Status of Restoration Activities in Great Lakes Areas of

0,09

MB

Concern: A Special Report April 2003

47

stron

2225

ID

International Joint Commission

2003

rok

Executive Summary

Nearly a decade after the revised 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed by

Canada and the United States to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem,” the two nations agreed that the worst

areas would be given priority attention. Subsequently, 43 such areas were designated as Areas of

Concern because they contained contaminated sediment, inadequately treated wastewater, nonpoint

source pollution, inland contaminated sites or degraded habitat to a greater degree than the rest of

the Great Lakes. Twenty-six of these are solely in the United States, 10 are solely in Canada, and

five are binational waterways.

Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement directs Canada and the United States,

working with state and provincial governments, to develop plans (known as Remedial Action Plans)

to restore and protect ecosystem health so that the water is drinkable, beaches are swimmable and

fish are safe to eat, among other such beneficial uses. Pursuant to the commitment made in the

Commission’s 2002 Eleventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality and the requirements of

the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the International Joint Commission produced this report

to inform the public on how much has been done in restoring beneficial uses in Areas of Concern.

The Commission greatly appreciates the cooperation and assistance of the two governments in its

preparation.

In many cases, information on remedial action to date, on future activities, and on the restoration

of beneficial uses is unava ilable or incomplete. Moreover, it is difficult to determine the actual

impact of work done in the Great Lakes basin outside of the Remedial Action Plan program on the

restoration of beneficial uses in Areas of Concern.

However, we do know that the general direction toward restoration is positive. While the Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement does not prescribe the means to implement the restoration called for in

Remedial Action Plans, it does call on governments to ensure that such plans are implemented. As

such, the approach in each country is different.

Although a significant level of effort toward Remedial Action Plan implementation has been

observed in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern, much more work remains to be done. For the best

information available on indicators of progress for each Area of Concern, see the Matrix of

Restoration Activities that accompanies this report. These indicators include sediment remediation,

wastewater infrastructure, habitat rehabilitation, nonpoint source pollution control, and remediation of

hazardous waste sites.

The Commission observes that the magnitude of restoration required in the United States is greater

than in Canada, and therefore, the resources allocated to remediation tend to reflect this distinction.

The findings of the Commission are as follows.

1. Two Areas of Concern in Canada have been delisted, and two Areas of Concern, one in Canada

and one in the United States, are recognized as being Areas of Concern in a Recovery Stage.

2. In Canada, work to remediate sediment has taken place or is ongoing in two of 10 Canadian-only

Areas of Concern. Natural recoverya has been selected as the remedial strategy in seven

Canadian-only Areas of Concern. To date, approximately $33 million (CAD) has been spent on

sediment remediation in Areas of Concern. In addition, approximately $270 million (CAD) has been

spent on wastewater infrastructure in Areas of Concern.

3. In the United States, work to remediate sediment has taken place or is ongoing in 14 of the 26

United States-only Areas of Concern. To date, the United States reports that $160 million (USD)

has been spent in Areas of Concern, and several billion dollars has been spent on wastewater

treatment. Aside from Presque Isle Bay (Pennsylvania) and Torch Lake (Michigan), no United

States Area of Concern has decided whether natural recovery will be its strategy for remediating

sediment. Cleanup of contamination at nonaquatic sites that contribute to restoration of Areas of

Concern has occurred under other programs, such as the United States Superfund program, but

cleanup of these nonaquatic sites is not always specifically associated with Remedial Action Plans.

Allowing natural physical, chemical or biological processes to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility,

volume or concentration of contaminants in sediment.

4. Work to remediate contaminated sediment has taken place or is ongoing in two of the five

binational Areas of Concern in Canada and in four of the five binational Areas of Concern in the

United States.

5. The governments are not adequately reporting biennially on progress in developing and

implementing Remedial Action Plans and in restoring beneficial uses, as called for in Annex 2 of the

Agreement.

6. Key challenges facing the governments in implementing Remedial Action Plans and restoring

beneficial uses are:

· securing the resources to implement the plans;

· identifying accountability and responsibility;

· defining restoration targets where the y do not exist;

· setting priorities; and

· monitoring recovery.

7. Information gaps on what has been implemented and what needs to be done limit the

governments’ ability to estimate and successfully acquire resources necessary to restore

beneficial uses in the Areas of Concern.

8. Many Areas of Concern, particularly those in the United States, do not have clearly defined

geographic boundaries as required by Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,

thereby making it difficult to determine a full accounting of restoration activities within the Areas of

Concern.

9. The governments’ management of Remedial Action Plans requires more clearly delineated

accountability and responsibility, however, some recent progress in this regard is noted.

10. The criteria and rationale for selecting natural recovery as the method of sediment remediation

are not clear.

11. Although the Agreement does not use the term, the two governments are recognizing or

designating Areas of Concern as being in a recovery stage.

12. Without clear restoration targets for each impaired beneficial use in each Area of Concern,

particularly in the United States, it is difficult to quantify the specific costs of the remaining work.

The United States government, however, has currently estimated that costs of $7.4 billion (USD)

will be required to address the wastewater infrastructure and sediment improvements necessary to

restore beneficial uses in selected Areas of Concern for which detailed information is available. No

information is available on future costs in its remaining Areas of Concern. The Canadian

The Commission is encouraged by the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency’s

expectation to develop GIS boundaries for each Area of Concern by June/July 2003 government

has estimated a cost of $1.9 billion (CAD) to address these improvements across all Canadian

Areas of Concern.

In view of our obligations, studies and discussions with the parties, the recommendations of the

Commission are as follows.

1. The two governments should document their considerable investment and achievements to date

in order to provide the public with a true reflection of their accomplishments.

2. The two governments should meet their responsibility to formally report biennially on the degree

to which each impaired beneficial use in each Area of Concern has been restored, as required by

Annex 2, Paragraph 7(b), of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

3. The two governments should ensure that monitoring, data support and information management

systems are in place and that the governments soon provide an update of the Matrix of Restoration

Activities to the Commission. The Commission believes that the utility of the matrix would be

greatly enhanced by maintaining it as a living, web-based document available to governments and

the public, and invites governments to help make this happen.

4.The two governments should report to the Commissio n and the public on the criteria and rationale

for selecting natural recovery as the method of sediment remediation.

5. The United States government should soon provide the Commission with a schedule for the

development of restoration targets for each impaired beneficial use in each Area of Concern.

6.Federal, state and provincial governments should ensure accountability and responsibility for

Remedial Action Plan implementation and set clear lines of authority for each of the Areas of

Concern.

7. Federal, state and provincial governments should ensure that maps for the Areas of Concern

clearly define the geographic boundaries of each Area of Concern, particularly in the United States,

and that they identify the sources of degradation.

8. Federal, state and provincial governments should report to the Commission and the public on

their rationale for determining priorities for remedial measures and identify those priorities within and

among the Areas of Concern.

9.The two governments should report to the Commission and the public the criteria and rationale for

recognizing or designating Areas of Concern in a Recovery Stage.

In the Canada-Ontario Agreement of 2002 and the United States Great Lakes Strategy of 2002,

both Environment Canada and the United States Policy Committee identify plans to address

several of these recommendations. The Commission looks forward to reporting on their

implementation.