Principles for Review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Linking Watershed Management Plans and Lakewide Management Plans 1.16 Introduction A watershed may be defined as the entire catchment area (drainage basin) that is drained by a watercourse and its tributaries, including land and water with their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties. Within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin, there are 186 watersheds, 80 in Canada and 106 in the U.S. Their drainage areas range in size from 340 to 25,605 square kilometres, with the average of 3,868 square kilometres. This extensive and complex ecosystem supports various human and environmental functions for more than 34 million people. Watershed management provides a common understanding of natural ecosystems—their significance, how they relate to one another, whether they are healthy or degraded, and whether realistic opportunities exist for improvement. Thus watershed management may be considered an ecosystem-based approach to managing human activities for the use and conservation of natural resources in the drainage area. Numerous watershed initiatives are underway or in development in the Great Lakes basin that involve all levels of government, conservation authorities, and nongovernmental organizations. Some are being undertaken pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, but the Agreement currently is not a major impetus for watershed planning in the Great Lakes basin. 1.17 Watershed-Based Planning and the Agreement While the Agreement recognizes the importance of adopting an ecosystem approach to improving water quality in the basin, it does not fully address watersheds and the watershed approach. The link between a watershed-based approach and the Agreement is briefly discussed in Annex 13 (Pollution from Non-Point Sources), which requires the Parties to: “Develop and implement watershed management plans, consistent with the objectives and schedules for individual Remedial Action Plans or Lakewide Management Plans, on priority hydrologic units to reduce non-point source inputs. Such watershed plans shall include a description of priority areas, intergovernmental agreements, implementation schedules, and programs and other measures to fulfill the purpose of this Annex and the General and Specific Objectives of this Agreement. Such measures shall include provisions for regulation of nonpoint sources of pollution.” (Annex 13, 2b). Watershed planning is underway in jurisdictions throughout the Great Lakes basin, but it appears that the Agreement and specifically Annex 13 have not been the major impetus for these planning activities. In contrast, Annex 2 is the major driver for Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) in the Areas of Concern (AOCs) and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). Most AOCs are located in the lowest part of watersheds closest to the Great Lakes (e.g., tributary mouths, embayments, and the connecting channels). The review of the Agreement provides an opportunity to assess the structure and role of RAPs and LaMPs, and how the use of watershed planning approaches (municipal, regional urban, and regional rural) as implemented by various organizations and jurisdictions can be better linked with RAP and LaMP activities, thus providing a more holistic, ecosystem perspective to restoration and protection initiatives. 1.18 Watershed Approaches Workshop 1.18.1 Workshop Intent Because local and regional watershed planning initiatives are being pursued in a manner somewhat disconnected from Agreement programs, the IJC’s WQB convened a Watershed Approaches Workshop in Ypsilanti, Michigan on March 8-9, 2005 to promote information sharing among water quality managers working throughout the basin. Participants also identified issues and challenges in watershed planning across the basin, and exchanged ideas and experiences. The workshop also sought to: • Promote dialogue and mutual understanding among authorities responsible for water quality and watershed planning and management in the basin. • Develop a clear sense of opportunities for enhanced collaboration among LaMP and local/regional watershed planning managers. In this regard, the workshop represented a scoping or problem-setting exercise, wherein the WQB could encourage and promote a more consistent approach to improving water quality throughout the basin. • Facilitate an initial and ongoing exchange of information that can assist the WQB in developing advice regarding the review of the Agreement. • Plot a provisional course of actions (i.e., pragmatic next steps) to nurture opportunities for enhanced collaboration. The workshop sought to gather advice from participants working on watershed initiatives across the basin for the purpose of achieving the objectives given above. The information gathered is intended, in part, to inform the WQB’s advice to the U.S. and Canadian governments regarding their joint review of the Agreement. 16
Watershed-based planning approaches are being applied in all areas of the basin. Key challenges, therefore, lay in fostering greater collaboration between and among the many agencies and organizations pursuing such initiatives and integrating the different approaches being utilized. Accordingly, the workshop sought to examine those challenges and, by extension, explore what initiatives are occurring in the basin, how they are being undertaken in the context of the Agreement, and identify whether there are opportunities for better protecting the Great Lakes system through enhancements of the Agreement. 1.18.2 Workshop Format While RAPs and regional plans developed under the Agreement are important to restore and protect the Great Lakes basin, the workshop primarily focused on jurisdictional watershed programs and LaMPs. The format was developed to maximize information sharing, discussion and interaction among participants, who were invited based on their experience and expertise in watershed initiatives. Presentations addressed federal, state, and provincial watershed programs, perspectives on the LaMP process, and watershed governance. 1.18.3 Summary of Workshop Findings Overall, participants agreed that much more could be done to better relate LaMP initiatives and local/regional watershed planning initiatives to each other. Several participants described LaMPs as works in progress, while others felt that the LaMP initiative has not lived up to its promise. One participant asked if all watershed planning initiatives should be subsumed under a LaMP. Others suggested that initiatives pursued outside of an Area of Concern (AOC) tend not to have much connection to LaMPs. Participants also raised the challenges associated with communicating watershed concepts, including the LaMP initiative, to the general public. Some were uncertain about the purpose of LaMPs, while one participant saw LaMPs as blueprint planning documents rather than for use with the general public. Participants felt that the role of LaMPs needs to be clarified as to how they relate to the public. Regarding the relationship between LaMPs and lower- and uppertier watershed planning initiatives, several participants believe that LaMPs reflect a command-and-control approach. Some felt that fragmentation of authority and mandates forces agencies to focus on single issues rather than integrated approaches such as watershed planning. Overall, the general view was that much more could be done to better relate LaMP initiatives and local/ regional watershed planning initiatives to each other. 1.18.4 Emerging Gaps Regarding Improving Linkages Participants noted key gaps to improving linkages among LaMPs, RAPs, and jurisdictional watershed planning efforts. Gaps were characterized as drivers, flexibility and adaptability, collaboration, research needs, governance issues, funding, and overall water quality planning. Drivers Drivers that influence watershed planning initiatives at local and/ or basinwide levels are: • regulations • nonpoint source pollution • stormwater management • urban sprawl • toxic contaminants • drinking-water protection • flood and drought management • eutrophication Flexibility and Adaptability Watershed planning in the U.S. is largely driven by statute and regulations, as evidenced by the scope and intent of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Several participants commented that regulations limit flexibility for how watershed plans are developed and implemented. The Ontario approach which is less prescriptive and has more latitude for development of consensus approaches and solutions is more flexible than the U.S. approach. While attention to certain issues – among them water quantity and habitat protection – is prescribed by regulation, participants embraced the notion that each watershed must be recognized as different and therefore unique. Accordingly, the watershed should dictate what is required in terms of a focus for planning and action. Flexibility and adaptability in watershed planning accommodates these differences and encourages collaborative efforts across the basin. Collaboration Collaboration emerged as an overarching issue. A common sentiment expressed was the need for improved collaboration between and among all parties undertaking watershed-planning initiatives in the basin. However, several participants shared the view that there are disincentives to promoting and nurturing greater collaboration. Bureaucratic issues, including the potential loss of jobs and competition for funding resources, were highlighted. Inflexible regulatory requirements can act as disincentives to engage in watershed planning, and can act as economic disincentives as well. 17
Page 3 and 4: PRIORITIES 2003-2005 Priorities and
Page 5: Table of Contents Introduction Summ
Page 8 and 9: The Board’s membership includes 2
Page 10 and 11: as a principal outcome of the propo
Page 13 and 14: REVIEW OF THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUA
Page 15 and 16: Table of Contents REPORT OF THE GRE
Page 17 and 18: REPORT OF THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUA
Page 19 and 20: History of the Great Lakes Water Qu
Page 21 and 22: 1.12 Bibliography 1.12.1 Documents
Page 23 and 24: Donahue, M. (ed.) 1991. Inter-Unive
Page 25 and 26: Great Lakes United. 2003. A Citizen
Page 27: Chemical Integrity: The dynamic int
Page 31 and 32: REPORT OF THE GREAT LAKES SCIENCE A
Page 33 and 34: 1.21.2 Remediation and Restoration
Page 35 and 36: Principle 4. A binational scientifi
Page 37 and 38: Annexes 4-6 and 8-10 - A combined a
Page 39 and 40: (1) Analysis and development of exp
Page 41 and 42: would stimulate policy integration
Page 43 and 44: REPORT OF THE COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKE
Page 45: plan for the Great Lakes Observing
Page 49 and 50: Table of Contents REPORT OF THE INT
Page 51 and 52: REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL AIR QUA
Page 53 and 54: particulate matter. These three for
Page 55 and 56: Figure 4. Schematic of HYSPLIT Mode
Page 57 and 58: Figure 6 presents the largest sourc
Page 59 and 60: Figure 13. Model Estimates of Mercu
Page 61 and 62: Figure 18. Conceptual Diagram of En
Page 63 and 64: In addition to mercury that origina
Page 65 and 66: • An ArcGIS interface for process
Page 67 and 68: The models will be refined to incor
Page 69 and 70: (Rossman 2000) that uses water-puri
Page 71 and 72: T Figure 26. Box Plots Showing Meth
Page 73 and 74: The preliminary dietary assessment
Page 75 and 76: Figure 30. Overall Project Organiza
Page 77 and 78: Hoyer, M., J. Burke and G. Keeler.
Page 79 and 80:
Cohen, M., R. Draxler, R. Artz, B.
Page 81:
Georgopoulos, P.G., S.W. Wang, V.M.
Page 85:
Table of Contents REPORT OF THE GRE
Page 88 and 89:
In AOCs where the RAP is centralize
Page 90 and 91:
3.3.2 Leadership and Accountability
Page 93:
URBANIZATION THE COMMISSION’S PRI
Page 96 and 97:
List of Figures 1. Effect of Urbani
Page 98 and 99:
Specifically, the Work Group undert
Page 100 and 101:
to urban settings. Zanders (2005) f
Page 102 and 103:
The results of the GAWSER simulatio
Page 104 and 105:
• Allowed runoff to be concentrat
Page 106 and 107:
4.7.1 United States Professors Eliz
Page 108 and 109:
oversight is available through fund
Page 110 and 111:
Schroeter, H.O., D.K. Boyd and H.R.
Page 113 and 114:
Table of Contents REPORT OF THE GRE
Page 115 and 116:
REPORT OF THE GREAT LAKES SCIENCE A
Page 117 and 118:
HAB outbreak in 1987-88 closed shel
Page 119 and 120:
5.4.3 Municipalities Municipal and
Page 121 and 122:
• A data communications component
Page 123 and 124:
5.8 References Waterborne Microbial
Page 125 and 126:
REPORT OF THE GREAT LAKES SCIENCE A
Page 127 and 128:
and size (Schrank, personal communi
Page 129 and 130:
5.11 Effects In the 1960s and 1970s
Page 131 and 132:
5.13 Health Effects of Toxic Contam
Page 133 and 134:
of residence and multi-media exposu
Page 135 and 136:
diet, including fish as desired, an
Page 137 and 138:
When investigators dosed sexually m
Page 139 and 140:
A new approach to chemical regulati
Page 141 and 142:
5.17 Appendix - Emerging Contaminan
Page 143 and 144:
Current Concentrations See Table 2.
Page 145 and 146:
2005). In marine mammals there is e
Page 147 and 148:
NP and NPEO have been reported to c
Page 149 and 150:
Budtz-Jorgensen, E., N. Keiding, P.
Page 151 and 152:
Hayes, T.B. 2004. There is no denyi
Page 153 and 154:
McElroy, J.A., M.S. Kanarek, A. Ten
Page 155 and 156:
Soto, A.M., J.M. Calbro, N.V. Prech
Page 157:
GREAT LAKES SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Page 160 and 161:
2004 population, assessing several
Page 162 and 163:
cohorts for cross-sectional and pro
Page 164 and 165:
6.3.4 Science and the Great Lakes W
Page 166 and 167:
6.5 Activities and Meetings of the
Page 168 and 169:
6.6 Science Advisory Board and Work
Page 171:
COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH MAN
Page 174 and 175:
document the proceedings of worksho
Page 176 and 177:
• Installations to capture three-
Page 178 and 179:
3. Control pollution from diffuse s
Page 180 and 181:
Policy’s recent report. Navigatio
Page 182 and 183:
7.5 Council Membership for 2003-200
Page 185:
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY BOARD Tab
Page 188 and 189:
8.2 Great Lakes Water Quality Board
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX LIST OF ACRONYMS ADCP - Ac
Page 193:
SHEDS-4M - Stochastic Human Exposur
show all

Principles for Review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?