Contaminated Sediment Management: the Canadian Experience

2001 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Santiago ◽  
Jean-Pierre Pelletier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Water Quality ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pilot Scale ◽  
Sediment Management ◽  
Contaminated Sediment ◽  
Areas Of Concern

Abstract Since the beginning of North America's industrialization, the Great Lakes have been negatively impacted by the discharge of industrial, agricultural and municipal pollutants. The governments of Canada and the United States have recognized that the accumulation of pollutants within the bottom sediment and the water column has had a detrimental effect on the Great Lakes ecosystem. In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which established common water quality objectives and commitments to programs and other measures to achieve these objectives. This included measures for the abatement and control of pollution from dredging activities. By 1985, the International Joint Commission, a body established by the two countries to provide advice on boundary water issues, identified 43 Areas of Concern where impaired water quality prevented full beneficial use of rivers, bays, harbours and ports. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, amended in 1987, committed both countries to concentrate remediation efforts in these 43 Areas of Concern. This led to the development of Remedial Action Plans to assess and remediate contamination problems. Contaminated sediment was identified in all of these Areas of Concern. In 1989, the Canadian government created the 5-year $125-million Great Lakes Action Plan in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Of this, $55 million was allocated to the Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund for the 17 Canadian Areas of Concern. A portion of the Cleanup Fund was designated for the development and demonstration of technologies for assessment, removal and treatment of contaminated sediment. Since its creation, the Remediation Technologies Program, established under the Cleanup Fund, has successfully performed 3 full-scale remediation projects, 11 pilot-scale technology demonstrations and 29 bench-scale tests. In addition to these projects, the program also evaluated existing sediment management practices and processes.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Langston
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Water Quality ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Joint Commission ◽  
International Joint Commission ◽  
International Joint ◽  
The 1960S

By the 1960s, the failures of research and cooperative pragmatism to control Great Lakes pollution were becoming painfully evident. In 1972 Canada and the United States signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The agreement was groundbreaking in its focus on cleaning up existing pollution and preventing new pollutants, but the International Joint Commission has no authority to force the two nations to implement recommendations. Therefore, when Canada or the United States refuses to abide by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (in its various revisions), very little happens in response—besides calls for more research.

scholarly journals Establishing Climate Change Resilience in the Great Lakes in Response to Flooding

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwendolyn E Gallagher ◽  
Ryan K Duncombe ◽  
Timothy M Steeves
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Water Quality ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
High Water ◽  
The United States ◽  
Water Levels ◽  
Storm Events ◽  
Freshwater Resource

Over the past decade, both the average rainfall and the frequency of high precipitation storm events in the Great Lakes Basin have been steadily increasing as a consequence of climate change. In this same period, cities and communities along the coasts are experiencing record high water levels and severe flooding events (ECC Canada et al. 2018). When cities are unprepared for these floods, the safety of communities and the water quality of the Great Lakes are jeopardized. For example, coastal flooding increases runoff pollution and contaminates the freshwater resource that 40 million people rely on for drinking water (Lyandres and Welch 2012, Roth 2016). Since the Great Lakes are shared between two nations, the United States and Canada, the region is protected by several international treaties and national compacts, including the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). In order to increase climate change resiliency against flooding in the region, we recommend the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) work with Environment and Climate Change Canada to relocate the GLRI under the GLWQA in order to guarantee consistent funding and protection efforts. We additionally recommend expansion of both agreements in their scope and long-term commitments to engender cooperative efforts to protect the Great Lakes against climate change.

Assessing the Role of Integrated Research and Monitoring Tools in Remediation Efforts at Great Lakes‐St. Lawrence River Basin Areas of Concern: A Case Study of the Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Berquist
Keyword(s):  
Great Lakes ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
The United States ◽  
Remedial Action ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Aquatic Life ◽  
Areas Of Concern ◽  
Remedial Action Plan

In accordance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the governments of Canada and the United States have agreed to support the remediation of 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) where “failure [to meet objectives of the agreement] has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area’s ability to support aquatic life.” A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been created for each AOC that outlines how impairments are to be addressed. This presentation will focus on one such plan, the Bay of Quinte RAP, as a case study to explore the role of research and monitoring in realizing the aims of the policy. Results will be based on a literature review encompassing existing works about Great Lakes RAPs, the Bay of Quinte watershed, multi‐party monitoring and the relationship between science and policy, along with semi‐structured interviews with project leaders and community stakeholders to determine how practice at the Bay of Quinte compares to theory and to practice at other Areas of Concern. The results will be instructive for any groups planning a multi‐stakeholder undertaking particularly those involved in any of the 40 other RAPs still underway on our Great Lakes.

Watershed or bank-to-bank? Scales of governance and the geographic definition of Great Lakes Areas of Concern

2020 ◽  
pp. 251484862094389
Author(s):  
Ryan Holifield ◽  
Kathleen C Williams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Local Stakeholder ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Areas Of Concern ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
International Border

Much recent scholarship has addressed the rise of the watershed as the preferred scale for the governance of water quality. Although the watershed remains widely perceived as an ideal, “natural” scale of freshwater governance, arguments for the merits of alternative scales and multi-scalar approaches are gaining prominence. The Great Lakes Areas of Concern program, managed jointly by the United States and Canada, represents an important case in which the watershed has not prevailed as the default local scale of governance, at least in the 31 Areas of Concern located in the United States or straddling the international border. Based on a review of documents and analysis of a survey and interviews with key actors from local Areas of Concern, we find considerable variation among U.S. states in the designation of Areas of Concern as watersheds and partial watersheds, bank-to-bank watercourse segments, or hybrids of both. This variation depends not only on the differing biophysical conditions at Areas of Concern but also on differences in the latitude that state agencies gave to local stakeholder groups when the geographical extent of each Areas of Concern was designated and negotiated. In several cases, questions about the appropriate scale of the Areas of Concern led to controversy, with implications for subsequent remediation. We contend that understanding the uneven embrace of the watershed as a scale of water governance requires attending not only to specific governance objectives but also to variations in the relationships between local and subnational scales in governance programs.

Water resource use and management by the United States forest products industry

2009 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 751-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. S. Wiegand ◽  
C. A. Flinders ◽  
G. G. Ice ◽  
B. J. Malmberg ◽  
R. P. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Water Quality ◽  
Fresh Water ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Forest Products ◽  
The United States ◽  
Large Scale Disturbance ◽  
Groundwater Yield ◽  
Forested Areas

The connections between forest products operations and water resources in the United States is considered and, where possible, quantified. Manufacture of wood, pulp, and paper products and the influences of forest management and forest products manufacture on water quality are discussed. Most fresh water in the US originates in forested areas. Responsible harvesting strategies, best management practices, and forest re-growth combine to minimize or eliminate changes in water availability and degradation of water quality due to harvesting. Relative to alternative land uses and large-scale disturbance events, forested areas produce the highest quality of fresh water. Water inputs for the manufacture of forest products total about 5.8 billion m3 per year, an amount equal about 0.4% of the surface and groundwater yield from timberland. Approximately 88% of water used in manufacturing is treated and returned directly to surface waters, about 11% is converted to water vapor and released during the manufacturing process, and 1% is imparted to products or solid residuals. Extensive study and continued monitoring of treated effluents suggest few or no concerns regarding the compatibility of current effluents with healthy aquatic systems.

Factors affecting water quality in selected carbonate aquifers in the United States,1993-2005

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce D. Lindsey ◽  
Marian P. Berndt ◽  
Brian G. Katz ◽  
Ann F. Ardis ◽  
Kenneth A. Skach
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Water Quality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Carbonate Aquifers

A storm water retrofit plan for the mimico creek watershed

1999 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 133-140
Author(s):  
J. Y. Li ◽  
D. Banting
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Quality Management ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Water Quality Management ◽  
Storm Water ◽  
Planning Tool ◽  
Creek Watershed ◽  
Urbanized Areas ◽  
Goals And Objectives

Storm water quality management in urbanized areas remains a challenge to Canadian municipalities as the funding and planning mechanisms are not well defined. In order to provide assistance to urbanized municipalities in the Great Lakes areas, the Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment commissioned the authors to develop a Geographic Information System planning tool for storm water quality management in urbanized areas. The planning tool comprises five steps: (1) definition of storm water retrofit goals and objectives; (2) identification of appropriate retrofit storm water management practices; (3) formulation of storm water retrofit strategies; (4) evaluation of strategies with respect to retrofit goals and objectives; and (5) selection of storm water retrofit strategies. A case study of the fully urbanized Mimico Creek wateshed in the City of Toronto is used to demonstrate the application of the planning tool.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document