Achievements and lessons learned from the 32-year old Canada-U.S. effort to restore Impaired Beneficial Uses in Great Lakes Areas of Concern

References

• Austin, J.C., Anderson, S., Courant, P.N., Litan, R.E., 2007. Healthy Waters, Strong Economy: The Benefits of Restoring the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., USA.
   Google Scholar
• Beeker, J., Studen, G., Stumpe, L., 1991. The Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee: a model for building community ownership of a watershed restoration plan. In: A.A. Jennings, N.E. Spangenberg (Eds.), Surface and Ground-Water Quality: Pollution Prevention, Remediation and the Great Lakes, pp. 29–41. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Canada and the U.S., 1987. Protocol Amending the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Canada and the United States, 2016. Progress Report of the Parties: Pursuant to the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Chicago, Illinois, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian RAP Implementation Delisting Subcommittee, 2012. St. Clair River Area of Concern Revised Delisting Criteria. Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• CSL International, 2013. Economic impact study: Detroit riverfront. Detroit Riverfront Conservancy, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
   Google Scholar
• De Loe, R.C., Murray, D., Brisbois, M.C., 2016. Perspectives of natural resource sector firms on collaborative approaches to governance for water. Journal of Cleaner Production 135, 1117–1128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, K., Nabatch, T., Balogh, S., 2011. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research 22, 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1999. Niagara River Toxics Management Plan: Progress report and work plan. Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Albany, New York, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2012. Compendium of Position Papers: A Four Agency Framework of Roles and Responsibilities for Implementation of the Detroit River, St. Clair River, St. Marys River Areas of Concern Shared Remedial Action Plans and the Lake St. Clair Management Plan. Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Chicago, Illinois, USA.
   Google Scholar
• French, N.L., 2018. Use of collaborative funding to implement the Remedial Action Plan for the St. Louis River Area of Concern, Minnesota, USA. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Mgmt 21(4), 409–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory, R., Ohlson, D., Arvai, J., 2006. Deconstructing adaptive management: criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol. Appl. 16, 2411–2425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurtner-Zimmerman, A., 1995. A mid-term review of remedial action plans: difficulties with translating comprehensive planning into comprehensive action. J. Great Lakes Res. 21, 234–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J.D., O’Connor, K., Ranieri, J., 2006. Progress toward delisting a Great Lakes Area of Concern: The role of integrated research and monitoring in the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113, 227–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, C.C., Nielsen, E.A., McLaughlin, W.J.,Becker, D.R., 2003. Community-based social impact assessment: the case of salmon-recovery on the lower Snake River. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21, 109–118.
   Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., 1997. Great Lakes remedial action plans: Fostering adaptive ecosystem-based management processes. The American Review of Canadian Studies. Autumn, 437–458.
   Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., 2014. Bringing Conservation to Cities: Lessons from Building the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Ecovision World Monograph Series, Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., Law, N.L., 1994. Institutional frameworks to direct development and implementation of Great Lakes remedial action plans. Environmental Management 18(6), 855–864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., Thomas, R.L., 1988. Development of plans to restore degraded areas in the Great Lakes. Environmental Management 12a, 327–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., Vallentyne, J.R., 1989. Use of an ecosystem approach to restore degraded areas of the Great Lakes. AMBIO 18(8), 423–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., (Eds.), 1992. UNDER RAPS - Toward grassroots ecological democracy in the Great Lakes Basin. The Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., Mikol, G., Reynoldson, T.B., Harris, V.A., Randall, R.G., Cairns, V.W., 1997. Quantifying targets for rehabilitating degraded areas of the Great Lakes. Environmental Management. 21 (5), 713–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., Law, N.L., 1998. An ecosystem approach to Great Lakes management: Practical steps. J. Great Lakes Res. 24(3), 739–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., Ciborowski, J.J.H., Gannon, J.E., Wilke, E., Norwood, G., Vincent, A., 2009. Long-term ecosystem monitoring and assessment of the Detroit River and Western Lake Erie. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 158, 87–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig, J.H. Sanders, C.,Wyma, R.J.H., Boase, J.C., Roseman, E.F. (this issue). Habitat rehabilitation in the Detroit River Area of Concern. Aquat. Ecosyt. Health Mgmt. 21(4), 458–469.
   Google Scholar
• Hecky, R.E., Smith, E.H., Barton, D.R., Guildford, S.J., Taylor, W.D., Charlton, M.N., Howell, T., 2004. The nearshore phosphorus shunt: a consequence of ecosystem engineering by dreissenids in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61(7), 1285–1293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holling, C.S. (Ed.), 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability and Shulich School of Business, York University. 2006. Benefits assessment: Randle Reef Sediment Remediation. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1985. Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• International Joint Commission (IJC), 2017. First Triennial Assessment of Progress Under the Great Lakes Water Quality. Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Isley, P., Isley, E.S., Hause, C., 2011. Muskegon Lake Area of Concern Habitat Restoration Project: Socio-Economic Assessment. Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Krantzberg, G., 2003. Keeping remedial action plans on target: lessons learned from Collingwood Harbour. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29(4), 641–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krantzberg, G., Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., 2000. Sediment management: Deciding when to intervene. Environmental Science & Technology 34 (January), 22–27.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, M.S., Keeler, G.J., 2002. Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to Lake Michigan during the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (21), 4518–4524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelia, A., 2016. Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Life after Delisting. Great Lakes Regional Office, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Manny, B.A., 2002. Habitat protection and remediation, Detroit River. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Manny, B.A., 2003. Setting priorities for conserving and rehabilitating Detroit River habitats. In: J.H. Hartig (Ed.), Honoring Our Detroit River: Caring for Our Home, pp. 79–90. Cranbrook Institute of Science: Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA.
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, C., Krantzberg, G., 2012. An Appraisal of Management Pathologies in the Great Lakes Science of the Total Environment 416, 40–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008. Guidance for Delisting Michigan’s Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Report MI/DEQ/WB-06/001. Lansing, Michigan, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Mostert, E., 2015. Who should do what in environmental management? Twelve principles for allocating responsibilities. Environmental Science & Policy 45, 123–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munawar, M., Fitzpatrick, M., Niblock, H., Rozon, R., Lorimer, J., Kling, H., 2018. Ecology of algal blooms in the Bay of Quinte: composition, diversity and dynamics. Aquat. Ecosyt. Health Mgmt. 21(4), 447–457.
   Google Scholar
• Northland College Water Summit, 2016. The future of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Northland College, Ashland, Wisconsin, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Pollution Probe, 2002. Managing Shared Waters. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Ridgway, J.W., McCormack, F.M., 1994. Rouge River Watershed Nonpoint Source Management: Significant Components of Urban Pollutant Loads - Crossing the Final Hurdles for Achieving Water Quality Standards. WEFTEC, Water Environment Federation. Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Ridgway, J., Cave, K., DeMaria, A., O’Meara, J., Hartig, J.H., 2018. The Rouge River Area of Concern - A multi-year, multi-level successful approach to restoration of Impaired Beneficial Uses. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Mgmt. 21(4), 398–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samy, M., Snow, H. Bryan, H., 2003. Integrating social impact assessment with research: the case of methylmercury in fish in the Moblie-Alabama River Basin. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 21, 133–140.
   Google Scholar
• Scavia, D., Allan, J.D., Arend, K.K., Bartell, S., Beletsky, D., Bosch, N.S., Brandt, S.B., Briland, R.D., Daloğlub, I., DePinto, J.V., Dolan, D.M., Evans, M.A., Farmer, T.M., Daisuke, G., Han., H., Höök, T.O., Knight, R., Ludsin, S.A., Zhou, Y., 2014. Assessing and addressing the re-eutrophication of Lake Erie: Central basin hypoxia. J. Great Lakes Res. 40 (2), 226–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Currency Doubleday Books, NY, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Sherman, K.R., Whittam, R., Cayley, J., 2018. Severn Sound Remedial Action Plan: The friendly little monster. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Mgmt. 21(4), 387–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuchman, M.L., Cieniawski, S.E., Hartig, J.H., 2018. U.S. Progress is remediating contaminated sediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Aquatic Ecosyst. Health Mgmt. 21(4), 438–446.
   Google Scholar
• United States and Canada, 1909. The Boundary Waters Treaty. Washington, D.C., USA.
   Google Scholar
• United States and Canada, 1972. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
   Google Scholar
• United States and Canada, 2012. Protocol Amending the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Washington, D.C., USA and Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, K., Hoffman, J., Bolgrien, D., Angradi, T., Carlson, J., Clarke, R., Fulton, A., Timm-Bijold, H., MacGregor, M., Trebitz, A., Witherspoon, S., 2017. How the community value of ecosystem goods and services empowers communities to impact the outcomes of remediation, restoration, and revitalization projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota, USA (EPA/600/X-17/292).
   Google Scholar
• Zarull, M.A., Hartig, J.H., Krantzberg, G., Burch, K., Cowgill, D., Hill, G., Miller, J., Sherbin, I.G., 1999. Contaminated sediment management in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. J. Great Lakes. Res. 25, 412–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar