Restoring Fish and Wildlife Habitat in U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern

ABSTRACT

Beginning in 1985, remedial action plans were developed to restore any of 14 beneficial use impairments in Great Lakes areas of concern (AOCs). The designation of “loss of fish and wildlife habitat” as a beneficial use impairment helped elevate the priority for habitat restoration and helped focus AOC stakeholders on habitat restoration options and priorities. Funding from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) has been the critical factor in realizing habitat restoration in U.S. AOCs, with over $280 million allocated since the beginning of the GLRI in 2011. Together, habitat restoration and contaminated sediment remediation have been a springboard for local communities to convert areas that were once a detriment to economic growth into valuable waterfront economic assets (e.g., Buffalo River AOC, River Raisin AOC, Sheboygan River AOC). These communities are transforming formerly polluted rivers in the Rust Belt into healthier and more attractive waterfront destinations for businesses, recreation, and tourism.

Introduction and background

The Great Lakes are a shared resource between the United States and Canada and contain approximately 22,900 cubic kilometers of water, representing nearly one-fifth of the standing freshwater on the Earth’s surface and 95% of the United States’ surface freshwater. The Great Lakes basin ecosystem covers more land than England, Scotland, and Wales combined, and the lakes together have over 17,000 kilometers of shoreline and approximately 30,000 islands. Approximately 39 million people in the United States and Canada live in the Great Lakes Basin—8% of the U.S. population and about 32% of Canada’s population (The Royal Canadian Geographical Society, 2018).

It should not be surprising that human population growth, expansion of commerce, and industrialization have resulted in considerable anthropogenic impacts. From extirpation of beaver during the fur trade, to sedimentation and loss of habitat during the logging era, to toxic substance contamination resulting from the Industrial Revolution, to waterborne disease epidemics in the early 1900s, to cultural eutrophication starting in the 1950s and 1960s, to introduction of exotic species and loss of biodiversity in more recent years, the Great Lakes have experienced substantial degradation and perturbation.

The most heavily polluted areas of the Great Lakes are called Great Lakes areas of concern (AOCs). The concept of AOCs originated from U.S.–Canada cooperation through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The U.S.–Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was initially signed in 1972 and revised in 1978, 1987, and 2012. This Agreement has often been described as an evolving instrument for ecosystem-based management (Vallentyne & Beeton, 1988). It represents a commitment between the United States and Canada to restore and protect the waters of the Great Lakes and provides a framework for identifying binational priorities and implementing actions that improve water quality and ecosystem health. Canada and the United States are responsible for final decision-making under the Agreement and for the involvement and participation of state and provincial governments, tribal governments, municipal governments, watershed management agencies, and other stakeholders.

The International Joint Commission (IJC) is an independent and objective advisor to the United States and Canada and works for the common good of both countries in preventing and resolving disputes between the two countries under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty (United States & Great Britain, 1909). The IJC uses experts, serving in their personal and professional capacities, to undertake independent fact finding and to provide independent advice for problem resolution.

Since 1973, the IJC’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board, the principal advisor to the IJC on matters pertaining to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, has periodically assessed the state of the Great Lakes. As part of these assessments, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board has identified specific harbors, embayments, river mouths, and connecting channels where one or more jurisdictional standards or general or specific water quality objectives of the Agreement were not being met (International Joint Commission, 1985). These objectives and standards were being exceeded in spite of implementation of pollution control programs. Initially termed “problem areas,” these areas were later called AOCs.

The list of AOCs changed over time due to implementation of remedial and preventive programs and improvements in water quality and the emergence of new problems and/or reinterpretation of the significance of earlier reports. The major problems identified have also changed in response to the evolution of scientific understanding of water quality problems (e.g., from recognition of bacterial pollution to eutrophication to toxic substances contamination to loss of habitat and biodiversity), improved ability to detect and measure problems, and progress in implementing remedial and preventive actions (Hartig & Thomas, 1988).

Despite progress in abating bacterial and phosphorus pollution in many AOCs, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board reported in 1985 that progress had been stalled in 42 AOCs where general or specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement were not being met and such failure had caused or had likely caused impairment of beneficial use or of the area’s ability to support aquatic life (Figure 1). A 43rd AOC was identified in in 1991 (Presque Isle Bay, PA). Impairment of beneficial use means a change in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem sufficient to cause any of 14 impairments:

• Restrictions of fish and wildlife consumption;

• Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor;

• Degradation of fish and wildlife populations;

• Fish tumors or other deformities;

• Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems;

• Degradation of benthos;

• Restrictions on dredging activities;

• Eutrophication or undesirable algae;

• Restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems;

• Beach closings;

• Degradation of aesthetics;

• Added costs to agriculture or industry;

• Degradation of phytoplankton or zooplankton populations; or

• Loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

As a result of the recommendation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, the eight Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario, with support from the federal governments of the United States and Canada, committed in 1985 to developing and implementing a remedial action plan (RAP) to restore all beneficial uses in each AOC within their political boundaries (International Joint Commission, 1985). This commitment to developing and implementing RAPs to restore all impaired beneficial uses in AOCs was then codified in the 1987 Protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Canada & the United States, 1987).

Each RAP was to identify use impairments and causes, remedial and preventive actions needed to restore uses, agencies or organizations responsible for implementing the actions, and the timeframe for implementation, to increase accountability (Hartig and Zarull, 1992). Further, RAPs were to adopt an ecosystem approach that accounted for the interrelationships among air, water, land, and all living things, including humans, and involved all user groups in management (Canada & the United States, 1987; Hartig & Vallentyne, 1989).

As of 2018, seven AOCs have been delisted, two have been designated as AOCs in recovery, 18 have implemented all remedial actions deemed necessary for use restoration, and 67 of 146 known use impairments identified in Canadian AOCs and 73 of 255 known use impairments in U.S. AOCs have been eliminated. This article evaluates what has been achieved and learned through restoring the “loss of fish and wildlife habitat” beneficial use impairment in U.S. AOCs. For the purposes of this article, restoration means the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (Great Lakes Interagency Task Force & the Regional Working Group, 2011). Specifically, this article presents the results of a survey of habitat restoration projects in U.S. AOCs to help quantify achievements, shares three AOC case studies, and elucidates key findings and lessons learned.

Habitat restoration survey and results

Loss of fish and wildlife habitat is a problem in most AOCs. Prior to the onset of RAPs in 1985 and their codification in the Agreement in 1987, it was often said that habitat had no home—that responsibility for habitat was fragmented among many stakeholders. RAPs made habitat a priority and challenged management agencies to address it explicitly. Restoration of fish and wildlife habitat had to be addressed in a systematic and comprehensive fashion, and this was particularly challenging in urban AOCs. In many cases, RAPs helped make sure that habitat was an integral part of community master plans. Effective communication and partnerships were essential.

A survey of habitat restoration projects in U.S. AOCs was undertaken to assess the extent and cost of specific projects (Table 1). In general, early efforts in the late 1980s and 1990s focused on scientific assessment of the severity and geographic extent of “loss of fish and wildlife habitat” and its causes through RAP development. Later efforts focused on restoration options and determining how much habitat was enough to remove it as a use impairment. Fish and wildlife agencies and university researchers were involved in these assessments and evaluation of restoration options.

In general, limited habitat restoration occurred in U.S. AOCs until the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), launched in 2010, providing significant resources for restoration projects. GLRI is a federal multiagency initiative that has provided, thus far, over $2.5 billion of funding (2010–17) strategically targeted at the biggest threats to the Great Lakes basin ecosystem and specifically designed to accelerate progress toward long-term goals. Cleaning up AOCs has been one of the top priorities of GLRI.

Restoring fish and wildlife habitat was identified as a priority in most U.S. AOCs and GLRI funding has become the catalyst for action in 29 of 31 U.S. AOCs thus far. The two U.S. AOCs that did not have habitat restoration under GLRI were Oswego, NY (delisted as an AOC in 2006, before GLRI) and Torch Lake, MI (habitat restoration undertaken through the Superfund Program). In total, over $280 million of habitat restoration was undertaken in U.S. AOCs between 2011 and March 2018, with many projects in the design phase (Table 1). These substantial financial resources clearly accelerated habitat restoration in U.S. AOCs.

Case studies

Buffalo River AOC

In the 1800s, Buffalo, NY and its Buffalo River were well known as the terminus of the Erie Canal, the grain storage capital of the world, and the fourth largest port in the world, giving Buffalo the title of “Queen City of the Lakes.” In the 1900s, Buffalo attracted numerous industries, including automotive, steel, chemical, and oil, and became a thriving hub for retail and wholesale distribution. By the 1940s, both industrial and municipal effluents were overwhelming the Buffalo River. The 1960s became a decade of environmental awakening, including in 1968, when the Buffalo River caught fire.

The RAP process was initiated in 1985. In the late 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation served as the RAP coordinator, with substantial public participation and input from a Remedial Advisory Committee (Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, 2011). In 2003, the Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper became the first nonprofit organization in the Great Lakes selected to reenergize the RAP process, coordinate implementation, and catalyze further progress.

Implementation of RAPs in U.S. AOCs took a major step forward with the passage of the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) and the GLRI in 2002 and 2010, respectively. These funding authorities provided tools for local communities to secure cost-share agreements and provide a vehicle for public–private–nonprofit collaboration. Through GLLA and GLRI, remediating contaminated sediments and restoring habitats in Great Lake AOCs were made priorities.

For example, the Buffalo River Restoration Partnership has remediated 662,530 m³ of contaminated sediment since 2012 at a cost of $56.5 million (Jedlicka & Hartig, 2018). In addition, substantial habitat restoration has been undertaken in support of removing “loss of fish and wildlife habitat” as a beneficial use impairment. Since 2012, numerous partners have implemented projects restoring nearly 3.2 km of shoreline habitat (see Figure 2 for an example of shoreline and riparian habitat restoration) and 8.1 ha of riparian and upland habitats through GLRI at a cost of over $25 million (Table 1).

In 1968, when the Buffalo River caught fire, there were no fish in the lower river. Today, there are 25–30 species of fish and a substantially improved macrobenthic invertebrate community, and peregrine falcons are reproducing after an over 30-year absence (Jedlicka & Hartig, 2018). In addition, the recreational use and commercial redevelopment of the shoreline have brought hundreds of thousands of people to the riverfront.

Cleanup of the Buffalo River led to improved public access, and both are now contributing to waterfront economic revitalization. In 2008, the Erie Canal Harbor Development Company reopened the Erie Canal Harbor as a historic business district under the name Canalside. Use of the site has grown steadily, from 150,000 visitors and 115 events in 2010 to over 1.5 million annual visitors and over 1000 annual events in 2016 (Great Lakes Commission & Council of Great Lakes Industries, 2018a). Between 2012 and 2018 alone there has been over $428 million of waterfront development projects along the Buffalo River (Jedlicka & Hartig, 2018).

River Raisin AOC

The River Raisin is a tributary to western Lake Erie and located in southeast Michigan. As in many areas of the Great Lakes, industrial development, including paper mills and automotive manufacturing plants, left behind a legacy of pollution. In 1985, the River Raisin was identified a Great Lakes AOC with impaired beneficial uses and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, committed to developing a RAP to restore these impaired beneficial uses.

Efforts include significant upgrades to the Monroe Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant ($45 million), contaminated sediment remediation ($43.1 million), and habitat restoration (see Figure 3 for an example of aquatic habitat restoration) and dam removal (approximately $7 million) to open the river to an additional 37 km for Great Lakes fish migration and spawning (Foose, Stefansky, Laroy, Micka, & Hartig, 2018). More than $43 million in GLRI funding alone was provided to accelerate remediation and restoration. All remedial actions identified in the River Raisin RAP have now been implemented. Today, bald eagles have returned to the watershed, and both new and long-absent fish species can be found in the river (Foose et al., 2018).

Like many other North American cities, for years Monroe turned its back on the river. More recently, the city has been developing trails such as the River Raisin Heritage Trail to help improve public access to the waterfront and to strategically link community, business, historical, and recreational assets. The city of Monroe and the Monroe County Historical Society developed a Heritage Master Plan to complement and reinforce the city’s master plan, called Resilient Monroe, as part of an effort to reinvent and revitalize Monroe (Bentley, Cochran, &d Hartig, 2018). Both Resilient Monroe and the Heritage Master Plan view the cleanup and restoration of the River Raisin as an integral part of a vibrant community with a sustainable economy.

In the lower River Raisin, you can now find the River Raisin National Battlefield Park (established in 2009), units of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Sterling State Park, and numerous trails. The River Raisin Heritage Trail is a unique greenway that now links downtown Monroe to the National Battlefield and Sterling State Park and passes along the two units of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge.

Annual attendance at the National Battlefield Park has increased steadily from 36,206 people in 2011 to 238,813 in 2017 (Bentley et al., 2018). Michigan State University, in partnership with the National Battlefield Park, projected that annual attendance will eventually reach approximately 635,000. At this visitation rate, state and local economic impacts are projected at $31.6 million and $21.9 million, respectively (Bentley et al., 2018). In August 2018, the National Battlefield Park announced a $100 million redevelopment to turn this historical site into a tourist attraction. The redevelopment was kicked off with the purchase of 20 houses that will be demolished to make room for re-creation of historic Frenchtown and a $20-million educational center.

Clearly, this integrated approach to protecting the environment, celebrating history, enhancing the community, and furthering the economy is helping redefine Monroe from a Rust Belt city with a polluted river to a desirable urban community with outstanding natural resources, significant historical assets, a national park, an international wildlife refuge, a state park, and a growing, diverse Monroe economy. The cleanup of the River Raisin was an integral and essential part of this revitalization strategy.

Sheboygan River AOC

The Sheboygan River, which winds through the City of Sheboygan on its way to western Lake Michigan in Wisconsin, was designated an AOC in 1985. It includes the lower 22.4 km of the river and harbor. For decades, the Sheboygan River suffered from pollution arising from improper industrial and municipal sewer waste disposal and significant urban and agricultural runoff. As a result, it became heavily contaminated with PCBs and fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorus, and nitrogen, which led to restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, degradation of wildlife habitat, and other beneficial use impairments.

The worst areas of contamination in the Sheboygan River were designated as Superfund sites. Between 2007 and 2013, over 316,000 m³ of contaminated sediment was remediated at a cost of nearly $90 million (Table 2). Following sediment remediation, the city of Sheboygan, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and other partners completed six habitat restoration projects to restore riparian and wetland habitats along the lower Sheboygan River. This was achieved through

• stabilizing and sculpting eroded shorelines;

• invasive species management combined with native plantings;

• in-stream habitat improvements; and

• the installation of nest boxes and platforms to enhance habitat for birds and bats.

In total, approximately 29 ha of habitat were either enhanced or restored (see Figure 4 for example of shoreline and wetland habitat restoration). Total funding for these habitat restoration projects was $4.25 million from GLRI.

All identified remedial actions to restore uses in the Sheboygan River RAP have now been implemented and monitoring is underway to track use restoration. The Great Lakes Commission & the Council of Great Lakes Industries (2018b) recently completed an economic impact study of GLRI that showed how GLRI-funded sediment remediation and habitat restoration have contributed to numerous economic benefits in Sheboygan, including

• new housing developments that have proliferated along Sheboygan’s waterfront, representing an investment of $37 million;

• a 32% increase in visitor spending in Sheboygan County since 2010 and a 41% increase in transient boater revenue to the city’s Harbor Centre Marina since 2014; and

• renewed interest in numerous forms of water-based recreation, as the number of charter captains identifying Sheboygan as their home port increased from 36 to 41 between 2010 and 2016.

Key findings and concluding remarks

The designation of “loss of fish and wildlife habitat” as a beneficial use impairment in AOCs helped elevate the priority for habitat restoration and helped focus AOC stakeholders on habitat restoration options and priorities. Funding from GLRI has been the critical factor in realizing habitat restoration in U.S. AOCs, with over $280 million allocated since the start of the GLRI. Many more habitat restoration projects are currently in the design phase. Successful projects involved habitat experts up front in project design, established quantitative targets for project success, ensured sound multidisciplinary technical support, treated habitat projects as experiments consistent with adaptive management, involved scientists and citizen scientists in monitoring, measured benefits, communicated and celebrated successes, and promoted education and outreach (Hartig, Sanders, Wyma, Boase, & Roseman, 2018).

Tuchman, Cieniawski, & Hartig (2018) have documented that between 2004 and 2017, 46 contaminated-sediment remediation projects have been completed in U.S. AOCs, resulting in the remediation of over 6.6 million m³ of contaminated sediments at a cost of over $1 billion. The GLLA and GLRI have been essential funding mechanisms for completing this contaminated sediment remediation in U.S. AOCs. Together, contaminated sediment remediation through GLLA and GLRI and habitat restoration through GLRI have been a springboard for local communities to convert areas that were once a detriment to economic growth into valuable waterfront economic assets (e.g., Buffalo River AOC, River Raisin AOC, Sheboygan River AOC). These communities are literally transforming former polluted rivers in the Rust Belt into healthier and more attractive waterfront destinations for businesses, recreation, and tourism.

Collaborative funding and public–private partnerships have been essential to the cleanup of U.S. AOCs. Further, the rate of sediment remediation and habitat restoration, the removal of beneficial use impairments, and the delisting of AOCs have accelerated since GLLA and GLRI programs were initiated in 2002 and 2010, respectively. However, the job of restoring loss of fish and wildlife habitat and remediating contaminated sediments in U.S. AOCs is not complete, and sustained efforts under the GLRI and GLLA, along with state and other programs, are required to complete this work and realize the many human health, ecological, and economic benefits of these restoration efforts.

Contaminated sediment cleanup and habitat restoration are part of a strategic effort of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promote a three-step process known as “R2R2R”—remediation to restoration to revitalization (Williams et al., 2017). In its simplest form, this means making sure that the steps taken to remediate contaminated sediment sites account for opportunities for aquatic habitat restoration, while also reconnecting people to their surroundings in ways that enhance community well-being.

As cleanup work nears completion, many AOCs are considering “life after delisting” and exploring how to leverage remedial and preventive actions to advance broader social and economic revitalization in waterfront areas (Mandelia, 2016). Greater emphasis should be placed on this “R2R2R” approach, along with encouraging public–private partnerships, which will not only help realize “return on investment,” but also help provide the rationale for continuation of necessary efforts to clean up remaining Great Lakes AOCs under GLRI and the GLLA. Indeed, the Great Lakes Commission and Council of Great Lakes Industries (2018c) have shown that every federal dollar spent on GLRI projects during 2010–2016 will produce an additional $3.35 of economic activity through 2035.

References