change: the Great Lakes, including Lake Superior, were nearly ice free during the winter of 2011-12 when historically they have been mostly frozen. Source: NASA MODIS satellite photo from NOAA Great Lakes Coastwatch website

These threats also play a role in environmental justice, a term that refers to the disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences stemming generally from industrial, municipal and commercial operations (Pollution Watch, 2008). A study demonstrates that areas with high poverty rates often coincide with areas where large amounts of pollutants are being released. In the Great Lakes basin, the more toxic pollutants are released, the more incidence of poverty increases in the form of low educational attainment, low income, and high employment in manufacturing.

Clearly, problems related to the Great Lakes are not limited to ecology. As well as the deterioration of water quality and diminishing water levels affecting wildlife habitat and biogeochemical cycles, there are social implications involving the health and well being of humans. This relationship is too often ignored. 

Canada's solution to protect the Lakes

There exists much legislation designed to protect and conserve the Great Lakes, demonstrating that Canada’s plan of action involves a lot of politics. The following is an overview of the Remedial Action Plan.

• Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: The GLWQA was signed by both countries and is deemed as the principal policy for reversing environmental degradation in the Lakes (McLaughlin & Krantzberg, 2011). Its purpose is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem” (Environment Canada, 2001).

• Areas of Concern: Under the GLWQA 42 Areas of Concern (AOC) have been designated, 16 of the sites located in Canada (Environment Canada, 2001). AOCs are characterized by environmental degradation impairing beneficial uses and/or “contributing to the overall degradation of the Great Lakes” (Environment Canada, 2001).

• Remedial Action Plan: An individual Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been developed for each OAC, with the restoration of beneficial uses a priority (Environment Canada, 2001).  Scientific and technical teams are used to “identify environmental problems, determine sources and causes of the problems, involve the public to establish community and stakeholder goals and objectives, and to develop consensus on recommended actions, implementation plans and monitoring stages” (Environment Canada, 2003). 

Case Study: Jackfish Bay

Jackfish Bay has been polluted for decades, tracing back to the operations of a pulp and paper mill owned by Kimberly Clark of Canada Ltd, later taken over by Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. (Stewart & Rashid, 2011). The mill is located in Terrace Bay, ON, and is the only source of contamination in the area (Bowron et al., 2009). It is part of Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan and is now designated an Area of Concern, meaning that “environmental quality has been degraded compared to other areas in the Great Lakes and beneficial uses of the aquatic ecosystem are impaired” (Environment Canada, 2010). 

View Larger Map

Over the years, several changes in policy have reduced the release of contaminants. Previous to September of 1989, treatment of effluent only passed through a primary clarifier (Bowron et al., 2009). In the early 1990s, the Canadian pulp and paper industry underwent process changes to reduce the formation of dioxins and furans. A regulated cyclical Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program was also developed for pulp and paper dischargers. Since the implementation of secondary treatment, biological oxygen demand, phosphorus release, and total suspended solids has been reduced in the discharge. Also contributing to a reduction in contamination is the fact that the mill was closed and reopened in 2006, with a production decrease of 30%.

In 2003, Canada’s RAP Progress Report (Environment Canada) identified six beneficial use impairments in Jackfish Bay:

·      Mill effluent, spills, and sediment contamination have deteriorated the ecosystem of the AOC.

·      Sportfish consumption restrictions are based on a variety of chemicals, including dioxins and furans attributed to mill effluent.

·      White suckers collected from Jackfish Bay prior to the installation of secondary effluent treatment at the mill had an increased incidence of liver cancer.

·      Reproductive failure and elevated contaminant levels in herring gulls have been reported. Sediments in Moberly Lake remain acutely toxic to bottom dwelling organisms.

·      Lake trout spawning habitat in Moberly Bay has been destroyed through the deposition of organic materials and chemical contamination of sediments.

·      Over- fishing and sea lamprey predation have also contributed to the decline of trout populations.

Despite improvements in mill procedures, studies have shown that effluent at Jackfish Bay is impacting white sucker species by affecting their reproductive development (Bowron et al., 2009). Eutrophication and food limitation remains a problem (Bowron et al., 2009). Another study has found that the only beneficial use impairment that has changed over the years is the presence of fish tumors and other deformities (Stewart & Rashid, 2011). The modernization of the mill alone is insufficient to remediate the area.

"Progress" of the RAP. The only change is in the "Fish tumors and other deformities" category. Adapted from Stewart & Rashid, 2011. 

Unfoundedly, Jackfish Bay’s RAP has “recommended no further intervention at this time. Over time the deposition of cleaner sediments will stabilize and physically isolate the contaminated sediments” with an ecosystem recovery expected within 30-60 years (Environment Canada, 2003). Yet it is doubtful that Jackfish Bay will recover on its own if the initial source of its degradation has not been eliminated. 

It appears that Environment Canada’s measure of success for Jackfish Bay’s RAP relies mainly on results. This is troublesome because statistics are not only dependent on RAP strategies:

•  The RAP should not be held accountable for a reduction in contamination that was the result of a change of ownership in 2006, accompanied by a production decrease. If new owners decide to increase production, it would clearly demonstrate that there has not been much progress.
• RAP is likely not responsible for the process changes in the Canadian pulp and paper industry in early 1990s and therefore should not take credit for reducing dioxins and furan release.

It is apparent that RAP progress reports are misleading. Pollution Watch (2005) remarks “the Great Lakes are under threat from pollutants from industry, agriculture, cities and disposal sites. Yet, governments continue to tell a 'good news' story about the health of the Great Lakes.”

Continual Challenges

• Lack of funding
• Constant addition of new issues to the plan
• RAP spans Canada and the US:  the social, economic, and political divergences of the two countries have been shown to create challenges  (McLaughlin & Krantzberg, 2011).  When political agendas conflict, governance is characterized by an uncertainty that undermines the efficacy of management.
• Multiple actors are involved: not only is the federal government of both nations involved in protecting the Great Lakes, but also at the very least “two Canadian provinces and dozens of legislative ridings, eight U.S. states and dozens of congressional districts, hundreds of municipal and other lower-tier governments, dozens more First Nations and Tribes, a diversity of non-governmental organizations and innumerable individual citizens” (McLaughlin & Krantzberg, 2011).

Conclusions

It is generally agreed that the potential of the GLWQA has not been achieved (Podolsky & MacDonald, 2008). In over two decades only 3 AOCs have met delisting targets - a very unsatisfactory record. The large number of AOCs may be too much to tackle at once with the current political and economic conditions. Perhaps a deeper focus on the worst or most sensitive areas would be more feasible.

Another fault is that on certain aspects, such as invasive species, it is limited to outlining needs for research without recommending a program to reduce threats (Barlow, 2011). Concrete guidelines would be more helpful.

Despite the 1978 obligation of the GWQA to virtually eliminate persistent toxic substances, large amounts are still entering the Great Lakes from Canada (McLaughlin & Krantzberg, 2011). There is a need to investigate why the agreement is inefficient and why targets are unmet before spending more effort into elaborating RAPs.

Outlook

As RAPs continue to demonstrate low achievements, it is likely that the project will be repealed in the near future. The present government has already abandoned environmental initiatives, such as the Kyoto protocol, and bringing an end to funding the Experimental Lakes Area directly related to the study of pollution effects on lakes.

The current political climate is alarmingly approaching the circumstances that made possible the Walkerton Tragedy in 2000.  The incident stemmed from systematic irresponsibility in environmental governance, “promulgated by an overarching hostility to any regulatory interference with free markets, as well as specific regulatory gaps that produce environmental risks” (Prudham, 2004). Prior to the Walkerton Tragedy was a reconfiguration of provincial environmental governance, which is re-occurring today with Ontario’s budget plan dubbed “Strong Action for Ontario 2012” and Bill C-38. The recent amendments made to the Fisheries Act do not bode well on the Great Lakes. The omnibus bill may also facilitate the approvals of large industrial projects that could create new AOCs.  Environmental governance must be improved before history repeats itself on a much larger scale: the Great Lakes Tragedy.

Sources

Barlow, M. (2011). Our Great Lakes commons: a People’s Plan to Protect the Great Lakes Forever. The Council of Canadians. Retrieved from

http://canadians.org/water/documents/greatlakes/GreatLakes-0311.pdf

Bowron, L. K., Munkittrick, K. R., McMaster, M. E., Tetreault, G., & Hewitt, L. M. (2009). Responses of white sucker (catostomus commersoni) to 20 years of process and waste treatment changes at a bleached kraft pulp mill, and to mill shutdown. Aquatic Toxicology, 95(2), 117-132.

Environment Canada. (2001, August 13). Great Lakes Portraits. Retrieved from http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/laws/coa/2001/coa-portraits-e.html

Environment Canada. (2003). Canada’s RAP Progress Report 2003. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=D91BD30F-1&offset=1&toc=show

Environment Canada. (2009). State of the Great Lakes 2009 Highlights. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/047996E8-9BE7-4F7B-AC25-59D68A4A9EC6/StateOfTheGreatLakes2009Highlights.pdf

Environment Canada. (2010). Great Lakes Quickfacts. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=B4E65F6F-1

Environment Canada. (2010a). Areas of Concern. Retrieved from

http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=A0270A32-1

Environment Canada. (2010b). Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Retrieved from

http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=A290294A-1

Environment Canada. (2011). CEPA 1999 Guiding Principles. Retrieved from https://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=E00B5BD8-1&offset=3&toc=show

Environment Canada. (2012). Fisheries Act. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/pollution/default.asp?lang=En&n=072416B9-1

International Joint Commission. (2012). Lake Superior Regulation: Addressing Uncertainty in Upper Great Lakes Water levels. International Upper Great Lakes Study. Retrieved from http://www.ijc.org/iuglsreport/wp-content/report-pdfs/Lake_Superior_Regulation_Full_Report.pdf

MacKenzie, S. H. (1997). Toward integrated resource management: lessons about the ecosystem approach from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Environmental Management, 21(2), 173-183.

McLaughlin, C., & Krantzberg, G. (2011). An appraisal of policy implementation deficits in the great lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37(2), 390-396.

Podolsky, L., & MacDonald, E. (2008). Green Cities, Great Lakes: Using green infrastructure to reduce combined sewer overflows. Ecojustice. Retrieved from http://www.ecojustice.ca/publications/reports/the-green-infrastructure-report/attachment

Pollution Watch. (2005). Great lakes, great pollution Canadian pollutant releases and transfers to the great lakes. Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.pollutionwatch.org/pub/Canadian%20Great%20Lakes%20Report%20Final.pdf

Pollution Watch. (2008). An Examination of Pollution and Poverty in the Great Lakes Basin. Retrieved from http://www.pollutionwatch.org/pub/PW_Pollution_Poverty_Report.pdf

Prudham, S. (2004). Poisoning the well: neoliberalism and the contamination of municipal water in Walkerton, Ontario. Geoforum, 35(3), 343-359.

Stewart, R. M., & Rashid, H. (2011). Blending science and public policies for remediation of a degraded ecosystem: Jackfish bay, north shore of Lake Superior, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37(2), 256-262.