Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CCE
CEC
SUSTAINING RESOURCES IN THE GULF OF MAINE:
TOWARD REGIONAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
I A Regional Pilot Project to Implement the Global I - Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-based Activities
1 SUSTAINING RESOURCES IN THE GULF OF MAINE:
I TOWARD REGIONAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
WORKING PAPER
Prepared for: Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Prepared by:
Judith Pederson MIT Sea Grant Program Boston, Massachusetts
and
David VanderZwaag Marine and Environmental Law Programme
Dalhousie Law School i Associate, Oceans Institute of Canada
Halifax, Nova Scotia
:I
!
January 1997
........................................................................................ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION: THE GLOBAL PROGRAMME OF ACTION (GPA) AND THE GULF OF MAINE PILOT PROJECT ............................................................................................................... 9
3.0 THE GULF OF MAINE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE REGION ................................................. 18
4.0 LAND-BASED POLLUTION AND PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS IN THE GULF OF MAINE REGION . 22
............................................................................................ 4.1 Contaminants in the Gulf of Maine Region 22 Sewage and Nutrients 25 Toxic Contaminant 28
4.2 Alterations and Destruction of Habitat ................................................................................................... 34
4.3 Marine Debris .......................................................................................................................................... 35
5.0 EXISTING REGIONAL INITIATIVES RELEVANT TO LAND-BASED ACTIVITIES IN THE GULF OF
MAINE ............................................................................................................................. 36
Joint Canada-United States Marine Pollution Contingency Plan for Spills of Oil and Other Noxious Substances ...................................................................................................................................................... 36
Gulf of Maine Agreement and Action Plan .................................................................................................. 36
Regional Research Cooperation .................................................................................................................... 41 ......................................................... Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM) 41
.............................................................................................. Regional Marine Research Program (RMRP) 42 ..................................................... East Coast of North America Strategic Assessment Project (ECNASAP) 42
... 6.0 US AND CANADIAN APPROACHES TO MANAGING LAND-BASED POLLUTION/ACTIVITIES 44
...................................................... 6.1 General Approaches to Managing Land-based PoIlntion/Activities 44 ................................................................................................. 6.1.1 Integrated Coastal Area Management 44
.............................................................................................................. 6.1.2 The Precautionaq Approach 47
6.2 Management Approaches for Specific Source Contaminants ............................................................. 50 Sewage and Nutrients ................................................................................................................................. 5 1 Toxic Contaminant 53 Litter 58
........................................................................................ 6.3 Physical Alterations and Habitat Destruction 60
7.0 GULF OF MAINE REGIONAL OBJECTNES AND ACTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE GLOBAL PROGRAMME OF ACTION: AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 64
8.0 WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT ................................................................................. 68
.............................................................................................................. Working Group I Summary Report 70
Working Group I1 Summary Report ............................................................................................................ 75
APPENDIX 1 - GULF OF MAINE COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS, WORKSHOP SUMMARIES, AND REPORTS* ....................................................................................................................... 82
The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) was developed under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assist national and regional authorities in reaching the goal of "sustainable seas". The United States and Canada were among the more than 100 signatories that agreed in 1995 to strengthen national, regional, and global arrangements in addressing marine degradation from land-based pollution and activities.
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) chose the Gulf of Maine region as one of two pilot project areas in North America for facilitating the development of regional actions using the methodology of the GPA. The Commission, while recognizing the considerable amount of public sector and scientific cooperation and networking in the region, such as efforts of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment (CME) and the Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM), has proposed to continue to assist the region over a two-year period in GPA implementation efforts. Assistance by the CEC would be based on priority actions identified by representatives at a regional workshop on implementing the GPA in the Gulf of Maine.
This document not only summarizes the discussions and recommendations from the CEC sponsored workshop held in Durham, New Hampshire, USA (November 20-22, 1996) as part of the pilot project, but also includes a background paper (prepared for the workshop). Following an introduction, the background paper describes the GPA methodology; provides an overview of the Gulf of Maine region including ecosystem relationships and marine resources of importance; reviews land-based pollution and physical alteration in the region; summarizes existing regional cooperation agreements and arrangements; compares national management approaches to controlling land-based pollution activities; and assesses the status of regional management objectives and actions in light of the GPA methodology.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by Rob Currie and Ray MacCallum, research assistants with the Marine and Environmental Law Programme at Dalhousie Law School, and by Radika Bhaskar, a student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Thanks also goes to Molly Ross at Dalhousie Law School for word processing support. Christine Cristo's logistic support for the conference and the paper is also appreciated
The vast amounts of information provided by state and provincial departments and officials, too numerous to mention, are also acknowledged. A special thanks goes to David Keeley at the Maine State Planning Office and members of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Working Group for providing updates on recent Gulf of Maine Council initiatives.
Helpful suggestions of members of the Technical Advisory Group were also appreciated Those members included. John Karau (Chief, Marine Environment Division, Environment Canada), Thomas Laughlin (Office of International Mairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce) and Martha Rosas (Program Manager, Commission for Environmental Cooperation).
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACAP
ARET
BATS
BEPs
BOD
CANUSLANT
CBEP
CBP
CCME
C C b P
CEC
CEPA
CERCLA
CLURE
CME
CME AP
COSEWIC
c s o s
CWA
CZMA
DDE
DDT
DFO
DREP
ECNASAP
EDIMS
EOEA
ESA
Atlantic Coastal Action Program
Voluntary Accelerated Reduction~Elimination of Toxics
best available techniques
best environmental practices
biochemical oxygen demand
Joint Canada-United States Marine Pollution Contingency Plan for Spills of Oil and Other Noxious Sunstances
Casco Bay Estuary Program
Casco Bay Program
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Commission on Land Use and the Rural Environment
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Action Plan
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
combined sewer overflows
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
dichloro diphenyl ethane (?)
dichloro diphenyl dichloroethane
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Damarascotta River Estuary Program
East Coast of North America Strategic Assessment Project
Environmental Data and Information Management System
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Endangered Species Act
FCB
FDA
FMESP
GEF
GIs
GOMRMRP
GPA
GPS
HCB
HCH
HMW
IAEA
ICM
IPPC
LB S
LMW
MA
MARPOL
MBP
MDPH
ME
MSPO
RWRA
NB
NEPA
NEPs
NGO
NH
NMFS
NOAA
fecal coliform bacteria
US Food and Drug Administration (see US FDA)
Fundy Marine Ecosystem Science Project
Global Environmental Facility
Geographic Information System
Gulf of Maine Regional Marine Research Program
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities
Global positioning system
hexachlorobenzine
hexachlorocyclohexane
high molecular weight
International Atomic Energy Agency
integrated coastal management
integrated pollution prevention control
land-based sources
low molecular weight
Massachusetts
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
Massachusetts Bays Program
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Maine
Maine State Planning Office
Massachusetts Water Resource .4uthority
New Brunswick
National Environmental Policy Act
National Estuary Programs
nongovernmental organization
New Hampshire
National Marine Fisheries Service
US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES
NS
OPA
OSCLA
OTA
PAHs
PCBs
POPS
PPm
QMQc RARGOM
RCRA
REDIMS
RMR
RMRP
SARA
TBT
TDGA
TSS
UNEP
US
US ACE
US EPA
US FDA
US FWA
WQC
UWTFs
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Nova Scotia
Oil Pollution Act
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
Office of Technology Assessment
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenils
persistent organic pollutants
parts per million
quality assurancelquality control
Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Research Environmental Data and Information Management System for the Gulf of Maine
Regional Marine Research
Regional Marine Research Program
Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act
tributylin
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act
total suspended solids
United Nations Environmental Programme
United States of America
United States Army Corps of En,. "~neers
United States Environmental Protection Agency (see EPA)
United States Food and Dmg Administration (see FDA)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Water Quality Criteria
wastewater treatment facilities
The GPA Methodology
The GPA identifies six steps in developing a regional action plan for protecting the marine environment from land-based activities. Those steps include: (1) identification and assessment of problems, (2) establishment of priorities, (3) adoption of management objectives, (4) identification, evaluation, and selection of strategies, (5) adoption of criteria, and (6) identification of program support elements. The GPA defines five general elements to be considered in applying the GPA methodology: (1) human health and economic, social, and cultural well being, (2) source categories of contaminants, (3) physical alteration, (4) point and non-point sources of degradation, and (5) special areas of concern. In addition, among other criteria in the assessment process, the GPA encourages integrated coastal area management, adoption of watershed approaches, public participation, use of environmental assessment, and application of the precautionary approach.
The Gulf of Maine
The Gulf of Maine, located off the Northeast coast of North America, is a highly dynamic marine ecosystem that extends from Cape Sable, Nova Scotia, Canada, to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, United States. It is characterized by a diversity of habitats which provide refuge to a variety of organisms, from benthic dwelling worms and clams to marine mammals and sea birds and is best known for its seafood, cod, lobsters, scallops and other fish and shellfish.
Land-based Pollution and Physical Alterations in the Gulf of Maine
Contaminants enter the Gulf of Maine through a number of point sources, especially municipal and industrial discharge effluents and combined sewer overflows, and a wide variety of non-point sources that include, among others, riverine input, atmospheric deposition, agricultural runoff, overland runoff and storm sewers, and septic system leakage. Point source impacts are often localized Contaminants of concern include sewage effluent, coliform bacteria, metals, persistent organic pollutants (POPS), and hydrocarbons. Loading estimates of point sources indicate that urban areas still contribute significant amounts of contaminants Estimates of non-point sources of loading are more difficult to compile, because monitoring data are scarce.
Destruction and physical alteration of habitats is a major concern in the Gulf of Maine. Assaults on wetlands, coastal environments, the sea floor and river flow have negatively impacted habitats and access to habitats, e.g., anadromous fish access to spawning grounds. No joint marine protected areas have been designated in the Gulf of Maine, but the United States and Canada have designated sanctuaries for protection of marine resources.
Existing Regional Initiatives Relevant to Land-based Activities in the Gulf of Maine
In December 1989, a Gulf of Maine Agreement was signed by the premiers of two Canadian provinces and the governors of the three US states to establish a framework for regional cooperation and marine environmental protection. The agreement established a Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment which developed an Action Plan and initiated a monitoring program, and outreach and education activities Specific activities include the Gulfwatch
monitoring program that uses mussels to assess pollution, a Marine Debris program that supports beach cleanups along the Gulf of Maine coast and a recently updated Action Plan that focuses on habitat restoration and protection through specific, identified goals.
Regional scientific research is facilitated by communication among scientists. The Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM) is committed to facilitating coordination of marine research and monitoring activities and supporting information exchange through workshops, symposia and newsletters Programs such as the Regional Marine Research Program (RMRP) and GLOBEC. as well as provincial and state and federal programs also support Gulf of Maine regional research activities.
Other efforts also exist Since the 1970s, Canada and the United States have cooperated through a Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan for oil spills and other noxious substances Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from Canada and the United States are forming a Gulf of Maine Alliance which is intended to better integrate efforts of smaller non-academic groups, such as watershed associations, and provide a mechanism for information exchange and coordinated efforts to improve and protect the Gulf of Maine. Other groups such as the Collaboration of Community Foundations and the Atlantic Coastal Action Program also are committed to coordination and cooperation among NGOs in the Gulf.
US and Canadian Approaches to Managing Land-based Pollution/Activities
Approaches to managing land-based pollution sources differ between the United States and Canada and are largely related to how legislation distributes power to the states or provinces and the federal government. The United States has formalized coastal area management through its Coastal Zone Management Programs, whereas Canada has only recently passed an Oceans Act establishing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as the lead agency for promoting coastal area management planning.
In addition to the Coastal Programs, the US Environmental Protection Agency has supported subregional management plan adoption through the National Estuary Program of which there are three in the Gulf of Maine, Casco Bay, New Hampshire Estuary Project and Massachusetts Bays Program. Similarly, Environment Canada has supported the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (.4CAP), although with significantly less funding than the US National Estuaries Program. The St. Croix Estuaries Project, the Eastern Charlotte Waterways, ACAP Saint John, and the Clean Annapolis ~ i v e r Project are all located within the Bay of Fundy.
Both countries have emphasized pollution prevention which is a close corollary of the precautionary principle. The precautionary approach in the United States is largely achieved through regulations which focus on pollution prevention to protect the marine environment. Thus the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other regulations either set technology based solutions or provide performance standards for achieving pollution reduction discharges. The precautionary principle and pollution prevention philosophies are in the process of inclusion in Canadian legislature; for example, through express language in Nova Scotia's Environment Act and proposed amendments to the Canadian Envrronmental Protection Act (CEPA).
Regional Workshop for the Implementation of the GPA
To accomplish the pilot project objective of implementing the GPA methodology, the CEC organized a workshop in Durham, New Hampshire (November 20-22, 1996). This regional workshop had two purposes: (1) to allow participants to compare the status of existing management arrangements in the Gulf of Maine region with the GPA suggested objectives and actions, and (2) to make specific recommendations to the CEC for GPA implementation in the region.
Plenary speakers introduced the GPA, the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment and US and Canadian approaches to managing sewage and effluents, contaminants, and physical alteration of habitats. Two working groups were formed to apply the methodology to the region, to identify gaps in knowledge, to suggest objectives and strategies, to assess regional arrangements and to recommend future actions to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation In addition, workshop participants identified various challenges remaining for GPA implementation in the Gulf of Maine region.
Working Group I followed a process of assessing the GPA with the Gulf of Maine Action Plan and identifying areas of consistency and overlap. Group I examined current regional efforts at managing land-based sources of marine pollution, in order to suggest avenues for strengthening and broadening overall management objectives. The Group focused on enumerating six specific recommendations to augment present regional activities and encouraged a management approach more consistent with the GPA including strengthening regional cooperative agreements, evaluating the socio-economic and environmental benefits of a healthy marine ecosystem, identifying significant species and habitats, expanding the regional information clearinghouse; improving land-based source pollution inventories, and broadening community awareness and involvement in efforts to address land-based sources of pollution.
Working Group I1 reviewed what is known about the Gulf of Maine and the nine priority areas identified by the GPA. For example, Group I1 noted that decoupling of nearshore and offshore circulation patterns suggests that pollution effects should be examined separately in each area. The group reviewed the status of sewage, persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, oil and hydrocarbons, nutrients, marine debris and litter, sedimentation, radionuclides, and physical alteration and destruction of habitats. Group I1 concluded that some source categories were a "local" problem (e.g., nutrients) hut not a problem throughout the Gulf of Maine, and listed habitats as the highest priority area to address. Group I1 also discussed a process for achieving the goals of pollution prevention, recommended regional actions, and inclusive participation of all, including scientists, nongovernmental organizations and First Nations.
The Workshop concluded with a proposal to the CEC and Gulf of Maine Council and other groups to refine the working groups' recommendations and support activities that would further implementation of the Global Programme of Action in the Gulf of Maine.
1.0 INTRODUCTION: THE GLOBAL PROGRAMME OF ACTION (GPA) AND THE GULF OF MAINE PILOT PROJECT
In November 1995, more than 100 nations, including Canada, the United States and Mexico, joined in adopting a Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA). The Programme, building on the 1985 Montreal Guidelines for the Protection of the Marine Environment against Pollution from Land-based Sources, urges countries to develop or strengthen national, subregional and regional programmes of action to counter marine degradation from land-based activities (GPA 1995).
The GPA reemphasizes many of the responsibilities from the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, such as the obligation for governments to further develop regional standards for land-based pollution, and highlights the need for principled decision-making as set out in Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. The principles of precaution, pollution prevention, public participation and integrated coastal area management are to guide national and regional efforts to protect the marine environment.
The GPA, developed under auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is designed to assist national and regional authorities in reaching the goal of "sustainable seas." Approximately 80 percent of all marine pollution comes from human activities on land. Therefore, it is urgent that activities such as sewage disposal, inadequate treatment of industrial wastewater, nutrient run-off and contamination by heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants be addressed.
Regional follow-up in implementing the GPA was left largely to the discretion of the signing governments. Chapter 3 of the GPA, while encouraging the strengthening of regional and subregional arrangements, establishes no firm timeline and the Global Programme of Action provides no funding mechanism for assisting regional actions.
To facilitate regional follow-up to the GPA in the North American context, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)-a trinational organization established under the 1993 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation-has selected two border regions as pilot projects, a GPA pilot project in the oceanographic region known as the Bight of the Californias Bight shared by the United States and Mexico, and a second in the Gulf of Maine region shared by Canada and the United States. See Figure 1 for a map of the Gulf of Maine region.
Working with representatives of the three North American governments-Canada, Mexico and the United States-the CEC initiated the Gulf of Maine GPA pilot project with a regional workshop held November 20-22, 1996, at the New England Center in Durham, New Hampshire The workshop led to recommendations for regional actions that can be further supported by the CEC.
While a great deal of regional cooperation has already occurred, particularly through the efforts of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment established in 1989 by the states (Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts in the United States) and provinces (New Bmnswick and Nova Scotia in Canada), the GPA methodology offers the opportunity to reassess regional priorities and actions to protect the marine environment.
The purpose of this background paper is to provide a methodological and informational foundation for participants at the November workshop Part 2 describes the GPA methodology in detail. Part 3 provides an overview of the Gulf of Maine region including its wealth of natural resources. Part 4 focuses on the state of land-based pollution and physical activities in the region Part 5 discusses existing regional cooperative agreements and arrangements including initiatives of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. Part 6 summarizes US and Canadian approaches to managing land-based pollution/activities including experiences with integrated coastal area management and precautionary approaches. Part 7 provides an initial assessment of the status of Gulf of Maine regional arrangements in light of the Global Programme of Action.
Figure 1: The Gulf of Maine Watershed Source. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment 1991, back cover.
The Global Programme of Action (GPA) is intended to provide guidance on developing a process for management actions to result in sustainable use of coastal and marine resources. Degradation of the marine environment results from human activities that use resources beyond replenishment, that dispose of wastes in areas unable to assimilate pollutants and that alter habitats through siltation, sedimentation, removal, filling and other disturbances. These activities not only threaten resources, hut in many cases may imperil human health through contaminated seafood, unsafe beaches and waters for swimming and other recreational activities.
The GPA provides a process for developing programs of action which can be used by all countries, those which are highly industrialized and those with developing economies. Although first described in Chapter 2, entitled Actions at the National Level, the process is applicable to regional and more local areas and is illustrated in a decision matrix (Figure 2). The GPA methodology has six steps:
identification and assessment of problems,
establishment of priorities,
setting management objectives for priority problems (and by implication adoption of management objectives),
identification, evaluation and selection of strategies and measures, including management approaches,
adoption of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of strategies and programs, and
program support elements
Figure 2 expands on these six basic provisions by indicating decision points, adds dissemination of information to the provisions, and highlights the importance of all stakeholders having input in the early stages, although stakeholder involvement is essential throughout the process.
There are five elements to be considered in identrfying and asses.sing problems that are generally categorized as issues relating to:
human health and economic, cultural and societal well-being and coastal and marine resources;
contaminants including sewage, organic pollutants, radioactive substances, metals, oil, nutrients, sediment mobilization and litter;
physical alteration;
point, non-point and atmospheric sources of degradation; and
special areas of concern such as watersheds and estuaries, islands, critical or sensitive habitats, and small islands.
The process for setting priorities at all levels should reflect the relative importance of impacts upon the elements in category 1, namely food security, public health, coastal and marine resources, ecosystem health and socio-economic benefits by source categories and areas affected. As part of the assessment process there should be evaluations of costs, benefits and feasibility of
options, including no action options. Some of the criteria laid out in the GPA for establishing priorities include.
application of integrated coastal area management approaches (bringing in stakeholders),
adoption of watershed management approaches,
recognition of linkages between management, coastal resources, poverty alleviation and protection of the marine environment,
use of environmental assessment procedures,
accounting for current and future environmental programs,
adoption of steps to protect critical habitats and endangered species,
integration at all levels of government (national, regional, and global),
establishment of focal points to facilitate national and international cooperation, and
application of the precautionary principle.
I Studies, Reports, 1 Identification and
Assessment of Problems v Programmatic Goals
Set Priorities Advisory Group Knowledge - Objectives
1 Identify Strategies
Measurable?
+ I Implement Programs I
NGOS. I Citizens,
Users, Technicall
Professional
Results
Evaluation
Criteria
Information
Make Decisions ' I Figure 2: Decision Matrix that Elaborates on the GPA Methodology. I
Management objecfives should provide for overall goals, timetables, and integrate preventive and remedial actions using existing knowledge, resources, plans and processes. The GPA suggests that stakeholders should participate in the process of problem identification, priority setting and establishment of management objectives. Strategies to achieve these management objectives are often left to the judgment of professionals who can identify: (a) best available techniques (BATS) and best environmental practices (BEPs); (b) project feasibility; (c) use reduction approaches; (d) appropriate incentives, both regulatory and economic for achieving goals; and (e) measures that may allow for improved planning and management decisions which includes a variety of environmental quality criteria for measuring progress. An important part of the process is to encourage technical assistance and transfer of information and increasing public awareness and education. It is also recognized that without institutional authority and resources, progress may be slow and chaotic. Similarly without new information, research, and monitoring results, decisions will be made on old data and information which may not reflect current understanding of the vulnerability or resiliency of ecosystems. Finally, finance mechanisms are needed to administer and implement strategies and programs.
Some general criteria for measuring success include environmental effectiveness. costs and benefits, equity, flexibility, administrative effectiveness, timing and intermedia effects. Specific criteria should be tailored for each specific mix of elements. For all phases there are both long- and short-term objectives depending on the urgency, economic factors and feasibility. Some of the administrative and management structures necessary to make progress include:
organizational arrangements among sectors,
legal and enforcement arrangements,
financial mechanisms,
resources to support research and monitoring, and
public participation and awareness
What is evident throughout the process is that this is an integrative approach that brings together all stakeholders and all levels of government within countries and between countries in developing strategies and programs that achieve agreed upon goals. Adoption of this process to regional and subregional areas is crucial for protecting marine environments from land-based activities
The methodology of the GPA can be applied at the regional and international (global) level. Chapter 3 of the GP.4 stresses regional cooperation as an important element in developing a broad-based protection program for the marine environment. The major difference in approach for a regional cooperative program compared to a national approach is the need for joint actions between and among states to support effective action. Chapter 3 highlights four steps (condensed somewhat from the GPA methodology in Chapter 2) as:
identification and assessment of problems,
establishment of priorities and targets for action,
development and implementation of pragmatic and comprehensive management approaches and processes, and
development and implementation of strategies for pollution prevention and, where appropriate, remediation programs.
Chapter 3 of the GPA raises numerous options relating to strengthening of regional agreements, institutions and arrangements. The appropriateness of negotiating new regional agreements is to be considered along with assessment of the adequacy of secretariat support for existing regional arrangements. Formation of a regional information clearinghouse is suggested for development of effective, efficient information exchange. In developing regional programs of action, consideration should also be given to regional harmonization of environmental and control standards for pollutant emissions, steps to protect critical habitats and endangered species, and innovative financing mechanisms. The GPA also emphasizes the need for regional capacity building and possibly identifiing centers of excellence in ocean/coastal management and environmentally sound technology assessment. Governments are also encouraged to consider interregional cooperation, including the exchange of experiences with other marine regions.
Chapter 4 of the GPA focuses on a larger spatial scale, the global environment, and identifies several specific objectives agreed to in Agenda 21 to which signatories have made commitments. The institutional needs to support the objectives include capacity building, mobilizing financial resources to cany out the objectives, development of appropriate interactive frameworks with other areas of international cooperation to accomplish agreed upon goals. The intent of the international cooperative actions is, where possible, to build upon ongoing programs and expertise and modify and adapt regional and national goals and objectives to include those of a global community. A major recurring theme is the need to develop a clearinghouse that stores and/or provides access to data and information, which builds on scientific, technical and socio- economic research, and adapts information for each nation's infrastructure. Use of available resources is encouraged, however. For example, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is urged to provide new and additional grants and loans to eligible countries (GPA 1995). These funds are to stimulate regional and national actions necessary to achieve global benefits in four areas: climate change, biological diversity, international waters and ozone-layer depletion. The GPA outlines steps for developing institutional arrangements. Two additional areas of international cooperation focus on wastewater treatment and management and development of an intemational agreement for persistent organic pollutants (POPS).
Chapter 5 of the GPA recommends approaches according to nine source categories, which identify specific targets and activities to be considered at each level (national, regional and global). The nine categories are: sewage, persistent organic pollutants, radioactive substances, heavy metals, oils (hydrocarbons), nutrients, sediment mobilization, litter and physical alterations. The GPA provides a broad-based menu of recommendations that are to be adopted at the national, regional and global levels with the aim of providing specific recommendations where appropriate and encouraging opportunistic adoption of acceptable approaches. In other words, the approach is performance-based, in that the goal is to meet certain objectives in the mitigation of land-based pollution in protection of marine ecosystems and providing for flexibility at each level for meeting targets and objectives.
Of the nine source categories, only sewage and litter have specific targeted objectives with specific timelines. For example, by the year 2005 all countries are to treat at least 50 percent of all wastes in conformity with national or international environmental and health quality guidelines. Other targets or proposed actions are less specific and use general guidelines such as to encourage
plans to reduce pollutants or to promote best environmental actions, leaving specific targets to be determined at the national, regional and global levels. Table 1 summarizes recommended targets and actions appropriate for each level. More information is available in Chapter 5 of the GPA (GPA 1995).
For many source categories, especially at the national and regional levels, best environmental practices (BEPs) and best available technologies (BATS) are recommended to allow for flexibility in the program to have each state or region adopt economically and socially acceptable approaches. At the global level, emphasis is placed on establishing a clearinghouse as the primary means of technology transfer to include the exchange of specific BAT or BEPs, human expertise, research, and monitoring data and information. The clearinghouse will only work, however, if governments participate and share information. Similarly, it is recommended that financial support be given to developing countries to assist in meeting agreed-upon targets. Several international programs may be tapped for assistance in setting standards, in meeting quality assurance and quality control guidelines, in establishing mutually agreed upon methodologies and in identifying critical areas to assist with priority setting for states and regions. Greater specificity in setting targets for all source categories will assist with accelerating prevention programs and protection of marine environments.
I Table 1: Synopsis of GPA Source Categories, Targets and Proposed Actions for the National, Regional and Global Levels."
I I I I I
Promote cleaner products Panicipate in a clearinghouse to
I share ideas for BAT. BEP and
salutionr: implement: and cooperate with industv Cooperate with developing
I developing countries
I I I
Adopt watershed approaches Cooperate with developing
I Manage contaminated and
Paniciparr in a clearinghouse
I Increase local planning
I I Establish marine protected
Foster cooperation between
I * Abbreviations used in the table are: BEP = best environmental practice, BAT = best available technology, IAEA =
International Atomic Energy Agency. POP = persistent organic pollutant, IPPC = integrated pollution prevention control.
I QMQC = quality assurancelquality control, and ICM = integrated coastal management.
17 -
3.0 THE GULF OF MAINE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE REGION
The Gulf of Maine region stretches from the north shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, in the United States, to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia, in Canada, and offshore to underwater plateaus called the Georges and Browns banks. Three states and two provinces border the gulf-Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine in the United States, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in Canada. The Gulf of Maine also encompasses six bays, including the Bay of Fundy.
As a semi-enclosed sea, the Gulf of Maine is distinguished by diverse marine habitats reflecting glacial scouring and deposits. At its southernmost end from Southern Maine to Cape Cod, are sand and boulder deposits creating the Cape Cod peninsula and the now submerged Georges Bank, as well as long sandy beaches, soft cliffs and bluffs interspersed with rocky headlands and barrier beaches. From Cape Elizabeth to Passamaquoddy Bay are rugged rocky stretches of coastline with tidal streams, coves and bays that lack sediments for salt marshes found along the southern shores. Unique and noted for its tidal range of over 15 meters in parts, is the Bay of Fundy, which was shaped primarily by glacier erosions and faulting, which through the centuries eroded soft headlands and created immense mudflats.
Two documents provide an excellent overview of the Gulf of Maine. They are: The Gulf of Maine: Sustaining Our Common Future (Van Dusen and Hayden 1989) and From Cape Cod to the Bay of Fundy: An Environmental Atlas of the Gulf of Maine (Conkling 1995).
Ocean currents are dominated by a counter clockwise gyre in the Gulf, a coastal current that extends from the north with several opportunities for being entrained in the gyre or exiting as it moves southward, and an adjacent clockwise gyre over Georges Bank (Figure 3) The Gulf is influenced by freshwater from rivers, Scotian Shelf intrusions of high salinity waters, and inflow of offshore slope waters through the Northeast Channel that brings a high nutrient load (Townsend 1992). A wide range of temperatures from the north to the south result in seasonal temperature extremes and resultant cooling and heating which along with tidal currents, bottom topography and currents create vertical mixing that brings nutrient rich waters to the surface. This region, which sustains phytoplankton and zooplankton blooms that, in turn, feed larval fish, benthic organisms. a variety of fish, marine mammals, and birds, is highly productive and loosely coupled (Sinclair et al. 1992). It was, until recently, one of the most productive fishing areas in the world.
A number of diverse habitats can be found throughout the Gulf. Estuaries, where freshwater bringing nutrients from the land meets with the sea, are highly productive areas and include wetlands, marshes and offshore algal and eelgrass beds. These areas serve as a rehge for larvae, support benthic worms, molluscs, crustaceans, and small fish which are loosely coupled to offshore communities The marshes serve to trap sediments, filter pollutants and provide a physical rehge, as well as food resources. By burrowing or being small enough to live among the grains, sandy shore organisms are adapted to shifting sands that move seasonally and with storms.
Figure 3: surface Water Currents in the Gulf of Maine.
Source: N. Pettigrew, University of Maine, 1996.
At the other extreme, rocky intertidal areas are inhahitated by plants and animals adapted for holding on in high energy environments, hiding in crevices or moving in and out with tides. Offshore, the bottom habitat is characterized by sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders, often within a few meters of each other. Depending on the level of disturbance, gravel and cobble areas tend to have the fewest organisms because they are scraped away during storms and currents. The effects of storms can be severe, even moving large beds of sand across the seafloor and creating long- lasting sand waves at depths of 30 m or more (M. Bothner, pers. comm.). Benthic organisms tend to vary with depth, grain size and sediment type, being more abundant closer to shore than at
depths. Attached plants are not usually found below 20 m, with the most productive areas found within the top 10 m (Carefoot 1979).
On a global scale, the Gulf of Maine is biologically less diverse than other temperate regions. From a biodiversity perspective, the Gulf of Maine is not well-characterized in terms of species identification and habitat, malang it difficult to demonstrate extinction, effects of introductions and other anthropogenic or environmental effects.
Nonetheless, there are hundreds of species of fish and shellfish which form the basis of the fisheries throughout the region. Pelagic fish frequenting the water column include sharks, herring, menhaden, capelin, mackerel, bluefin tuna, swordfish and bluefish. Many pelagic fish lay or deposit eggs on the bottom, some, such as the dogfish shark, are ovoviviparous bearing young alive. Mackerel and herring have become more abundant since the establishment of national 200 nautical-mile zones that prohibited foreign fleets from fishing in these waters, although numbers of anadromous fish have declined in abundance over the past few years. Larger pelagic fish, such as swordfish, bluefin tuna and sharks are heavily fished, with only the striped bass showing significant improvement as a result of an interstate agreement limiting fishing effort. The Gulf of Maine region supported nearly 20,000 fishers in 1988, when total landings amounted to 529,000 metric tonnes (mt) with an approximate value of C $800 million (Van Dusen and Hayden 1989). Recently, however, Canadian statistics show demersal landings have declined to approximately 300,000 mt (DFO 1995). Statistics maintained by the National Marine Fisheries Service record total landings of all finfish and shellfish in the Gulf of Maine (American landings) of 185,000 mt in 1982-1983, which have decreased to 108,000 mt in 1992 (NOAA 1995).
Demersal, or groundfish, live on or near the seabed and include cod, haddock, hake, pollock, whiting, cusk and flatfish, such as halibut and flounders. They feed on the macroinvertebrates found in and on the seafloor. Most demersal fish have planktonic eggs and larvae. Distribution of the fish species is related in part to temperature, salinity and other habitat or food requirements, although in general the most abundant species-cod, haddock and several species of flounder- are dominant throughout the region. Overfishing has greatly decreased the abundance and the distribution of these and other species, with Georges Bank now being dominated by dogfish sharks instead of cod, haddock, flounder and pollock (NOAA 1995). Deeper water species include plaice, witch flounder. redfish, white hake and cusk Other demersal species include northern shrimp, squid, lobsters, crab and sea scallops. As fishing pressure increases on other species, these too are in danger of being overfished (NOAA 1995).
Other animals of note are marine mammals and birds, many of which migrate large distances. The endangered northern right whale winters in the southern portions of the North Atlantic (as far as the West Indies) and migrates through the Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy and Scotian Shelf, feeding on abundant fish and plankton particularly in areas of upwelling. Although the northern right whale has been protected for the last 60 years, its populations have failed to increase from approximately 350 individuals (NOAA 1993, Kraus pres. comm.). Larger marine mammals can travel great distances in short periods of time or remain in areas with abundant food such as Nantucket shoals, Great South Channel and Stellwagen Bank (Kenney and Gilbert 1994). Dolphins and porpoises are found throughout the region, seals are more abundant to the north and sea turtles are generally restricted to the southern areas of the Gulf of Maine. Recently, gray and hooded seals appear to be increasing in population and are extending their winter range. For example, coast of Maine harbor seals were recorded at a population of 28,810, representing an
increase of 8.7 percent between 1981 and 1993 (Kenney and Gilbert 1994; Gilbert 1995) and increases have been reported for southern gray seals as well (Kraus and Early 1995).
Both shorebirds and seabirds, those that spend the majority of their life at sea, require breeding and feeding grounds. Shorebirds, which include sanderlings, sandpipers, plovers and terns, among many others, migrate to the north in the summer and south in the winter and can be found feeding in sandy areas, rocky intertidal shores and rnudflats. More than a half million birds may be present in the mudflats of the Bay of Fundy during midsummer (Platt et al. 1995). Nesting areas may include sandy beaches for plovers and te rnsas well as other nearshore habitats, especially wetlands, for other species. Larger birds, such as the Great Blue Heron, osprey and birds of prey are found near estuaries feeding on small fish in the shallows. Ducks eat a variety of food, from invertebrates to plant life, and breed along the southern shore but depend on wetlands and marshes for food and refuge.
Shorebirds were nearly decimated by over hunting, but now are protected, with restricted hunting seasons for ducks and geese. As a result, several species have increased in abundance since the turn of the century Perhaps the most dramatic increases are with terns, which have increased over 60 percent since 1987 (Platt et al. 1995). Seabirds, such as puffins, shearwaters, auks, and petrels, use coastal islands for breeding and raising young. These birds were also heavily hunted and are now protected by law, which has contributed to increasing populations.
4.0 LAND-BASED POLLUTION AND PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS IN THE GULF OF MAINE REGION
4.1 Contaminants in the Gulf of Maine Region Obtaining a full and accurate picture of point and non-point pollution sources for contaminant levels in the Gulf of Maine region is not possible for a number of reasons. A Gulf of Maine point- source inventory covering 36 watersheds in the region (Figure 4) has been completed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 1994). Those results were further summarized in a 1995 report produced by the Maine State Planning Office (MSPO 1995), but the inventory displays numerous shortcomings. Limitations include age of the point-source data, many of which are older than the date (1991) of data summarized, limited monitoring data particularly from Canada, coverage of only permitted discharges, and a limited number of pollutants assessed. The 15 pollutants studied include: nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P); trace metals such as arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and zinc (Zn); oil and grease ( 0 & G), fecal coliform bacteria (FCB), overall waste- water flow (Process Flow), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). A non-point source inventory has yet to be completed, although a report on US and Canadian control measures for non-point pollution control was prepared in 1992 (Ferdinand 1992). In general, data for assessing non-point sources of pollution are older and less reliable, resulting in grossly inaccurate loading estimates.
Examination of atmospheric transport of contaminants to the Gulf of Maine region as a watershed is still very limited. In a study published by the International Joint Commission in September 1995, calculations for atmospheric input of lead and cadmium to the Gulf of Maine were made and results indicated the atmospheric pathway is likely responsible for 15 percent of the total cadmium input into the Gulf of Maine while the atmospheric pathway is associated with 25 percent of the total input of lead (McAdie 1995). Various information gaps were identified hindering completion of estimates of atmospheric inputs of other contaminants (including arsenic, mercury and various pesticide residues) into the Gulf of Maine region. Understanding atmospheric transport depositions is complicated by our lack of understanding of physical, chemical, biological and biogeochemical processes and methods to reasonably estimate airsheds. Atmospheric deposition is viewed as potentially critical given the findings of long-range transport of toxic materials to other regions including the Great Lakes and theArctic (Murray et al. 1996), and the findings related to the world's oceans suggesting the atmospheric route is dominant for depositing PCBs (some 80 percent) and hexachlorocyclohexanes (about 99 percent) of total input to the ocean water body (McAdie 1995).
Identifying environmental health effects of contaminants is also problematic. Demonstration of direct cause and effect relationships between contaminants and biological impacts is difficult given ecosystem complexities, possible synergies of multiple contaminants and limited studies on significance of chemical burdens to fish and wildlife (Wells et al. 1996; Pederson 1994).
Canadian and U.S Watersheds
Map ID Code Watershed Map ID Code Watershed
1 COlO Yarrnouth 19 NO46 Coastal Drainage Area 2 CO2O Sr. Mary's Bay 20 NO50 Penobscar Bay 3 C030 Annapolis Basin 21 NO52 Coastal Drainage Area 4 C040 Avon River 22 NO55 Coastal Drainage Area 5 COSO Shubenacadic River 23 NOGO Murcongus Bay G COG0 MinasICobequid Shore 24 NO70 Sheeprcot Bay 7 C070 Cumberland Basin 25 NO80 Casco Bay 8 C080 Shepody Shore 26 NO86 Coastal Drainage Area 9 CO9O Fundy Shore 27 NO90 Saco Bay 10 ClOO Sainr john River 28 NO76 Coastal Drainage Area I I C I lO Magaguadavic Digdeguashl 29 NlOO Grear Bay
Mac- Bay 30 NIOG Coasral Drainage Area 12 Cl2O Sr. Craix River 3 1 N 1 10 Mcrrimack River 13 NO10 Passamaquoddy Bay 32 N115 Coasral Drainagc Area 14 NO16 Coastil Drainage Area 33 N 120 Massachusetts Bay 15 NO20 Englishman Bay 34 Nl25 Coastal Drainage Area 16 NO30 Narragusgus Bay 35 N130 Cape Cod Bay 17 NO36 Coastal Drainage Area 36 N 135 Coastal Draimgc Area 18 NO40 Blue Hill Bay
Nore: The Saint John River watershed (C100) is shared by the U.S. and Cmada.
Figure 4: Canadian and US Watersheds Covered by the Gulf of Maine Point Source Inventory
Source: NOAA 1994, 3; and MSPO 1995, 20.
Limited field evidence exists indicating that contaminants, such as DDT residues, PCBs and other organochlorines, are causing or contributing to direct or indirect biological effects, and some examples of heavily contaminated fish with tumors and other abnormalities have been documented in the region's coastal waters including the Bay of Fundy (Thurston and Larsen 1994). A limited number of health advisories have been issued relating to consumption of contaminated fish species. In 1988, based on studies from Boston Harbor, including Quincy Bay, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health advised persons to stop eating lobster tomalley due to abnormally high chemical contaminant levels, especially PCBs, which exceeded the US Food ar~d Drug Administration (FDA) limits of 2 ppm in edible tissues (MDPH 1988). In 1994 Maine State Health officials issued a similar advisory due to unacceptably high levels of dioxin in lobster tomalley (Thurston and Larsen 1994) Several US States have issued advisories on freshwater fish consumption due to mercury levels. However, no mercury related advisories are in effect for marine fish
One approach to evaluating the effects of contaminants is the use of mussels as indicators of bioavailability Mussels were chosen because they are abundant, found worldwide, sedentary and bioaccumulate most contaminants Both the National Status and Trends Program and the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment support the use of mussels as indicators in their monitoring programs (NOAA 1995, Sowles et al. 1994). Both programs have focused on providing information on the status and trends of contaminant distribution and bioavailability in nearshore environments. Although Canada does not have a mussel watch type program, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have participated with the three New England states in the Gulfwatch monitoring program. The program has examined the concentrations of metals, pesticides and organic chemicals such as PAHs and PCBs in tissue residues. In addition, growth rates were determined using caged animals deployed for approximately two months.
The results of Gulfwatch are consistent with other data summaries (Sowles et al. 1994; Gottholm and Turgeon 1994; NOAA 1995). Urban harbors and ports are reported to have higher concentrations in tissue residues than in other areas for most contaminants, except pesticides. In general there is a pollution gradient with concentrations higher in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and lower Maine than in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with regional point sources having the greatest influence on distribution overriding the geography and latitudinal influences (Sowles et al. 1994).
While the Gulf of Maine may be viewed as relatively clean and pristine next to more polluted bodies of water in the world, such as the Baltic or Mediterranean, increasing pollution pressures are facing the area. A total of 2,024 active point-source facilities were identified in the 1991 Gulf of Maine inventory (NOAA 1994) In the United States, 1,069 active industrial facilities, 252 wastewater treatment plants and 85 power plants were identified. In Canada, 492 industrial facilities, 126 wastewater plants and eight power plants were found to be operating. As the following sections show, the Gulf of Maine is facing substantial pressures from all source categories identified in the Global Programme of Action including: sewage and nutrients; toxic contaminants (pesticides, PCBs, dioxins and hrans, heavy metals, and oils), and physical alterations and destruction of habitats
Sewage and Nutrients The three New England States-Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts-include coastal populations of approximately 6,180,229 compared to Canadian Maritime Provinces with coastal populations of about 634,629 (NOAA 1994). It is interesting to compare the two countries and the levels of pollutant loading per individual from point sources which reflects sewage inputs (Figure 5).
If loading estimates are based on comparable data, the graphs suggest that New Brunswick discharges untreated pollutants more than other provinces and states, even though total loading is higher from the US states (in large part reflecting higher populations).
Provision of adequate sewage treatment is a growing concern in Atlantic Canada. A State of the Environment in the Atlantic Region report indicates that only 25.7 percent of the population is served with central wastewater treatment compared to the national average of 57.8 percent (Eaton et al. 1994). About 624,400 people contribute approximately 400,000 m' of untreated wastewater into the environment daily from community sewer collection systems. Shellfish harvesting closures have also been extensive in the Atlantic region. Municipal wastewater discharges are considered to be the major cause of contamination of shellfish growing areas. Some 37 percent of inshore coastal waters classified as shellfish growing areas in the Atlantic region are closed with about 894 krnz in Nova Scotia and 499 kmz in New Brunswick (Eaton et al. 1994).
The sewage treatment situation for Saint John, New Brunswick; exemplifies problems facing coastal cities and communities in Atlantic Canada. All sewage from the central and southern end of Saint John-55 percent of the total city sewage or 23,365 m3 per day-is dumped without any treatment at all. Only 25 percent is given primary treatment to screen and settle out solids, while some 20 percent of the total received secondary treatment where sewage is actually decomposed (Conkling 1995).
Information on over 75 municipal wastewater treatment facilities in New Brunswick shows most facilities rely on lagoon and aerated lagoon treatment. Less than half of treatment facilities are reported to use chlorination for disinfection.'
An unofficial list of municipal wastewater treatment plants bordering the Bay of Fundy region in Nova Scotia lists 22 plants. Most are reported to have secondary treatment and most use chlorination for disinfection.'
Nutrients from fertilizers, used quite extensively in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, may contribute along with human sewage to toxic and nontoxic algal blooms with negative impacts on marine life and human health. In 1990, commercial agriculture fertilizer application totaled 3 1,900 tonnes in Nova Scotia and 43,500 tonnes in New Brunswick (Statistics Canada 1994). Although toxic algal blooms may occur naturally, increased frequency over the past few decades in both hemispheres of the globe indicates a possible relationship to nutrient enrichment of coastal waters (World Resources Institute 1990).
~. ~. ~~ .--PA- A---
~ p~~ ---- ~-~
Total Flow Process Flow BOD
~ ~.. ~ .. 4%7% (.MA 17% m, 14%
m N H .NH i 11% 5% 1%
. M E , , 5256 .ME
:ONE 29% O N E 74% q NS I % ; n N S ! '"0
-- 82% - !
-
TSS Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus
- -- -- -- --
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium
Copper Iron
I Mercury Zinc Fecal Coliform Bacteria 1 I
Figure 5: Pie Chart Showing Percentage Loading of Pollutants and Flow for Each State and Province in the Gulf of Maine
Source: NOAA 1994
The addition of nitrogenous wastes from aquaculture operations is also a growing concern (Wells and Rolston 1991). Fecal wastes and uneaten food residues from fish farms is high in nitrogen and phosphorus, and a 200-ton-salmon production has been estimated as equivalent to a nutrient content of raw sewage produced by 3,000 people (Harvey 1994).
In the United States, the Clean Water Act of 1972~ and reauthorization has required that wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) be upgraded to secondary level treatment with provisions that may require additional treatment in areas where water quality standards are not achieved or allow an exemption from secondary treatment if siting permits. For WWTFs discharging into coastal waters, secondary level treatment is only now being achieved in Massachusetts (several coastal WWTFs applied for a waiver in the 1980s and were denied), with secondary being the majority of municipal treatment level in New Hampshire and Maine. Where populations are dense, municipal WWTFs serve to treat sewage whereas in less populated areas either individual or small-package treatment systems are used. WWTFs and properly functioning septic systems remove coliform bacteria, sediments and associated contaminants from the waste stream.
Box 1: Brief Historical Account of the Boston Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
The greater Boston area is the major single source of wastewater pollution to Massachusetts Bay. The WWTF, managed by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA), discharges approximately 350 million gallons of treated sewage per day. Well into the 1980s, after regulations were adopted, the WWTF discharged barely treated primary effluent, separated primary level sludge and discharged it on the ebb flow at the mouth of Boston Harbor. Throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, the operator (a state agency) applied for a waiver to be exempt from upgrading to secondary treatment. After the waiver was denied, court intervention required a restructuring of the facility's management, cessation of sludge discharge and secondary level treatment of effluent. By December 1984, legislation was passed creating the Authority which has the ability to independently finance construction and maintenance of a facility that can meet secondary water quality criteria. At about the same time, the federal government withdrew support (up to 90 percent) of the cost of construction of WWTF forcing rate payers to assume the debt.
I Over the past decade, the MWRA commissioned numerous engineering and scientific studies, involved the public in the process, and initiated construction and implementation required for compliance. Sludge is no longer being discharged and is used for fertilizer, secondary level treatment is nearly complete, a nine-mile tunnel reaching into
; Massachusetts Bay is near completion, a toxic-reduction program has been implemented, and the MWRA has agreed to assist cities and towns with addressing and upgrading the combined sewer overflows which can discharge up to a billion gallons per day during storm events. There are noticeable changes in Boston Harbor. Removal of sludge has resulted in improved water clarity, treating discharges from combined sewer overflows has resulted in increased frequency of opening beaches, and changes in benthic community and the frequency of histopathology in fish and other marine organisms may also be attributed to lower pollutant discharges (MWRA 1995).
Nutrients, particularly nitrogen, are not attenuated by either primary or secondary treatment or by septic systems, and may result in eutrophication of near coastal waters. especially in embayments where loading is high relative to flushing rates and the assimilation capacity of the system. Where coastal development is increasing, there is a greater potential for eutrophication and habitat alteration, e.g. Southern Maine and Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Short 1992; Valiela et al. in press; C. Menzie, pers. comm.). Older cities and towns have a legacy of untreated wastes being disposed into coastal waters which has left a legacy of degraded environments in the wake.
Despite legislation, enforcement capacity, and financial backing, there are still areas where raw sewage is discharged in the United States. Older cities and towns have infrastructure that is inadequately sized, allows for infiltration and inflow into conduits and retains illegal hook-ups where sewage is directed towards storm drains, and have inadequate budgets to maintain facilities to function at secondary or even primary levels. Equally important is the realization that planning, permitting and construction may take from a few years to decades or more depending on the size of the facility and even longer if the municipality appeals the order to improve sewage treatment. Thus. despite strong environmental laws which are enforced through fines, court orders and public outrage, progress is relatively slow. This is exemplified by the Boston area WWTF (see Box 1, previous page).
Toxic Contaminants Although the following section corresponds to the GPA, it is recognized that toxicants. including metals, POPS and oil entering from waste streams, may be treated through sewage treatment systems. Most organic chemicals and some metals are associated with particulates which may settle out near the source of discharge, be resuspended with stoms or high water flow, resettle until they reach the estuary where additional changes may occur. There are still many questions about the transport of contaminants through estuaries where salinity, temperature and chemical and biological differences result in flocculation and other biogeochemical changes (Menzie-Cura Associates 1995).
Treatment of waste streams often remove particulates and associated pollutants. Chemicals which are more likely to be "dissolved" may follow different routes of transport and fate (Bothner et al., 1996). For example, silver is associated with human activity and is distributed throughout Cape Cod Bay where there are no sewage outfalls presumably as a result of stoms which resuspend and transport sediments (Bothner et al., 1996).
Data on non-point sources of many contaminants are not generally available. The following discussions reflect the general lack of current information which creates a dilemma in addressing issues of relative loading based on old data that does not reflect current pollution-prevention measures (see later discussion of lead). Similarly, the scale of the areas being compared is important. Two studies which used the same sources of information, reliable data for point source discharges and improved estimates of non-point sources based on current pollution mitigation, illustrate this point (Figure 6) . If one compares copper and lead inputs into Boston Harbor (108 !an2) with Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, referred to as Massachusetts Bay (5000 !an2), it is evident that point sources are the major source for both, whereas non-point sources are the major contributor of lead to the Massachusetts Bays system (MWRA 1993a, 1993b, 1994b; MBP 1991). An equally interesting comparison is to examine loadings based on
older methods of analyses compared to "clean lab" techniques (Hunt 1992) resulting in an accurate, and frequently lower, loading estimate, e.g. lead loading is reduced by 55 percent.
These cautions are intended to provide a perspective on some of the problems associated with data used in comparing loadings within the Gulf of Maine. It also underscores the need to conduct laboratory intercalibration exercises to ensure comparability of data. This was done for the Gulfwatch Program (Sowles et al. 1994).
~.~ .- . ~ . ~ ~-
Copper Discharge to Boston Copper Discharge to Mass Bay Harbor
Atmosphere Non- 0% polnt
Source 12%
NonpolntP Source
Fv~nt I Point Source
Source 88%
Atmosphere 15% Non-~oint
Point Source
Source
Point Source
I Lead Discharge to Boston Lead Discharge to Mass Bay Harbor I
Atmosphere Atmosphere 4% Non- 48%
polnt Non-polnt
Source Source as= Nonpo~nt <) "' ~ S o l n t
Source Polnt Source
Polnt Point Source Pant
I Source 73%
Source 10%
Figure 6: Comparison of Loading Estimage Discharges into Boston Harbor (108 km2) and Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays (Mass Bay) (5000 km2) Using Comparable Data Sets and Illustrating Relative Contribution from Point and Non-point Sources
Source: MWRA 1994b, MBP 1991.
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS)
The Global Programme of Action (GPA) sets out a broad definition of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs refer to a set of organic compounds that: a) possess toxic characteristics, b) are persistent; c) are liable to bioaccumulate; d) are prone to long-range transport and deposition; and e) can result in adverse environmental and human health effects at locations near and far from their source.
Three categories of persistent organic pollutants are of particular concern in the Gulf of Maine. They include pesticides, especially chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins and furans.
Pesticides
One prominent approach for measuring marine environmental pollutants is to examine seabird eggs Various chlorinated pesticides such as Dichloro-diphenyl dichloroethane (DDT) and its highly toxic breakdown product DDE, toxaphene, dieldrin, hexachlorobenzine (HCB), heptachlorepoxide, hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), myrex, and chlordane have been found in seabird eggs (Noble and Bums 1990).
Pesticide residue levels in marine mammals are also a concern. For example, DDT levels of greater than 500 ppm have been found in harbor porpoises in the lower Bay of Fundy (Wells and Rolston 1991).
Following the banning or severe restriction of most organochlorines, the levels of environmental contamination have generally decreased. For example, since the early 1970s, DDT compounds have declined significantly in Atlantic coastal waters, as did dieldrin in the eggs of most seabird species (Noble and Bums 1990).
Pesticide runoff from agricultural and forestly operations is both a historical and an ongoing concern. During the 1950s and 1960s when large areas of forests of New Brunswick were sprayed with DDT to combat spruce budworm infestation, it is estimated that some 5.7 million kilograms were used annually (Thurston and Larsen 1994). Pesticide application in the Maritime provinces is reported to have increased by approximately 30 percent between 1970 and 1980 (Wells and Rolston 199 1).
It is particularly difficult to estimate pesticide usage in the United States and to estimate discharge levels Massachusetts tracks limited pesticide uses, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) maintains records of general use estimates, but, in general, data on use and disposal are limited because so few discharges are required to be monitored. Massachusetts conducted a series of studies in estuaries (also referred to as embayments) during the 1970s and examined levels of DDT and metabolites in sediments and seafood. No comparable study has been done since, nor is there a methodological comparison with today's analytical methods compared to those used then, although a similar study is being conducted in Plum Island Sound without looking at DDT (Buchsbaum et al. 1995). A recent profile of the Great Bay Estuary in New Hampshire and Maine does not specifically provide data on pesticides, except for tin and organotin (Jones et al 1992).
Non-point source data of pesticide use was last published in 1988, and agricultural use in 1992, but because of the age of the data, information may not reflect current usage (USEPA 1990). Since most chlorinated pesticides have been banned, except for under rare circumstances, these
data and summaries are not very usehl. Even less information is available about the current generation of phosphate-based pesticides Generic information suggests the current pesticides are readily broken down, do not bioaccumulate and are not long-lived (J. Nassif, pers. comm.).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program analyzed total chlordane and total DDT in sediments, mussels and fish in 17 sites throughout New England. In general, the northernmost sites along the Maine coast are below the national median, whereas other areas exceed the national median for sediments. Total DDT in mussel tissues are at the 75 percentile for Salem and Boston Harbors andbelow the median for all other areas, whereas mussel tissue chlordane concentrations are above the national median in Boston and below the median elsewhere (Gottholm and Turgeon 1992).
Tributyltin (TBT) has been banned in all states and by the US EPA except for use in medium- sized boats, aluminum boats and some navy vessels. TBT has been shown to cause reproductive changes (e.g., sex alteration) in mollusks when exposed to TBT in the environment Although it was agreed to ban TBT, there are not regular monitoring programs in the states to demonstrate trends (MDPH 1989).
PCBs PCB contamination in the marine environment is better documented. PCB congeners (selected co- planar congeners) are suspected carcinogens, but only recently have monitoring programs identified specific congeners (Schwartz, pers comm.; Schwartz et a1 1991). PCBs are associated with disruptions of photosynthesis and reproductive effects in fish (Black et al. 1988) and neurological and other effects in humans (Kimbrough 1985).
Although the manufacture of PCBs in Canada was banned in 1977, PCBs continue to be present in the marine environment. Approximately 40,000 tonnes of PCBs were imported into Canada with some 16,000 tonnes disbursed into the environment in various fashions including runoff from landfills and industrial sites. Approximately 24,000 tonnes are still being used or in storage (Eaton et a1 1994). Release from municipal sewage treatment plants, landfill sites, incinerators, and fish processing plants are all believed to be major sources of contamination. Elevated levels of PCBs have been found in striped bass in the Annapolis and Saint John rivers (FMESP 1996; Thurston and Larsen 1994).
In the United States, manufacture of PCBs was halted in 1977, but PCBs are still present in capacitors, transformers, and other long-lived electronic equipment Major sources are landfills, incineration and improper disposal. Because PCBs are long-lived chemicals and not easily broken down in marine systems, they are persistent in sediments, bioaccumulated and found in high concentrations in selected animals and organs.
PCBs are regularly monitored in sediments, some discharges and seafood. The US Food and Drug Administration has an action level of 2 parts per million (ppm) in edible tissues as being unsafe for human consumption (see Ahmed 1991). Bluefish, striped bass and lobster tomalley in hlassachusetts waters frequently exceed these values (Schwartz et a1 1991, Capuzzo et al. 1987; USEPA 1988a). PCBs are in relatively high concentrations in Boston Harbor, Salem Harbor and other urban harbors and ports in New England compared to other regions of the country based on the NOAA National Status and Trends analysis (Gottholm and Turgeon 1992). The presence of
the PCBs in lobster tomalley has resulted in a Massachusetts advisory against lobster tomalley consumption (MDPH 1988).
Dioxins and Furam Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans) are both highly persistent organic compound arising from various sources. Municipal incinerators, burning wood in stoves and fireplaces, forest fires, using chlorine in the bleaching process of pulp and paper mills are contributors (Eaton et al. 1994).
Scientific research has lagged in discovering long-term environmental effects and predicting human health risks. A Great Blue Heron colony located in the Strait of Georgia in British Columbia, about one kilometer from a krafi pulp mill, is known to have suffered reproductive failures (Government of Canada 1991). Most studies have focused on effluent effects on fish and invertebrates, with few being conducted on the levels and effects of chlorinated organic compounds in aquatic plants or wildlife (Environment Canada and Health and Welfare Canada 1991)
A major source of dioxin and furan release into the marine environment has come from pulp and paper mills using chlorination in the bleaching process. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) first detected dioxin in Maine rivers in the mid-1980s, and seven pulp and paper plants using chlorine bleaching were likely major sources (Thurston and Larsen 1994). Seven pulp and paper mills in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have also used chlorine for pulp bleaching (Eaton et al. 1994).
Dioxins and furans are often found in higher concentrations in areas where sludge or solid wastes are incinerated. In general they have not been regularly included in effluent monitoring programs, thus it is difficult to evaluate potential risk or trends in accumulation. The US EPA recently reviewed its risk assessment policy on dioxins. The report generated considerable debate because of the way risk assessment is determined. The US Food and Drug Administration has a consumption action level of 25 parts per trillion, whereas the US EPA estimates a I in 100,000 lifetime cancer risk from consumption of food with levels of 1 part per trillion. The differences in agency perceptions demonstrate the uncertainty about the potency of the chemical
Heavy Metals
Heavy metals in the Gulf of Maine may arise from both older sediments, contaminated by early industrial activities in the Gulf of Maine region including tanneries, as well as contemporary sources such as pulp and paper, tanning and textile industries. Concentrations of chromiun, copper and lead have been found at the mouths of Casco and Penobscot Bays with river flow as a major pathway for contaminants into the marine environment. In the Bay of Fundy sports fish, such as striped bass from the Saint John River basin in New Bmnswick, have exhibited levels of mercury contamination as high as 0.89 mdkg, with mercury concentrations usually less than 0.5 mg/kg; which is the Canadian Advisory Level (from Prouse and Uthe 1994 cited in FMESP 1996).
A major source of trace metals in the environment is likely from highway runoff. It has been estimated that from 40 to 75 percent of metals discharged into receiving streams are derived from
highway runoff. Although lead concentrations have been steadily declining in the area of most communities in Atlantic Canada following the phase out of leaded gasoline sold after December 1990, the use of leaded gasoline is still allowed in farm equipment, commercial fishing boats and trucks given the upper engine lubricating qualities of leaded gasoline and engine requirements used in those industries (Eaton et al. 1994)
As is true with most contaminants, characterization of source, distribution and effects vary with different metals. Specific industries can be identified as major sources of specific metals, for example, chromium associated with tanneries has left a legacy of high concentrations in Salem Harbor (the highest in the United States based on the NOAA's National Status and Trends Survey (Gottholm and Tuigeon 1992) even though many tanneries are closed or have moved elsewhere.) Copper is usually associated with wastewater treatment facilities, largely because of copper plumbing, and, along with nickel, violate the US water quality criteria for wastewater treatment facilities (USEPA 1988b). Lead, now banned from gasoline in the United States is showing a trend of decreasing availability in sediments (Smith et a1 1987; NOAA 1991; O'Connor and Beliaeff 1995 and Bothner et a1.1996).
Recent estimates of mercury loading to Boston Harbor, based on improved analytical techniques, support atmospheric inputs as the major route into coastal environments. Although there are no seafood consumption advisories, some fish concentrate mercury and are near or exceed the US FDA action level of 1 ppm methylmercury, the toxic form found in fish.
In general, metal concentrations are above the US median values in sediments of urban harbors, particularly in the southern part of Maine through Massachusetts, reflecting a history of untreated industrial discharges and regions of high populations. For concentrations of metals in fish and shellfish throughout coastal Massachusetts waters see Schwartz et al. 1993. Concentrations of cadmium and zinc in mussel tissues are below the median, whereas sediment concentrations are largely above the median, suggesting that pollution prevention measures are improving water quality (Gottholm and Turgeon 1992).
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon impacts on the marine environment of concern include both oil spills and pollution by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), primarily occurring from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. One oil refinery operates on the Canadian side of the Gulf of Maine region. No fewer than 36 oil spills were recorded for the Irving Canaport, near Saint John, New Brunswick during the 1970s (Harvey 1994). PAHs are found in sediments throughout the Gulf of Maine and principal sources are likely thermal power plants and vehicle exhausts. PAHs, among the oldest carcinogens known to humans, are transported by prevailing westerly winds to the Gulf of Maine offshore region (Larsen et al. 1986). PAH concentrations in Boston Harbor sediments are among the highest in the United States and the highest in New England (Gottholm and Turgeon 1992).
Because there are hundreds of PAHs, it is difficult to generalize about their longevity, behavior, and effects. Often PAHs are often referred to as low molecular weight (LhfW) and high molecular weight (HMW) compounds, with LMW PAHs tending to be more volatile and more readily broken down by microorganisms than HMW PAHs HMW PAHs tend to be accumulated, are usually produced from incomplete combustion and many are associated with soot particles which
may or may not be available to organisms (McGroddy and Famington 1995, McGroddy et al 1996; Chin et al. 1992)
The effects of PAHs on marine organism and human consumers of seafood remains uncertain. Seafood generally contains small concentrations of PAHs compared with those occurring in other foodstuffs largely because many marine organisms and humans metabolize parent PAH compounds (Stegeman 1981; McElroy et al. 1994). Effects of chronic levels of exposure require additional scientific study (Clark 1989).
Because many species of marine organisms, as well as humans, metabolize PAHs, PAHs are not apparently accumulated in organisms and humans. However, several PAHs are known carcinogens, others do accumulate and appear to have similar effects to PCBs
4.2 Alterations and Destruction of Habitat While numerous physical alterations along coastal areas, such as roads, housing developments, piers and utility corridors may negatively impact the marine environment and water quality, the drainage of wetlands and the building of dams and causeways have been particularly damaging. Over 65 percent of Atlantic coastal marshes have been "lost" largely to agricultural expansion (Environment Canada 1986). Construction of causeways has hindered natural distribution of critical life stages of commercial fish species, disrupted tidal flows and accelerated accumulation of sediments. For example, causeways built across the Petitcodiac River (Moncton, New Brunswick) and Avon River (Windsor, Nova Scotia) along the Bay of Fundy have resulted in heavy siltation and the build up of artificial mud flats (Eaton et a1 1994). The Atlantic region of Canada is reported to have 130 large dams of which 35 are located in Nova Scotia and 16 in New Brunswick (Eaton et al. 1994).
Similarly, in the United States, it is estimated that approximately 50 percent of coastal wetlands have been lost or altered by filling, dredging, or minimizing or eliminating exchange of tidal waters into marshes (Foote-Smith 1995). What has not been well-documented is the effect of causeways or drainage pipes, excessive siltation and eutrophication on the ecosystem as a whole. It is estimated that within New England over 98 percent of the Atlantic salmon habitat has been effectively removed through dams, barriers and other physical obstacles. Other anadromous species have also been affected by habitat loss through barriers that prohibit access to spawning grounds (Moore, pers. comm.). Even in areas where fisb ladders have been constructed, poor maintenance and neglect have resulted in additional habitat loss.
Eutrophication from excessive nutrients in near coastal waters have significantly altered eelgrass bed distributions (Short and Mathieson 1992). For example, in Boston Harbor eelgrass beds once were found to depths of 6 m but now are not deeper than 2 m (Chandler et al. 1996). This shallow vertical distribution is directly related to turbidity from phytoplankton growth andlor sediment erosion and resuspension. Similar observations are made in embayments and other regions of New England with respect to the aerial coverage and vertical distribution of eelgrass. There is a positive relationship between diversity, abundance, and productivity in eelgrass beds, however, it is not well-documented that fish, particularly commercially and recreationally important fish, are closely coupled to eelgrass beds (Buchsbaum et al. 1996).
Other types of physical disturbance fall into the category of interference with natural sediment transport along shores. Armoring the coast to protect eroding banks and dunes with boulders,
riprap and other physical structures and constructing groins and seawalls, dredging activities and allowing development on banier beaches have changed patterns of long shore sediment transport (WA DEP 1994). Because changes in habitat have occurred over centuries, it is almost impossible to estimate changes in species diversity, abundance and distribution that can be attributed specifically to anthropogenic activities compared to natural disturbances (RARGOM 1995).
4.3 Marine Debris Litter in the marine environment derives from various sources. They include releases of solid wastes from landfills near coastal areas, discarded plastic, such as six-pack connector rings, and discarded fishing nets or lines (VanderZwaag 1995).
Besides being an aesthetic problem, marine litter may also be hannhl to marine animals. Whales and sea turtles may mistake plastic items for food. Fish and birds may become entrapped in discarded fish nets and six-pack connector rings. Boat propellers may also be damaged by entanglement in lines or nets.
The extent of marine litter in Canadian coastal areas can be glimpsed from the Nova Scotia experience. During Environment Week in 1990, more than 136,000 pieces of litter were collected from about 227 kilometers from the province's beaches (Eaton et al. 1994).
For the past several years, US coastal states have sponsored a week of beach clean-ups (Coastsweep) by using volunteers to pick up and record trash found along beaches. Although it is difficult to compare data from state to state (volunteer numbers vary depending on season and other activities), overall there is a decrease in trash volume throughout the United States. Furthermore, articles with foreign labels are being found in decreasing numbers. Although the error bars on these type of data are broad, cessation of sludge from Boston Harbor resulted in a 50 percent decrease in indicators of untreated sewage collected along Boston Harbor area beaches (Sheavly 1995; MCZM 1992).
5.0 EXISTING REGIONAL INITIATIVES RELEVANT TO LAND-BASED ACTIVITIES IN
THE GULF OF MAINE
While various regional conferences have been held relating to protection of the marine environment in the Gulf of Maine, for example, on the topics of regional responses to global climate change (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment 1993) and on integration of science and policy in decision-malung (National Research Council 1995), three ongoing avenues of regional cooperation stand out. They are: the Joint Canada-United States Marine Pollution Contingency Plan for Spills of Oil and Other Noxious Substances; the Gulf of Maine Agreement and Action Plan on Conservation of the Marine Environment, and regional cooperative efforts in scientific research and monitoring, through groups such as the Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine.
Joint Canada-United States Marine Pollution Contingency Plan for Spills of Oil and Other Noxious Substances Based on a framework agreement between United States and Canada in 1974,~ the US Coast Guard, First District, and the Canadian Coast Guard, Maritimes Region, have established working arrangements, referred to as CAWSLANT, for responding jointly to pollution incidents in the Gulf of Maine region Joint practice response exercises have been carried out on a biennial basis (Stright 1991). The two Coast Guards reviewed the adequacy of the existing legal and institutional frameworks at a Canada-US Regional Workshop on Transboundary Pollution Response, attended by more than 150 US and Canadian participants and held in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, 6-8 December 1994.'
Gulf of Maine Agreement and Action Plan In December 1989, the premiers of two Canadian provinces (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) and the governors of three US states (Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts) signed the Agreement on the Conservation of the Marine Environment of the Gulf of ~ a i n e , ~ establishing a framework for regional cooperation and marine environmental protection The Agreement established the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment composed of two governmental representatives from each of the Gulf of Maine states and provinces. The Agreement charged the Gulf of Maine Council with the task of developing a Gulf of Maine Action Plan within 15 months of its appointment. The Agreement recognized the need to take a broad watershed and ecosystem approach to protecting the marine environment. The parties agreed to develop a coordinated monitoring program for the Gulf of Maine region The parties also authorized the development of additional agreements or protocols on specific issues or concerns might be raised in the future.
The Gulf of Maine Action Plan adopted by the Gulf of Maine Council in July 1991, set out priority actions in five subject areas including: Monitoring and Research, Coastal and Marine Pollution, Habitat Protection, Citizen Participation, and Protection of Public Health (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment 1991a). For example, priority actions called for under the Coastal and Marine Pollution category included development of inventories of point and non- point pollution sources in the Gulf of Maine region, evaluation of existing laws and regulations
relating to natural resource protection. and a review of law enforcement practices and policies in the region Habitat protection actions included a proposed joint Gulf Marine Mammals Protection Plan, development of a common habitat mapping system, and developing proposals for protection of regionally significant coastal and marine habitats. Protection of public health actions included development of new programs for monitoring and predicting offshore biotoxin events and promotion of adoption of more meaningful indicators than fecal coliform bacteria to assess human health risk from shellfish consumption.
Four committees have served as the key working arms of the Gulf of Maine Council.. The Data and Information Management Committee has promoted the development of an Environmental Data and Information Management System (EDIMS) allowing the exchange of information and discussions via e-mail and electronic bulletin boards. The Environmental Monitoring Committee is responsible for implementation of the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan and the Gulfwatch Program. Gulfwatch is a collaborative monitoring program using the blue mussel, A4ytilus edtilrs, as an indicator of contaminant levels in the Gulf of Maine region.
The Public Education and Participation Committee has facilitated the publication of a number of guides to organizations and agencies active in the Gulf of Maine region including GzilJllinks: A Resorrrce Guide To CoastaI Organjzatzons in the GirlfofMaine Regioiz (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment 199 1 b) and the Wild GulfAlmanac (Bright 1995). The committee has also been instrumental in the publication of fact sheets on the state of the environment in the Gulf of Maine region with the first Fact Sheet published in 1994 on the topic of Marine Environmental Quality in the Gulf of Maine (Thurston and Larsen 1994) and the second Fact Sheet o n Shellfish Resources published in 1996 (Moore 1996).
The Marine Debris Committee has supported projects aimed at improving public awareness about marine debris and enhancing dockside disposallrecycling facilities. In 1995, the committee provided funding for 21 community organization projects and all five Gulf of Maine jurisdictions were represented (The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment 1996). The Habitat Committee, established in 1994 to facilitate enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats and sustainable use of the living resources in the Gulf of Maine region, has developed a regionally significant coastal species list of 161 species. The committee has an objective of developing an information base on regionally significant habitats with work focusing over the next five years on a subset of 97 species (see Table 2)
Table 2: Regionally Significant Coastal Plant and Animal Species
alewife
American eel
American sand lance
American smelt
Atlantic cod
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic salmon
Atlantic tomwd
Atlantic whitefish
bluefin tuna
bluefish
haddock
herring
linle skate
longhorn sculpin
mummichog
PogY
pollock
redfish
sea lamprey
shortnose sturgeon
spiny dogfish
striped bass
winter flounder
(24 species)
Invertebrates Fish Birds
Source: Gulf of h
Plants Mammals
Arctic fern
Atlantic puffin
Bald eagle
black duck
black-legged
I kittiwake
common eider
common loon
common murre
common tern
great blue heron
great cormorant
harlequin duck
Leach's storm petrel
least tern
northern harrier
northern phalarope
osprey
peregrine falcon
piping plover
razorbill
red knot
red phalarope
roseate tern
seaside sparrow
sedge wren
semipalmated
sandpiper
sharptailed sparrow
beach senecio
beggartick
birdseye primrose
blinks
cordgrass
diatom
dulse
eelgrass
horsetail kelp
Irish moss
Long's binercress
marsh felwort
Rand's eyebright
rockweed
sea lavender
tufted red weed
yellow screwsten
(17 species)
willet
(29 species) I
tine Council on the Marine Environme~
common dolphin
harbor porpoise
humpback whale
right whale
(4 species)
: 1996,6-3, Appe
American lobster
amphipod
aschelminthean
worm
Bay scallop
bloodworm
blue mussel
euphausid
flying squid
grass shrimp
green crab
green sea urchin
horseshoe crab
lion's mane
mysid
pearl mussel
periwinkle
quahog
sandworm
sea scallop
shrimp
soft-shelled clam
trumpet worm
truncate angel wing
(23 species)
The key on-going management mechanism of the Gulf of Maine Council is the Working Group. Composed of senior provincial and state staff.and federal departmental representatives as observers, the Working Group oversees the work of the Committees (Figure 7), conducts strategic planning and oversees fiscal issues (Chircop et al. 1995).
U.S. Association Gulf of Maine of Delegates Council
Gulf Secrcmriat
Canadian Association Gulf Working of Delegates I
Group I
Infarmntion Management Committee
Environmental Monitoring Committee
M k i a n Surcmcnr:
To impkmrrnr and +"< rhr
Covndlj mvimnrmnvrl
moniroringplrn I Reduction Eduation and Outreach
Committee Miubn
Sutcmcnr: To nr&~u .
'CNC of,mr'f,hip and mbkpropp(r m mnke ,cqo,"i-
b& drnnnm rqardmg cur
Habiut G m i n n Mirrion
Surcmcnt: To suppon rhr
mrontion and & m t of
rmo",<<,
Figure 7: Gulf of Maine Program Structure
Source: MSPO 1995, 14.
During the course of its first five years, the Council convened and sponsored more than 30 workshops, reports and publications (see Appendix 1) to support the objectives of the Action Plan. Major publications include reports on point sources of land-based sources of pollution in the Gulf of Maine (MSPO 1995) and on non-point sources of water pollution control in the Gulf of Maine (Ferdinand 1992), as well as a comparative assessment of US and Canadian laws and programs affecting the marine and coastal environment of the Gulf of Maine (Marine Law Institute and Oceans Institute of Canada 1992).
The Action Plan has been viewed as a "living document" subject to change in light of shifting priorities and public perceptions. The Action Plan itself called for a mid-term five-year review. The Council convened a Gulf of Maine Review Conference in Wolfville, Nova Scotia in August 1994 involving some 150 environmental and community nongovernmental organizations. Various recommendations for strengthening regional collaboration were called for, including: expansion of the Council's membership for greater NGO representation7; convening of a regular Gulf of Maine Conference to review coastal/marine resource problems and management policies; evaluation of compliance and enforcement of present laws and regulations; review of other regional programs involving the management of large marine ecosystems; and increased study and analysis on toxic effects of atmospheric inputs of pollutants to the Gulf.
Partly based on the 1994 Workshop critique, the Gulf of Maine Council has drafted a revised Gulf of Maine Action Plan: 1996-2001 (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment 1996). The revised plan focuses on five habitat priorities: protection and restoration of regionally significant coastal habitats; restoration of shellfish habitats; reduction of toxic contamination in the marine food chain; reduction of marine debris; and protection of fishery resource habitats. Each of the five priority issue areas includes an overall goal, measurable objectives and proposed strategies and actions.
The Gulf of Maine Council's highest habitat priority is to protect and restore regionally significant coastal habitats. The overall goal is to ensure that coastal habitats throughout the Gulf of Maine are healthy and support an appropriate abundance and range of plant and animal species. The four measurable objectives are: 1) to ensure by the year 2001 greater than 50 percent of the region's coastal habitat science, policy and management community are aware of the Gulfs regionally significant coastal habitats and are working to increase their protection and management; 2) by the year 2001 increase the acreage of regionally significantly coastal habitats that are protected by public and private organizations and land owners Gulf-wide by 10 percent; 3) by the year 2001 assist in the restoration of 10,000 acres of regionally significant coastal habitats; and 4) by 2001 increase by 20 percent the number of volunteer programs that are working to support the protection, restoration and management of regionally significant coastal habitats. Numerous possible actions are suggested including: assessing management authority and effectiveness Gulf-wide for protecting regionally significant coastal habitats; compiling an analysis of state, provincial, federal and conservation organization holdings; conducting an analysis of existing parks, reserves and other protected areas programs in the Gulf; and expanding voluntary stewardship programs with landowners of coastal habitats.
For the Council's second habitat priority on restoration of shellfish habitats, the Council proposes to focus on softshell clams, mussels, oysters and quahog habitat. both wild and aquaculture. Two measurable objectives between the years 1996 and 2001 include: restoration of water quality degraded by bacteria in more than 12,000 acres of productive shellfish habitat; and opening to harvesting more than 125,000 acres of shellfish habitat that are closed because of the absence of adequate water quality monitoring. Possible actions include: supporting the development of "model" local and regional shellfish restoration programs; convening the region's pollution prevention experts to determine how assistance might be provided in responding to degraded shellfish habitat; and documenting the value of the region's shellfish resource, including the "foregone value" of closed flats.
For the third priority area of reducing toxic contaminants in the marine food chain, the Council has set an overall goal of reducing contaminants in the marine food chain so that they are at levels that the public is protected and ecosystem integrity is maintained. The two measurable objectives are: to ensure greater than 50 percent of the region's coastal management community is aware of environmental health threats and public health implications posed by priority contaminants and are working to reduce those threats by 2001; and by the year 2001, to reduce selected priority toxic contaminants in the sediments of three coastal embayments by 10 percent from their 1990 levels. Possible actions include: convening the region's experts to assess and interpret the five-year data of the Gulfwatch Program; convening a regional forum to identify the region's toxic contaminant priorities and research required to implement appropriate
management strategies; determining appropriate management actions including education, regulation and remediation; and developing strategies for point and non-point sources of priority toxic substances.
The fourth habitat priority area is reduction of marine debris. The overall goal for the Gulf of Maine is to make sure the Gulf of Maine shoreline and waters are free of marine debris and healthy for people and wildlife. One measurable objective is set for the years 1996 to 2001. By the year 2001 the target is to reduce the amount of debris found along the shores of the Gulf of Maine by 15 percent from 1995 levels. Possible actions include identifying priority ports needing pier and wharf marine debris disposal programs, and convening a stakeholder conference in 1998 to facilitate personal networking and information sharing.
The fifth priority habitat area, protection and restoration of fishery habitats and resources, sets a goal of having productive fishery resources that meet human needs and maintain ecological integrity. The Gulf of Maine Council has set one measurable objective, namely. that by the year 2001 the Gulfs spawning and recruitment fishery resource habitats for priority finfish species will be identified to assist in the management of fishery resources. Possible actions include compiling a Gulf-wide inventory of marine habitat data, convening a meeting of fishery experts to evaluate the database and suggest priority areas for mapping, and completing a compilation of traditional knowledge about finfish spawning and recruitment areas.
A number of constraints have surrounded implementation of the Action Plan. A Secretariat which rotates among the five jurisdictions on an annual basis has depended on the availability of human resources from existing state and provincial departments. Lack of development of a long- term corporate memory within a particular jurisdiction has been one result (Chircop et al. 1995). No financial mechanism was provided in the Gulf of Maine Agreement or Action Plan. To facilitate greater financial support for the Council, the Council created two tax exempt organizations in Canada and the United States in 1993. The Association of US Delegates to the Gulf of Maine Council is a charitable organization which manages funds on behalf of the Gulf of Maine Council. The Board of Directors of the Association consists of the US members of the Gulf of Maine Council. The Association of Canadian Delegates to the Gulf of Maine Council is a not-for-profit corporation under the Canadian Corporations Act and the Association consists of the Canadian members of the Gulf of Maine Council (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, undated).
Regional Research Cooperation Scientific collaboration in the Gulf of Maine region has been primarily facilitated through three mechanisms, the Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM), the Regional Marine Research Program (RMRP) and the East Coast of North America Strategic Assessment Project (ECNASAP).
Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM) The Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM), founded in 1991 is an association of scientific researchers and their institutions with a number of research objectives. These objectives include: coordination of marine research and monitoring in around the Gulf of
Maine in order to make efficient use of resources; enhancement of the availability of research funds and facilities to marine scientists at member institutions; planning, organizing and implementing long-range. interdisciplinary research programs on the Gulf of Maine; and supporting operational economies through such means as joint planning of equipment acquisition and sharing of technical support personnel. The most recent RARGOM workshop was held in September 16-19, 1996, in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, with the theme Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Dynamics and focused on four general areas: physical and biological coupling; landlwater interface (biogeochemical processes and cycles, natural and perturbed); fishery and aquaculture issues; and human-induced biological changes. The goal of the conference was to discuss the next generation of research priorities and scientific questions for the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM 1996).
The Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine collaborates with various organizations and individuals in the Gulf of Maine region, including the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment and the Gulf of Maine Regional Marine Research Board.
Regional Marine Research Program (RMRP) In November 1990, the Marine Research ~ c t ' was signed to set priorities for US regional marine and coastal research in support of efforts to safeguard the water quality and ecosystem health of each region and to carry out the indicated research with grants and imuroved coordination. Nine Region> Marine Research Program Boards: including the GOMRMR Board, were established to direct RMRPs in accord with the legislation. The GOMRMRP Board oversees the GOMRMRP.
The GOMRMRP adopted a research plan in 1992, which consists of five major sections: an overview of the environmental health of the Gulf, an assessment of the current research being conducted, an evaluation of the needs and priorities for future research on the Gulf of Maine, the incorporation of existing research and activities into the plan. and a description and schedule of the research objectives for the area (GOMRMRP 1992). Since then the Program has funded and continues to fund a range of research programs which study those areas identified in the plan as high priority needs for scientific information (see Table 3). The GOMRMRP aims to understand how the Gulf ecosystem and its interacting components function, both under human-induced stress and natural variability. In order to attain its goals. the plan calls for the development of a working model of the circulation of the Gulf, which will serve as the basis for further research and studies, especially those involving pollutant transport. nutrient budgets and plankton spatial patterns.
East Coast of North America Strategic Assessment Project (ECNASAP) A further important scientific collaboration effort of regional relevance is the East Coast of North America Strategic Assessment Project (ECNASAP). A joint effort by the US NOAA, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada and the Atlantic Provinces, the project is aimed at developing a comprehensive information base on coastal and nearshore waters from Florida to Labrador. Two case studies in the Gulf of Maine region include an inshore assessment of shellfish beds and an offshore study gathering information on distributions and concentrations of living resources-fish, mammals and seabirds (Schauffler 1995).
(Table 3: Research Priorities Identified by the Gulf of Maine Regional Marine Research Program* I Appropr. Importance Time Frame I
Quest~on 1. What nre the sources: pathways, fates and effects on liv~ng marine resources, of contaminants in the Gulf of Maine?
Information Needed: M M 1 1. Patterns of contaminants in space and time M M 1 2. Identification of sources (for example: point vs. non-point, atmosphere)
3. Transport and cycling I1 H 5 a. Physicochemical f o m (for example: particle; dissolved. bioawilable) H H 1 h. Patterns and mechanisms of water column transport (for example:
currents, particle settling) H H 5 c. Sedimentq processes (for example: resuspension, burial) H H 5 d. Biogeochemical transformation (for example: food chain; dissolution) H H 5 4. Biological effects (for example: genetic, physiological, population,
community)
Question 2. What are the causes and effects of noxious andlor excessive phytoplankton concentrations?
Infomation Needed: 1. Causes (external forcing functions and internal processes)
H H 1 a. Nutrients (for example: fluxes, ratios) H H 1 h. Physics (for example: vertical and horizontal processes, optics) R M 1 c. Biological dynarnicsimodulation
2. Effects (higher level) H H 5 a. Noxious blooms (for example: transport, hioaccumulationj H L 5 b. Eutrophication (for example: food chain alteration)
Question 3. What is the relative importance of natural and humai-induced changes to the physical environment on ecosystem structure and function?
Information Needed: H H 5 1. Effects of climate change (intra- and interannual variations) hl M 5 2. Effects of sediment disturbance (for example: dredginp, dragging) M M 5 3. Effects of ~ntertiddl wetland alterations M M 10 1. Effects of damming of rivers H M 5 5 . Effects ofchanzes in hiologicai composition
Question 4. How susceptible are various pa t s of the Fulito dissolved oxygen depletion'?
Infomation Needed: M L 10 1. Water; and hence owgen; flushing of embayments H L 10 2. Oxygen metabolism of emhaynents
Source: GOMRMRP 1992 *Column 1 indicates the appropriateness of this research area for study in this program (Low, Medium, High); column 2 indicates the importance of study in this area to the achievement of predictive capability in a decadal time span (Low, Medium, High); column 3 indicates the time frame in which first funding should be granted (1 - first year, 5 - first five years, 10 - anytime during the decade).
6.0 US AND CANADIAN APPROACHES TO MANAGING LAND-BASED POLLUTlON/ACTlVlTlES
6.1 General Approaches to Managing Land-based Pollution/Activities Chapter 3 of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities calls for (among other things) strengthening regional cooperation in developing pragmatic and comprehensive management approaches and processes (para. 30(c)). Two of the key management approaches highlighted in chapter 2 are integrated coastal area management and the precautionary approach (para. 23 and 24). As the following discussion shows, the United States and Canada appear to be at quite different stages in implementing the approaches. The United States is clearly ahead in formalizing integrated coastal area management through its Coastal Zone Management Programs although Canada has recently enacted federal legislation calling on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to facilitate the development of integrated management plans for coastal and marine areas. Canada is at the forefront of considering implementation of the precautionary approach. Both countries have emphasized pollution prevention, a close corollary of the precautionary approach.
6.1.1 Integrated Coastal Area Management Although the GPA recognizes the broader meanings of the principle of integration, for example, the need to make national actions consistent with regional and global strategies (para. 23(g)), the GPA emphasizes the need to apply integrated coastal area management. The focus is placed upon strengthening intergovernmental and multistakeholder cooperation in addressing coastal development and management problems.
US Approach
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) was enacted by Congress to enable states, with federal funding assistance. to establish a process for protecting natural resources of the coast facing pressures from population growth and economic development. Coastal Zone Management programs are essentially contracts between the federal government and the states, with encouragement to "protect natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs and fish and wildlife and their habitat. within the coastal
..9 zone.
States were left to develop their own programs to best serve their constituency. There are two types of programs, those granting specific permitting power by the states and those which rely on networking with specifics unique to each state. The regulatory teeth of the CZMA is "federal consistency" review and approval. Federal consistency review applies to any project which is federally funded, requires a federal license or permit, or other major projects that "affect" the coastal zone. Under this provision, state coastal programs are empowered to ensure that federal projects meet enforceable state regulations and policies. A complicated formula that combines population size with length of coastline is used to award funds to support state programs. As of 1990, a Coastal Zone Enhancement Program has led to three positive developments. It has: (a) provided funds to programs that addressed national issues; (b) established a Coastal Non-point
Source Control Program (often referred to as 6217 after its section in the reauthorized legislation) to be developed with the US EPA and implemented through the Clean Water Act non-point source program; and (c) defined more clearly what is meant by "affecting" the coastal zone. Disputes are settled at the federal Secretarial level.
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program, located within the Secretary of Environmental Affairs Office, relies primarily on networking to accomplish the goals of reaching consensus on protecting resources and moving projects fonvard. The program is implemented through staff with expertise in a variety of areas,. such as coastal hazards, wetlands, public access, planning, and water quality. The program is promoted regionally through regional coordinators who assist local communities with meeting requirements for getting projects permitted (i.e., facilitating development and meeting environmental requirements).
New Hampshire's Coastal Program, located within the State Planning Office, functions as a networking office. It provides funds for projects related to the coastal zone, supports a small staff to administer projects and funds staff positions in regulatory agencies.
Maine's Coastal Program is also located within the State Planning Office. It is a networking program, and uses the majority of its funding to support staff throughout the state agencies.
For all three New England states, regulatory authority resides with other state agencies that are responsible for issuing permits and licenses and overseeing enforcement of state regulations. The integration occurs through the networking activities of staff with individuals associated with specific projects. Thus, identification of environmental and permitting issues of concern to state and federal regulatory agencies, NGOs, project proponents and others prior to the last phases of permit approval are frequently addressed through formal and informal meetings and hearings and discussion (i.e., networking with all stakeholders).
Another example of effective integrated coastal management programs are the National Estuary Programs (NEPs) which are funded though the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Section 320). Three Programs exist in the Gulf of Maine: the Casco Bay Program (CBP), the Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) which includes Cape Cod Bay and the newly designated New Hampshire Estuaries Program. The NEPs provide a process for bringing together stakeholders to plan and approve a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Funding for the information gathering and planning process is guaranteed for five years with reduced support for an additional three years. Usually one representative from the USEPA and one from the state serve on a Policy Committee, which has overall responsibility for the Program. However, a Management Committee composed of a broad range of state, federal and local government representatives, NGOs, and others, has responsibility for review of staff and committee recommendations and for sending budgets and program activities to the Policy Committee for approval. Two or more advisory committees-technical and scientific, citizen, business and education-are typical and each provides advice on projects, reviews proposals, and recommends budgets for coming years.
The Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) initially focused on developing a strong scientific research program to increase understanding of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays ecosystems. The Program has evolved seven years later to a focus on local issues and development of grass roots support for implementing changes. A local governance committee is staffed by the MBP
and regional planning agencies. The Casco Bay Estuary Project (CBEP) has supported scientific studies to better understand the ecosystem and to prevent further pollution. Similar to the MBP, the CBEP used an extensive public process to identify issues to continue to improve and maintain the quality of the Bay (CBEP 1996). Both MBP and CBEP have completed CCMPs (CBEP 1996; MBP 1996).
Although the NEPs have no authority or regulatory powers, they have successfully used funds to leverage additional dollars to implement programs. The NEP focus on developing grass root support to encourage cities and towns and the state to undertake projects or provide leadership in initiating neighborhood clean-up efforts is a good model for meeting the goals of the GPA.
In addition to the above programs, all three New England states have active watershed groups which have grown in number over the past several years. These groups often attract scientists who live in the region, collaborate with state agencies and reach out to the broader community through newsletters, events and directed activities, such as water quality monitoring, to better inform the public. Some notable examples are the Damarascotta River Estuary (DREP 1995) and the minibays programs (MBP 1996). The Collaboration of Community Foundations for the Gulf of Maine recently sponsored a workshop focused on Environmental Monitoring in the Gulf aimed at US and Canadian citizens and has published a draft proceedings document (Widoff 1996). Coordination of Citizen Monitoring Programs is a high priority.
Canadian Approach
Although Canadian jurisdictions, unlike in the United States: have yet to adopt formal coastal zone management legislation, the federal government and provinces are in the process of developing integrated coastal area management approaches. Canada's Oceans Act (Bill C-26), receiving Roayal Assent in December 1996, authorizes the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to lead and facilitate the development of integrated coastal management plans in collaboration with other ministers, governments, aboriginal organizations and coastal communities. The Act also allows the Minister to establish management bodies and to make grants and contributions on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board. A national oceans management strategy must also be developed which addresses integrated management of activities in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters.
Nova Scotia is striving toward more integrated coastal area management through its Coastal 2000 program. A public Consultation Paper, issued in July 1994, sets out a number of objectives including protection of coastal and marine reserves, development of dispute resolution for conflicts of interests over coastal wetlands, the elimination or provision of adequate treatment for all point source municipal or industrial discharges by the year 2000 and the preparation of remedial action plans for non-point source pollution in the coastal zone. (Nova Scotia Department of the Environment and Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries 1994). The document, with various changes, is expected to be published as a formal Coastal Zone Strategy in the near future. The Consultation Paper, while supporting the idea of community-level management plans, is unclear about the precise law and policy framework and does not suggest the option of new coastal zone management legislation. Nova Scotia's existing Environment ~ c t " requires the Minister of the Environment to establish a water-resource management strategy for the Province
which could include marine waters and establish water-quality guidelines and goals for effluent reduction."
New Brunswick is also involved in various initiatives relating to integrated coastal area management. In 1993, the Commission on Land Use and the Rural Environment (CLURE) made various recommendations for addressing land use conflicts and problems in New Brunswick, including the need to establish province-wide standards for the management and development of coastal lands. As a follow-up, the Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing in August 1996 released a Draft Proposal for a Provincial Land Use Policy for New, Bruns~~ick 's Coastal Lands for public review. A number of policy commitments are suggested. such as prohibiting developments or undertakings within 30 meters of a coastal feature and subjecting coastal developments or undertakings within 500 meters of coastal features to a Development Review. A final policy could be given legal force through section 77 of the Community Planning Act which authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to adopt land use and development policies as regulations (New Brunswick Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing 1996). The Department of Natural Resources and Energy and the Department of Fisheries and Agriculture are, meanwhile, developing a marine policy component, as the Draft Proposal only focuses on areas landward of the limit of the lower, low water meantide.
The Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP), initiated by Environment Canada in 1991, is a non-regulatory, community-based effort to restore degraded ecosystems and to foster sustainable livelihoods in selected areas. ACAP sites in the Bay of Fundy region include three New Brunswick sites (Saint John, the St. Croix Estuary area, and the Eastern Charlotte Waterways) and the Annapolis River in Nova Scotia. Important citizen actions have included adoption of environmental friendly farm management plans, improvement of on-site septic management systems, reforestation of some stream banks and restoration of fish habitats (Clean Annapolis River Project 1996).
6.1.2 The Precautionary Approach The GPA calls on countries to take a precautionary approach to protecting the marine environment in the following language from Chapter 2:
The precautionary approach should be applied through preventive and corrective measures based on existing knowledge, impact assessments. resources and capacities at national level, drawing on pertinent information and analyses at the subregional, regional and global levels. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent the degradation of the marine environment (para. 24).
The precautionary approach is "easier said" than "put into practice," for debates continue over the precise guiding philosophy and operational meaning of the approach or principle (O'Riordan and Cameron 1994). The GPA version adopts a form of utilitarian philosophy by calling for cost- effective measures to prevent degradation of the marine environment rather than pressing for absolute environmental protection. The GPA calls for adoption of best available techniques and best environmental practices as management measures, but no definitions are given (para. 26(i)). The trigger for invoking the precautionary approach also leaves the challenge of defining "threats
of serious or irreversible harm." Challenges include sorting out the roles of social and natural sciences, ethics and public perceptions (Bewers 1995).
However, a number of core elements are at "the heart" of the approach and do call for new directions in decision making (Jordan and O'Riordan 1994). They include shifting the onus of proof to those who propose change and providing ecological margins of error.
Pollution prevention measures are clearly a prime avenue for operationalizing precaution (Cameron and Wade-Gery 1992). Clean production practices, waste recovery and recycling are all measures promoted by the GPA and adopted though legislation by states, provinces and federal governments.
US Approach
The precautionary principle appears to underlie much of the US environmental regulations although it may not be specifically identified as such (Freestone and Hey 1996). With the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, a new era in US environmental regulations began. NEPA established a process whereby each federal agency is required to prepare an environmental assessment or impact statement, which, in 1978, became codified to require worst-case analysis (Shelton 1996). During the 1970s, a number of environmental laws were enacted, including the Clean Water Act and the Clear Air ~ c t ' ~ , reflecting, in part, strong support by the public to strengthen protection of the environment. These laws were strongly influenced by assumptions about the level of protection to afford a given action or medium, and were modified by subsequent amendments and reauthorizations.
Most US environmental regulations depend on risk assessment to indicate the likelihood of an event causing an unwanted impact and the potential magnitude of harm. For any issue, there are often three philosophical positions identified: (a) protectionist, (b) exploitative. and (c) managerial. Those positions represent views of those who want to (a) eliminate wastes, (b) develop resources and (c) manage the system appropriate to the regulations (Office of Technology Assistance 1987). The US Congress enacts laws reflecting these perspectives to varying degrees, but in general there is an underlying protectionist view in the adoption of regulations, specifically that pollution is bad and that there should be a basis for demonstrating that there will be minimal or no harm in the development of management decisions.
The USEPA has conducted, supported and evaluated research in a variety of areas to clarify regulations and improve standards. For example, many Water Quality Criteria have changed as a result of new information about toxicity and acute and chronic response to levels of contaminants in fresh and marine waters. Recent changes include using only dissolved metals analyses because they are assumed to reflect acute and chronic responses more directly than total metal analyses (Hunt 1992; USEPA 1993). In general, risk assessments by the US EPA are considered "conservative" in that they assume worst case scenarios, and compound these assumptions in the assessment process.
There is frequently a difference between the USEPA and the USFDA in the concentration of selected contaminants that trigger an advisory level or screening level response. For example, the USEPA recommends that pregnant women, children under 12 and nursing mothers not eat seafood with more than 0.2 ppm mercury in edible tissues, a level found in many marine fish
species. The USFDA uses a 1 ppm advisory level for all groups (Ahmed 1991). These different values reflect differences in risk assessment by the two agencies and the level of uncertainty associated with determining risk. The inclusion of conservative approaches in laws governing management of manufacture, transport and disposal of contaminants is discussed later in the section on toxic materials.
Pollution prevention has also been a theme in federal and state legislation. The federal Pollution Prevention ~ c t ' ~ required the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish an office responsible for a multimedia approach to pollution source reduction and to implement a strategy to promote source reduction. The legislation authorizes the Administrator to make matching grants to states for programs to promote the use of source reduction techniques by businesses and provides for the establishment of a Source Reduction Clearinghouse as a database containing information on management, technical and operational approaches to source reduction. The legislation requires a toxic chemical source reduction and recycling report for each owner or operator of a facility required to file an annual toxic chemical release form. Massachusetts' Toxics Use Reduction ~ c t ' ~ and Maine's Toxics Use and Hazardous Waste Reduction ~ a w ' ~ are aimed at minimizing the use of toxic chemicals (including organic chemicals) by encouraging reuse, recycling, substitution of less toxic compounds or elimination into all media. In general, larger discharges, those requiring NPDES permits are also required to monitor their emissions.
A recent news release from US EPA (US EPA 1996) indicated that each of the three New England states decreased emissions by 53-80 percent over the last six years (USEPA 1996). The greatest improvement has been in air emissions compared to surface water and land release discharges.
Canadian Approach
In Atlantic Canada, only Nova Scotia has actually expressly articulated the precautionary approach in environmental legislation. Nova Scotia's Environment Act. passed in January 1995, in Section 2 calls upon decision-making pursuant to the Act, including environmental approvals and environmental impact decisions, to be based on the precautionary principle.
The federal government appears committed to entrenching the precautionary approach in legislation but the exact details remain to be seen. The House of Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in a major review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) completed in June 1995 made a number of recommendations relating to precaution including: incorporating precaution as a guiding principle in the Preamble of CEPA; formation of a governmental-stakeholder working group appointed by the Ministers of Environment and Health to ascertain how the precautionary principle should be applied in risk and hazard assessment processes; and a banning of new substances that meet or exceed established regulatory criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation and inherent toxicity (House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development 1995). The federal government responded with a commitment to incorporate the precautionary principle in the Preamble to CEPA (Government of Canada 1995a), but at the time writing draft legislation had not yet been tabled. The proposed Oceans Act requires that the national ocean management
strategy to be prepared pursuant to the Act be based on the precautionary approach, that is, erring on the side of caution.
The precautionary approach appears to have received less law and policy attention in New Brunswick. However, the recent Draft Proposal for a Provincial Land Use Policy for New Brunswick's Coastal Lands suggests making development approvals pursuant to the Cornmunip Planning Act subject to the precautionary principle. (New Brunswick Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing 1996). A proposed new Clean Air Act (Bill 83): receiving first reading in the New Brunswick Legislature on April 11, 1996, includes various sustainable development principles in the Purpose Section including precaution.
Pollution prevention as a guiding principle is also being embraced by federal and provincial governments. Through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) federal and provincial governments have signed a National Commitment to Pollution Prevention which among other things calls for a review of legislation, regulations and policy to harmonize approaches to pollution prevention. The federal government has stated that an amended CEPA should place the highest priority on pollution prevention but the exact legislative implications were not specified. The Government of Canada has also adopted a "Pollution Prevention Strategy" (Government of Canada 1995b) which supports a greater shift towards pollution prevention and documents some of the existing initiatives, such as the Voluntary Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET) Program. The Program is administered by Environment Canada whereby over 100 substances have been targeted for either virtual elimination or reduction and more than 160 organizations had submitted action plans by the end of 1995 (Government of Canada 1996).
The Province of Nova Scotia has gone further than New Brunswick or the federal government in incorporating pollution prevention in law. Nova Scotia's Environment Act expressly adopts the principle of pollution prevention and waste reduction (section 2) and charges the Department of the Environment with promoting the development and use of sustainable environmental industries. innovation and technologies (section 156). However, the legislation stops short of requiring pollution prevention plans as a precondition for granting pollution approvals.
6.2 Management Approaches for Specific Source Contaminants One of the difficulties in addressing pollution problems through identification of management approaches for specific contaminants is that more holistic approaches are not easily discussed. The result is a focus on point sources for which there is more data, and less emphasis on non- point sources, either atmospheric or surface runoff based. The recent organization at the US EPA and within New England States to watershed management approaches underscores the need to evaluate the relative contribution of contaminants from all sources and recognize that different chemicals may have different primary pathways.
Various approaches to non-point source pollution control have been attempted in the United States to integrate best management practices into prevention. elimination and reduction of pollutants. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act has supported several programs, including the Clean Lakes Program, which identified problem areas and developed management plans, but which often were not implemented. In 1990, Congress added the Coastal Non-point Source
Pollution Control Program to the Reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The focus is on reduction with the Coastal Zone Programs and the US EPA given responsibility for developing management plans and implementing the program. The most recent reauthorization has dropped the Coastal Non-point Source Pollution Control Program from the CZMA, however the plans are being implemented to varying degrees by the states. Specific areas targeted include urban sources, marinashoats, agricultural sources, forestry, hydromodification, and wetlands.
This section reviews Canadian and US management approaches for most of the source categories covered in Chapter 5 of the GPA. These categories include sewage and nutrients, persistent organic pollutants (pesticides, PCBs, dioxins and.furans), heavy metals, oils (hydrocarbons), litter and physical alterationslhabitat destruction.
The management approaches of Canada and the United States for ensuring safety of the four nuclear power generating stations in the Gulf of Maine region are beyond the scope of the paper. Participants of the 1994 review conference in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, did raise the need to assess the risks and emergency preparedness for such facilities, but the issue of radioactive contamination has not been included as an immediate priority for the Gulf of Maine Council's revised Action Plan.
Sewage and Nutrients The Canadian federal role in controlling sewage and nutrient emissions to the marine environment is minimal. The Canadian Environmental Protection ~ c t ' ~ limits the level of phosphorous in laundry detergents." Not subject to specific control are various other nutrient sources such as dishwasher detergents and other cleaning products. The Canada Water ~ c t ' ~ allows the Federal government to establish water quality management areas19 and provides for the development of water quality management plans for such areas which could include nutrient levels, but no such areas have been designated to date. The federal Fisheries ~ c t " prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish2' which could be used to control direct or indirect wastewater discharges, but the Act has not generally been enforced against normal sewage discharges by municipalities or individuals.
The control of sewage discharges in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is similar in approach. No specific levels of treatment of municipal sewage are required by regulation, including primary, secondary or tertiary treatment. Both provinces require approval of sewage works2' and could prosecute water pollution beyond terms or conditions of approval.23 Both provinces control private septic systems through public health ~egis la t ion~~ requiring approval of septic systems by health officers2' and setting minimum lot sizes for septic systems.26 New Brunsuick requires septic tanks to be at least 30 meters from the shore or high water line of any lake, stream or body of water not used as a potable water supply.27
Nova Scotia manages treatment in a rather flexible way through a Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent Discharge Policy. Treatment plants discharging at the open coastline are generally required to meet total suspended solid and BOD effluent limits of 30 mglliter while plants discharging into rivers and estuaries must normally meet a 20 mglliter standard. The level of treatment for facilities discharging into a coastal environment is required to be no less than
primary treatment and for facilities discharging to freshwater systems at least secondary treatment is the rule.
New Brunswick's Department of the Environment also follows a flexible policy for issuing Certificates of Approval to Operate Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems. EMuent standards for municipal wastewater treatment facilities in New Brunswick are site specific but generally applicable standards have been set for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids. Standards for stabilization ponds are 1 20 mg/L for BOD and < 40 mg/L for suspended solids, while standards for mechanical/activated sludge processes are 1 20 mg/L for both BOD and suspended solids.
Neither New Brunswick nor Nova Scotia have passed specific legislation or regulations for the control of nutrients. Both provinces allow for regulations to be passed establishing maximum permissible levels of any contaminant which could include nutrients, but no such standards have been set.28
Federal authority in the United States over pollutant discharges stems from the Clean Water Act which regulates point and non-point discharges through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. Each state. or the state in conjunction with the US EPA. w~ites permits for discharges and both have the authority to enforce compliance. Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts share responsibility for writing NPDES permits with the US EPA, although each state is being required to assume sole responsibility. The Clean Water Act and its subsequent revisions require each state to adopt or set Water Quality Standards, e.g. Class A, B. and C for freshwater or SA, SB, and SC for marine waters to protect the designated use. Uses include: drinking water supplies (Class A); safe for swimming, shellfish harvesting, aquaculture, and fishable (Class SA); swimming, shellfish harvesting and fishable (Class B and SB); and industrial uses which should also be swimmable and fishable (Class C and SC). Water Quality Criteria, either numeric or narrative, are generally adopted by states from the "Gold Book" which identifies Water Quality Criteria for chemicals and describes the basis for the acute and chronic values (USEPA 1993). The Water Quality Criteria are used to meet the Water Qualit>- Standards (i.e., the use goal for the water body).
Direct dischargers, such as Waste Water Treatment Facilities (WWTFs), are required to have NPDES permits. renewable every five years set limits for pollutants. Depending on the size and the nature of the discharge. dischargers may be required to conduct frequent monitoring of the effluent to ensure compliance. The process for determining limits is complex and related to dilution potential of the receiving waterbody and what is technologically and economically feasible. among other factors. The NPDES program is technology-based and identifies several categories of pollutants including "toxics" such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and mercury. "Conventional" pollutants include BOD. total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and oil and grease. "Nonconventional" pollutants include nitrates, phosphates, chlorides and iron, for which there may not be numeric standards.
Indirect dischargers, such as industries that discharge wastewater to WWTFs, are also required to comply with pretreatment standards. There is no national permit requirement for indirect dischargers and thus the WWTF must enforce pretreatment if its discharge is in violation.
Through the years, several amendments have been passed to give the US EPA and/or the states increased authority to enforce standards through fines and other means. The NPDES program also covers combined sewer overflows (CSOs) which were designed to discharge raw sewage during time of high volume flow (USEPA 1994). Although intended to minimize interference of WWTF functioning during storms, improperly supervised or permitted construction and increased development has resulted in many CSOs becoming dry weather overflows and discharging raw sewage continually. Most cities now have a CSO plan which is being implemented to treat CSO discharge or to eliminate CSOs altogether. Age of the sewerage system and associated costs (e.g., digging up streets) are a major reason for delays in implementation.
While the federal government provides a framework for managing pollution, states and local governments regulate and manage at a more local scale. In general the Clean Water Act and comparable state regulations are the primary laws controlling discharges and pollutants of all types. The management of WWTFs is at the local level (e.g., town councils; municipalities and local water districts in the states). States may enact laws that are more stringent than the federal governments or develop new initiatives to reducing pollution (MBP 1992).
Management of on-site wastewater disposal systems is shared by the states and local governments. State regulations set the elevation of the site above groundwater; lateral distances from drinking water supplies, marine waters and rivers; and suitability of soils. Until recently, Massachusetts did not permit "alternative" systems to be used, but recently has broadened the types of systems that can be used to include sand and peat filters. cornposting toilets and other specifically developed systems. Depending on the state, either local boards of health, Department of Human Services and local plumbing inspectors are responsible for ensuring compliance with state and local regulations. New Hampshire has adopted assessment and abatement plans for addressing non-point sources of pollution in watersheds (NHDES 1994, 1995; NHOSP 1995).
Nutrient discharge in the United States, especially nitrogen in marine waters, is particularly difficult to regulate because there are no numeric water quality standards. The Cape Cod Commission and selected towns have adopted by-laws which limit the amount of groundwater nitrogen which can leach from a residence, but there is too little data to know if there is a demonstrated decrease in nitrogen from these by-laws and denitrifying septic systems (Heufelder pers. comm.). Advanced treatment for nitrogen removal (e.g., denitrification) is expensive and has not been generally required for marine discharges except in extreme situations.
Toxic Contaminants As noted above: the United States has passed federal legislation that regulates and manages the release of pollutants and hazardous materials which set minimum standards for the states to meet. States have the authority to set stricter standards if they so choose. The two primary federal laws that regulate release of pollutants and hazardous substances are the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act has empowered the US EPA to adopt acute and chronic Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for priority substances including persistent organic pollutants, pesticides. PCBs: PAHs (to a limited extent), metals and other materials considered hazardous andlor toxic. The WQC were developed initially for freshwater and more recently adopted for marine waters (USEPA 1993).
Also, as noted above, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits specify concentrations andlor amounts of materials that can be released within a specified timeframe and may or may not require monitoring on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis to demonstrate compliance.
Similarly the Clean Air Act specifies amounts of pollutants which can be released from facilities for six of the best studied pollutants (EOEA 1990) which are believed to protect human health. The six air pollutants subject to control are ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate. carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. Early efforts were focused on power plants and incinerators. but more recently attention has been directed towards automobiles and even gasoline powered lawnmowers.
Two major pieces of legislation that manage hazardous materials are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1 9 7 6 ~ ~ and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)~' commonly known as the Superfund Law (1980), which was extended in 1986 through the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA) 1986." RCRA regulates the management of hazardous materials with a cradle to grave monitoring program whereas the Superfund program identifies hazardous sites, ensures that they are cleaned up, provides a process for determining natural damages assessment, and creates a claims procedures for responsible parties. These two Acts share similarities, but in general RCRA has corrective action authority for cleaning up releases of current activities, whereas Superfund oversees clean-up of past releases (Lucero et al. 1989).
The Superfund Program is criticized as being expensive and overly cautious in its requirements for cleanup and its future is uncertain. For example, although 580 sites were identified nationwide, five years later only 10 sites were considered "cleaned up." As of 1989 there were 45 final and proposed sites in New England on the National Priorities List (Lucero et al. 1989). Potentially responsible parties litigated during the first five years of the program, but more recently have settled out of court. Under SARA, hazardous and toxics substances are to be permanently removed to the extent practicable, however the cost of Superfund is in the trillion of dollars and its future is uncertain as is the effectiveness of the program. Critics claim that clean- up requirements are overly protective and the monies could be better spent on other pollution prevention programs. States have adopted their own process for identifying, cleaning up and restoring sites with hazardous materials.
In the following paragraphs, only specific sections of these US laws are highlighted relative to the compounds in question.
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS)
Pesticides
While the Canadian federal government manages toxic substances pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the registration and control of pesticide products is regulated under the Pest Control Products A C ~ . ~ * The Act provides that no person may sell or import into Canada any control product unless the product is registered and packaged and labeled as prescribed by regulations.33 Pest Conbol Products ~ e ~ u l a t i o n s ~ ~ authorize the Minister of
Agriculture to refuse a registration of in hisher opinion "the use of the control product would lead to an unacceptable risk of harm to . . . public health, plants, animals or the environment.. .."" The regulations do not specifically mention consideration for negative impacts on the marine environment and do not establish criteria for determining acceptability. In practice. a risk-benefit approach to pesticide registration has been adopted (Hoberg 1992).
Follouing a critical review by a multistakeholder Pesticide Registration Review Team, reporting in 1990 and making various reform recommendations (Pesticide Registration Review Team 1990), the federal government has been in the process of revamping the pest management regulatory system. In October 1994 the federal government issued a Government Proposal for the Pest Management Regulatory System. A Pest Management Regulatory Agency within the Department of Health has been established and substantial amendments to the Pest Control Products Act are being prepared.
Both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia also regulate pesticides. However, the focus is on licensing users, managing applications and establishing requirements for storage and disposal, not on registration. New Brunswick's Pesticides Control prohibiis washing or submerging pesticide containers in bodies of water3' and requires permits for pesticide applications which may include restrictive terms and conditions in the discretion of the Minister of the ~ n v i r o n m e n t . ~ ~ Nova Scotia's Environment requires the Minister of the Environment to develop and enforce policies and programs respecting integrating pest management and alternatives to using pesticides.4o Pursuant to regulations4', only selected pesticide applications require approval including those on forested land, on a utility corridor, on a road, street or highway (excluding spot treatment), on an industrial or commercial site for soil sterilization, in,
42 on or over a surface watercourse, or from any aircraft in flight. Approvals may be subject to terms and condition^^^, and persons are prohibited from cleaning spray equipment in a manner that may result in environmental contamination." The Minister of the Environment is also authorized to require buffer zones where no spray may be directly applied.45
The Province of Nova Scotia imposes some buffer zone limitations on pesticide applications through policy and approval stipulations. A policy on pesticide application near municipal drinking water supply watersheds prohibits pesticide application within watersheds used primarily for public water supplies and imposes a 1.5 km buffer zone from reservoirs or lakes within watersheds not primarily used for public water supplies but from which public water supplies are taken. Approval stipulations require aerial sprayers of pesticides to protect all surface watercourses, not located in municipal pesticide water supply watersheds with 30 m buffer zones.
The United States has: for all practical purposes, banned the use of chlorinated pesticides such as DDT, chlordane, and other similar pesticides. Nonetheless, many of these compounds continue to be detected in waste streams (see MWRA monthly NPDES monitoring reports, MWRA 1994a). The Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide ~ c t ~ ~ requires manufacturers to keep records of pesticide production and use of restricted pesticides require federal and usually state certification. Nonetheless, it is difficult to estimate whether pesticide use has increased or decreased over the last ten years based on record keeping, improved application methods and changes in active ingredients (R. Koethe, USEPA pers. comm.; Pait et al. 1992). New Hampshire has required farmers and others to provide data on the amount of pesticides used before renewing licenses and
have accumulated several years of data. Massachusetts and Maine have less information although all three states require certification of aquatic herbicides and aerial applications.
Use of tributyltin as an antifouling paint was banned in the United States in 1988 except by certified commercial applicators for use on certain vessels and aluminum boats and motors and with a release rate of no more than 4 micrograms per day of organotin. Federal legislation, the Organotin Antifouling Paint Control A C ~ ~ ' specifies amounts and circumstances under which tributyltin may be used and all New England states have adopted these or higher requirements (USEPA 1990).
Standards for tin-based antifouling coatings have also been established in Canada. Registration standards or organotin coatings, established in 1989, set a maximum daily release rate of four micrograms per day of organotin per square centimeter of hull surface, and organotin products are prohibited from use on vessels less than 25 meters, unless the vessels are aluminum (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1994).
PCBs
The federal Government of Canada manages PCB contamination through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 ( T D G A ) . ~ ~ The manufacture, importation and most non-electric uses of PCBs were banned in Canada in 1977 (Government of Canada 1991). Regulations pursuant to CEPA" continue the - prohibitions and includes a ban on using PCBs in electrical capacitors and electrical transformers manufactured or imported into Canada on or after July 1, 1980.~' Federal Mobile PCB Treatment and Destruction ~egu la t ions~ ' , also passed pursuant to CEPA, establishes pollution standards for mobile PCB destruction systems. for example prohibiting PCB releases in excess of 1 mgtkg of PCB, put into the system.j2 The federal government has also established storage requirements for PCB material such as container standards and sealed flooring.53 Pursuant to the TDGA, regulations strictly control the road and rail transport of PCBs, for example. by requiring PCB mixtures to be drained to the greatest extent possible during a 48-hour period before allowing electrical equipment containing a PCB mixture to be t r a n ~ ~ o r t e d . ' ~
The Province of Nova Scotia has issued specific regulations for PCB management, as well. Regulations prohibit any disposal of PCBs without prior written approval and also cover storage of PCB wastes, for example, requiring an emergency procedures plan.55
PCBs are persistent and are of concern in marine sediments. Levels in Massachusetts' sediments often exceed 1 part per million resulting in statistically significant accumulation of PCBs in tissues over background levels. PCBs have accumulated in hepatopancreas tissues of lobsters to above USEPA advisory levels of 2 ppm. The high levels of PCBs, particularly in urban harbor sediments in Massachusetts have required alternative disposal options to ocean dumping as is required under the Ocean Dumping A C ~ ~ ~ which is enforced through US Army Corps of Engineers licenses and by the US EPA, which has jurisdiction over disposal in federal waters (Massport and USACE 1995). The cost of alternative disposal (upland or landfill disposal, for example) increases the cost of dredging ten-fold. A recent dredging operation of the Moran Terminal. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, cost US $1.500,000 to dispose of 10,000 cubic yards of sediments unsuitable for open ocean disposal compared to ocean dumping costs of approximately
US $100,000. Under state legislation, states have the authority to determine disposal options for dredged materials as well (see above).
Dioxins and Furans
Neither New Brunswick nor Nova Scotia has passed regulations covering emissions of dioxins and furans from pulp and paper mills. New Brunswick's regulations controlling pulp and paper pollution only cover traditional pollutants such as particulate matter and sulphur dioxide." Nova Scotia's Air Quality ~ e g u l a t i o n s ~ ~ set ambient air quality objectives for carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulphur dioxide and total suspended particulates, and prohibit open burning of designated materials such as wood preservative treated wood and tires. Any controls of dioxin and furan emissions would depend on discretionary inclusion within terms and conditions of pollution approvals.
Nova Scotia has established stack emissions for dioxins and furans from municipal solid waste incinerators. Total limits for polyclorinated dibenzo-pendioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans have been sets9
The Canadian government controls dioxin and furan emissions through two sets of regulations under CEPA. One set requires all pulp and paper mills using a chlorine bleaching process to (by January 1, 1994) not release any measurable concentration of polychlorinated dibenzo-para- dioxin or polychlorinated dibenzofuran into the e n ~ i r o n m e n t . ~ ~ Another set establishes dioxin and furan limits in defoamer products used at chlorine bleaching mills and prohibits the use of wood chips treated with polychlorinated phenols.61 The regulatory approach has been criticized for not addressing all dioxin and furan compounds that may be present in effluents from plants using the chlorine bleaching method (VanderZwaag 1995).
In the United States, dioxins and furans are regulated under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Because incomplete combustion is frequently cited as a major contributor to dioxin and furan releases: specifications for incinerators, power plant generators and others require design specifications to meet allowable levels under the federal andlor state acts.62
Heavy Metals
Few specific standards exist controlling emissions of heavy metals in Canada. Regulations pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act limit mercury releases into the atmosphere from chlor-alkali plants63 (which produce chlorine and caustic soda), and limits for atmospheric releases of lead have been set for secondary lead smelters.64 Metal Mining Liquid Effluent ~egulat ions~' , issued pursuant to the federal Fisheries Act, establish maximum eMuent concentrations for arsenic, copper, lead, nickel and zinc for mines built, expanded or reopened after February 25, 1977. Provincial control of heavy metal emissions would depend on imposition of terms and conditions within pollution approvals.66
In the United States, for most metals there are both acute and chronic water quality criteria that limit the concentrations which can be released in discharges. Prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act and depending on the level of enforcement for dischargers to achieve water quality criteria, many areas have high levels of metals in sediments representing years of accumulation (NOAA 1991, O'Connor and Beliaeff 1995). Disposal of dredged sediments with high
concentrations are regulated through the Ocean Dumping Act for ocean disposal and by states for upland disposal. Other laws such as RCRA, SARA, Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Act have already been discussed and apply to metals as well as organic chemical contaminants.
OiLr (Hydrocarbons)
The Canadian government, leaving most regulation of land-based oil uses and disposals to provincial governments, has focused federal controls on polbatant limits for oil refineries and emergency response capabilities of oil handling facilities. Petroleum Re$nery Liquid Efluent ~ e ~ u l a t i o n s ~ ~ , issued pursuant to the Fisheries Act. set limits for deposits of five substances: oil and grease, phenols, sulphide. ammonia nitrogen and total suspended matter. Allowable effluent limits are based on production capacity of refineries, for example, oil and grease deposits are limited in daily amounts to 5.5 pounds per 1,000 barrels of crude oil. A regulatory shortcoming is limitation of applicability to only newer refineries commencing crude oil processing on or after November 1, 1973. As a result, only one refmery of four operating in Atlantic Canada in 1994, the Come-by-Chance refinery in Newfoundland, was federally regulated (Eaton et al. 1994). The remainder were subject to guidelines. Pursuant to the Canada Shipping the federal government requires oil handling facilities, including oil terminals, to have oil pollution emergency plans and minimum response equipment. 69
Both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have passed regulations for controlling petroleum product storage, handling and disposal. Both jurisdictions prohibit disposal of used oil on any lands even for the purpose of dust suppression.70 Nova Scotia allows burning of used oil only if not contaminated and only with prior written approval.71 Both provinces have established detailed standards for aboveground and underground storage tanks and require reporting of petroleum product leaks.72 In both provinces, persons depositing petroleum products into the environment may be subject to prosecution.73 New Brunswick has issued particular regulations for petroleum storage, handling and use at marinas, for example. requiring portable fuel tanks to be removed from water craft before filling and placed in an area to prevent escape into the environment." Nova Scotia requires marina outlets to receive a retailer's approval and approval holders are to take all reasonable precautions to prevent spillage of fue~s .~ '
In the United States, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (oPA)'~ modified the Clean Water Act to establish new financial responsibility for transporters of oil, newr liability standards for oil spills and a fund to pay for clean up costs (Marine Law Institute and Ocean Institute 1992). Another key element is the focus on prevention, which will require the phasing in of double hulls for all tankers operating within the US Exclusive Economic Zone by 2 0 1 5 . ~ ~ As with many regulations, there is controversy about the cost effectiveness of double hulled tankers, their safety and the added expense of dredging ports and harbors deeper and wider. The natural resources damage assessment section of the OPA provides funds to "restore, replace or acquire the equivalent of ' due to damage by oil spills.
Response teams are established in each of the ten US Coast Guard regions, contingency plans are required and all owners of tankers must have approved response plans. These have been developed, revised and practice drills have been performed in regions throughout Massachusetts. As already discussed there is a Joint Marine Contingency Plan between the United States and Canada to provide a framework for response. Additionally: the Port and Tanker Safety Act of
1978.~' the Deep Water Port Act of 1 9 7 4 ~ ~ and the River and Harbor Act of 1899" provide further for safe navigation and include components of environmental protection.
Another piece of legislation that regulates oil and hydrocarbon releases (in addition to those already identified) is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA).~' This Act regulates offshore oil and gas leases and requires development and environmental assessment plans prior to any leases being granted. Comments from affected states through federal consistency of the Coastal Zone Management A C ~ ' ~ resulted in deferment of leases on Georges Bank until the year 2000.
Litter The Canadian government limits litter control to vessel sources. Garbage Pollution Prevention ~egulations'~, passed pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act, provide a blanket prohibition on dumping garbage from ships into Canadian waters (internal waters and territorial sea) or into 200-nautical-mile zones. Garbage is broadly defined to include: "solid galley waste, food waste. paper. rings, plastics, glass, metal, bottles. crockery, junk or similar refuse."84 However, Canada is not a party to Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) which governs garbage disposal at sea and requires state parties to provide adequate reception facilities for garbage from vessels.
Nevertheless, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has moved to provide garbage barrels or boxes at numerous wharfs. Following pressures from the Clean the Bay Campaign, launched in 1992 in New Brunswick by fishing industry representatives, DFO is reported to have located garbage receptacles at all small craft fishing harbors in New Brunswick (Harvey 1994).
Nova Scotia has tackled litter pollution primarily through Solid Waste-Resource ~Wanugement ~e~ulu t ions" passed in 1996 pursuant to the new Environment Act. The regulations prohibit littering into the environment and require owners and o erators of convenience stores and fast
8l' food outlets to provide and empty litter receptacles. All beverage containers sold in the province are made subject to a deposit-refund system and must be refillable or recyclable.87 Construction and operation of landfills require Ministerial approval.88 The Regulations divide Nova Scotia into seven solid waste-resource management regions and require each region to, at a minimum, achieve a 50 percent solid-waste diversion from landfills by the year 2000. Each region must prepare a solid waste-resource management plan on or before March 1, 1997. which includes a public awareness program and source reduction, reuse. recycling and composting
Regulations also ban the landfilllng of numerous materials such as redeemed beverage containers, glass food containers and polyethylene bags and packaging.y0
New Brunswick addresses litter in a more fragmented and less direct manner than Nova Scotia. The Beverage Containers ~ c t ~ ' requires beverage containers to be approved by the Minister of the Environment and distributors are required to prepare plans including "means by which the beverage containers are packaged or held together so as not to present a hazard to wildlife. r,92 A
deposit-refund system is established for most beverage containers including alcoholic beverages and fruit and vegetables juices but not processed milk products.y3 Litter deposits could be subject to prosecution under the Clean Environment Act's prohibition against releasing contaminants or wastes into the environment9%d pursuant to the Water Quality Regulation's prohibition on
depositing contaminants which may cause water pollution to any waters of the ~ rov ince .~ ' While New Brunswick has adopted the target of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment of a 50 percent solid-waste diversion by the year 2000. no regulatory teeth have been provided to date as in Nova ~ c o t i a . ~ ~ Construction of waste disposal facilities in the Province would be
97 subject to environment impact assessment requirements.
The United States is a party to MARPOL (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) agreement and has implemented Annex V through the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987.~' Vessel owners and operators are required to comply with garbage disposal limitations including a prohibition on deposits of plastics. and ports and harbors are to have facilities to receive ship-generated garbage. The US Navy had until 1993 to comply. Problems associated with compliance include education of crews, reducing amounts of plastic. installing equipment that handles plastics. and lack of approved facilities.
The discovery of syringes and needles and other medical wastes along the New Jersey shore provided additional impetus to minimize plastic disposal in and along the shore. All three New England states participate in Coastsweeps which mobilizes volunteers to clean beaches of debris, usually each fall. The Center for Marine Conservation has been collecting results and summarizing changes. some of which can be attributed to compliance with MAWOL (Sheavly 1995).
6.3 Physical Alterations and Habitat Destruction The primary management approach in Canada to controlling physical alterations and habitat destruction in coastal and marine areas has been reactive. Both federal and provincial governments have broad legal authority to assess and regulate major physical alterations. The federal Fisheries Act prohibits any person from carrying on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat9' except under conditions authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or by regulations. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may also require persons proposing to alter, disrupt or destrov fish habitats to undertake studies and may restrict or prohibit such work and undertakings.i00 The Navigable Waters Protection ~ c t " ' grants the federal Minister of Transport approval powers over various activities that may interfere substantially with navigation including construction of bridges, dams, wharfs; dumping of fill; or excavation of materials from the bed of a navigable water.lo2 The Canadian Environmental Assessment A C ~ " ~ may subject various federal-related projects to environmental assessment review including projects involving federal funding, federal approval and federal lands.lM
The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick also possess various reactive control levers for managing physical alterations and habitat destruction. Nova Scotia requires major construction activities, such as constructing bridges, causeways, wharfs and dredging surface watercourses, to receive ministerial approvallo5 which may be subject to terms and conditions. Nova Scotia's Minister of Environment has broad discretion to subject proposed undertakings to environmental assessment review and any activity or project which disrupts a total of two hectares or more of any wetland is automatically subject to environmental assessment review.Io6
107 New Brunswick subjects watercourse alteration projects to a permit requirement and may require environmental impact assessment reviews for various undertakings including causeways,
major highway projects, activities affecting any unique. rare or endangered feature of the environment and all activities affecting two hectares or more of wetland.108
Both levels of Canadian government also have proactive power to designate and protect habitats. At the federal level, Environment Canada has authority to establish marine wildlife areas out to 200 nautical miles pursuant to the Canada Wildlife ~ c t l ' ~ as well as migratory bird sanctuaries pursuant to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994."~ Parks Canada within the Department of Canadian Heritage map establish marine conservation areas pursuant to the National Parks ~ c t . " ' Parks Canada has developed a National Marine Conservation Areas Policy (Canadian Heritage 1994) and is proposing new legislation to.enable establishment of marine conservation areas out to the 200-nautical-mile limit (Zurbrigg 1996). Pursuant to the Oceans Act, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is designated as "lead agency" in designating marine protected areas and regulations could be enacted under the Act to manage ocean uses in such protected areas. A Protected Areas Steering Committee has been established to coordinate federal marine protected area programs and includes representatives from Parks Canada. Natural Resources Canada: Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada (Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1996). No marine protected areas have yet been designated in the Gulf of Maine region.
The provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia also possess legislation that may be used to protect habitats. New Brunswick's Ecological Reserves ~ c t l ' * allows the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to establish ecological reserves for various purposes including for representative examples of natural ecosystems and to protect rare or endangered plants and animals. Management plans are required establishing the level of protection and entry and activities are
113 subject to a permit from the Minister of Natural Resources and Energy. The legislation does not explicitly apply to marine areas. A WildlSfe Policy for New Brunswick (Government of New Brunswick 1995) raises the possibility of developing new habitat legislation but is not specific as to potential avenues. New Brunswick is also considering the enactment of conservation easement legislation allowing landowners to enter into legally binding conservation easements with government or non-governmental organizations (De artment of Natural Resources and Energy 11 1996). Nova Scotia's Special Places Protection Act provldes for the designation of ecological sites where controls may occur through permit requirements and regulations. The application of key legislation to marine areas remains uncertain as the Act allows designation of Crown lands, private lands and lands covered with water but does not expressly refer to marine waters. No marine areas have been designated to date. In June 1992 the Nova Scotia legislature passed the Conservotion Easements ~ c t " ' allowing landowners to enter into conservation agreements which may run with the land in perpetuity. The agreements may be made with the province or designated conservation organizations. The Act is viewed as particularly critical given that approximately 73 percent of the total land area of Nova Scotia is privately held with only a limited number of the province's 33,300 plus wetlands occuning on Crown lands (Power 1995).
Legislation to protect endangered species may be a further route to protect habitats in Canada. On October 31, 1996, the Canada Endangered Species Act (Bill C-65) received first reading in Parliament. The Act, applying to all federal lands including offshore marine waters under Canadian jurisdiction, would authorize the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) to designate wildlife species at risk. A species listed as endangered or
threatened would be protected from killing, harming, harassing, capturing, taking or possessing and no person would be allowed to damage or destroy the residence of an individual listed species. Species listed as threatened, endangered or extirpated would require recovery plans, and the federal government would be authorized to prepare a recovery plan in collaboration with another country sharing a species with Canada. Federal projects, subject to the terms of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, would have to take into account potential adverse effects on wildlife species at risk, and the responsible federal authority would be required to lessen and monitor effects. (Environment Canada 1996). New Brunswick passed a new
116 . Endangered Species Act in 1996 which makes it an offense for a person to willfully or knowingly destroy, disturb or interfere with the critical habitat of an endangered species designated by regulation."' Nova Scotia's Wildlife ~ c t " ~ allows listing by regulation of endangered species and for designation of protected habitats, but no such regulations have been issued.
Protection of natural resources and habitats in the United States is promoted through several federal pieces of legislation. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires the US Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) to issue permits for all fill and dredged material activities in navigable waters. Wetlands are protected under this section with the US EPA having veto authority over the Army Corps' permits if it finds that there are "unacceptable adverse effects". Coastal barrier beaches and islands are protected by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982Il9 which is intended to prevent development in areas that are subject to flooding and storm surge and that serve to protect mainland areas from storms.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Program (under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries ~ c t ) " ' designates nationally significant areas, restricts oil and gas development. dumping of wastes and may limit hawest. The Stellwagen Bank National Marine S a n c t u q is the only designated sanctuary in New England, under federal law.
On a smaller scale. the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, identifies areas suitable for long-term research that are managed by the state. Two such reserves exist in the Gulf of Maine: Wells (ME) and Great Bay (NH).
A key federal agency with responsibility for managing wildlife and fisheries is the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Fish and Wildlife Coordination ~ c t ' ' ' sets mitigation as a goal when the USFWS determines that projects have a negative impact on fish and wildlife resources. The USFWS also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System which is designed to protect, restore, develop and manage \vildlands and wildlife habitats (USFWS 1991). In the Gulf of Maine, Plum Island National Wildlife Refuge. Massachusetts is managed by the USFWS and provides habitat for nesting terns, and migrating birds species which use both freshwater and marine wetlands.
In addition to managing habitats, the USFWS is mapping habitats using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This tool has been used to identify critical habitats in the lower Casco Bay Watershed (Banner & Libby 1995). Similarly, the Massachusetts Bays Program has provided coastal cities and towns with GIs maps of natural resources, political boundaries and land use. These maps are useful to local planning groups in identifying areas which may be particularly sensitive to development.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA)"~ focuses on protection of threatened and endangered species. Section 7 prohibits taking any action to jeopardize the continued existence of an animal. In New England. the northern right whale is one of the species around which considerable controversy exists. Its population numbers have not increased since the 1930s when it was protected from further hunting (NOAA 1993). Some environmental groups have criticized the Section 7 review process as not protecting the species or its habitat (Mayo pers. comm.). One group has filed suit to have Massachusetts restrict, modify or eliminate lobster gear or other fixed fishing equipment. The best estimates of causes of death are boat strikes, entanglement in fishing gear and juvenile deaths. Because these animals range throughout the Gulf of Maine, removing the most likely causes of injury is not simple.
The Marine Mammal Protection imposes a moratorium on taking, killing. harassing, capturing or impairing marine mammals and is administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). A Marine Mammal Commission develops regulations and conducts independent research.
Each of the New England states also have passed legislation that protects habitats and wildlife. For instance, Maine's Protection of Natural Resources law requires application for permits for any activity which is in, over or adjacent to any protected natural resource, which includes coastal wetlands: significant wildlife habitats, rivers, streams and brooks.i24 Maine's Shoreland Zoning and Sub-division Control lawL2' requires local governments to rank wetlands and protect those of high or moderate value. Massachusetts' Protection of Endangered Species of Wild Animal Act protects both species and their habitat, and requires environmental impact assessments for activities which will negatively impact on a species' habitat.'26 Massachusetts' Wetlands Protection Acti2' requires persons proposing to fill or alter a coastal wetland, beach or dune to provide written notice and receive approval from local conservation commissions (appointed by towdcity governments). Under the State Recreation Areas Outside of the Metropolitan Parks District law of Massachusetts, several marine sanctuaries have been established. including the Cape Cod Ocean In New Hampshire, the Fill and Dredge in Wetlands law recognizes the environmental importance of wetlands as habitat for flora, fauna and fish: and accordingly regulates developments by prohibiting activities or requiring their modi f i~a t ion . '~~ All three states have adopted programs that designate critical areas that are non- regulatory. Other programs protect plants. support acquiring of lands and regulate aquaculture in submerged lands.
Both ~Maine and Massachusetts are unique in owning all submerged lands seaward of the low- water mark or 1,650 feet from the high tide line, whereas New Hampshire owns lands seaward of the high tide line. Intertidal lands are privately owned and may restrict access except for fishing, fowling or navigation. The home rule allows private property owners great flexibility in developing property consistent with other regulations. In New England public access and public trust doctrine issues are a focus for efforts to make available coastal areas to the public. One regulation Massachusetts CMR 90, requires public access on filled or formerly filled tidelands and has resulted in improved access along areas such as Boston Harbor.
7.0 GULF OF MAINE REGIONAL OBJECT~VES AND ACTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE
Regional cooperation efforts in the Gulf of Maine region to date have gone a considerable distance in meeting GPA objectives and actions. The Gulf of Maine Council has established management objectives, strategies and suggested actions for five priority problem areas. Those areas include: protection and restoration of regionally significant coastal habitats; restoration of shellfish habitats; reduction of toxic contamination in the marine food chain; reduction of marine debris; and protection of fishery resource habitats. The Council has involved various stakeholders, including local authorities and communities, NGOs, indigenous representatives and other groups, in establishing priorities for action, for example, through the 1994 Action Plan Review Conference in Wolfville, Nova Scotia (in line with para. 23(a) of the Global Programme of Action). The Gulf of Maine Agreement has recognized the need for a watershed management approach in the Gulf of Maine region in accord with GPA para. 23(b).
However. a number of methodological questions are raised by the GPA in terms of how existing priorities for the Gulf of Maine region were reached. Section B of Chapter 2 urges states: to involve stakeholders through all stages of developing and implementing regional programs of action; to integrate national actions with relevant, regional and global priorities and programs; and to apply the precautionary approach. A review of Gulf of Maine Council conference reports to date does not indicate detailed considerations of the precautionary approach or concentration on integrating regional actions with broader regional and global environmental regulatory initiatives. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has initiated a process towards developing a global binding instrument on POPs, and the Economic Commission for Europe is working on draft protocols for heavy metals and POPs at the interregional level of Europe and North America. Various habitat protection initiatives for North America, such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's plan to establish a North American Network of Important Bird Areas and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, are continuing but do not appear linked to the Gulf of Maine initiative. It is also not clear which stakeholders have been involved in reviewing the Gulf of Maine Council's focus on five priority areas for actions, and why decisions were made to not include some priorities for action from the stakeholders' conference in 1994 as reflected in the most recent 1996-2001 Action Plan. Stakeholders' priorities not included are the need to: have an intensive study of atmospheric transport of toxic substances to the Gulf of Maine region, assess effectiveness and enforcement of environmental and natural resource legislation and assess possible catastrophic threats to the Gulf system, for example from nuclear accidents
The Gulf of Maine Council has established overall objectives, strategies and timetables for the five priority problem areas in line with Section C (para. 25 of Chapter 2), which may be difficult to evaluate for effectiveness. However, the GPA also urges states to develop spec~jic targets and timetables for areas affected and for individual, industrial, agricultural, urban and other sectors. The specific targets are hrther spelled out in Chapter 5 of the GPA. For example, the GPA chapter suggests that "by the year 1995, in industrial countries . . . [countries will] ensure that at least 50 percent of all sewage, waste waters and solid wastes are treated or disposed of in conformity with national or international environmental and health quality guidelines . . ." (para. 96(c)). For persistent organic pollutants, the GPA urges promotion of best environmental practices for pest control in agriculture and aquaculture and the use of cleaner production
processes to reduce andlor eliminate hazardous bi-products associated with production, incineration and combustion (for example dioxins, furans and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Both the United States and Canada have adopted environmental regulations and designed to reduce, eliminate or minimize emissions from point and non-point source pollution. However, the question remains: to what extent do regulations achieve overall goals and protect the environment? Are the GPA goals unrealistic when reductions have already occurred?
The Gulf of Maine Action Plan's general objectives for shellfish habitat restoration and for reducing priority toxic contaminants in the sediments of three coastal embayments by 10 percent from 1990 by the year 2001 do not appear to meet the specificity suggested by the GPA. The Action Plan does not specifi sewage or wastewater treatment targets, although rhese are addressed in US regulations and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. It is not clear that the priority POPs of the GPA will be addressed in the CME Action Plan.
Numerous regional actions suggested in Chapter 5 of the GPA for particular source categories also do not appear to have been addressed for the Gulf of Maine region For example, no programs and priority measures for sewage or discharge standards for contamination have been established Regional programs and measures to reduce and/or eliminate emissions of heavy metals, POPs, and oils from industrial sectors and promotion of cooperation in developing cleaner programs have yet to be considered Throughout the region, reception and recycling facilities for oily wastes are not universally installed and in some areas remain to be considered Development and implementation of programs and measures for reducing nutrient inputs particularly from the agriculture sector remains a potential challenge, although these issues are addressed in the United States through the non-point source programs it remains to be seen how effectively they are enforced. Nor have priority measures to control anthropogenic modifications to sedimentation and siltation been set. Exchange of information on experiences and practices regarding waste management and recycling, as well as regional arrangement for solid waste management appear to be minimal No regional systems of marine and coastal protected areas have been established.
In evaluating how much of the recommended actions of the GPA are integrated into the GOM CME Action Plan and other activities it is necessary to understand how local efforts at pollution prevention (e.g., citizen activities, efforts of Casco Bay and the Massachusetts Bays programs, and local municipalities) impact overall pollution in the Gulf of Maine. It is important to identify those areas that are appropriate to be resolved at the regional level, such as harmonization of standards, and to allow local governments (states or municipalities) to implement them to meet performance standards
Table 5 compares relevant CME Action Plan (CME AP) goals with the recommended approaches of the Global Programme of Action (GPA) following the source categories of the GPA. It is a forced comparison because the Council focus is on habitats rather than sources. At one level, there is good agreement between the two, but specific targets may not have significant regional impacts and are difficult to measure (see earlier discussions). The column that identifies overlapping regional actions from both the GPA and CME refers to specific sections that are compatible. The comment column identifies some of the GPA recommended regional approaches that are not addressed in the Action Plan.
Table 4: Comparison of Relevant Gulf of Maine Council for the Marine Environment (CME) Action Plan Goals with the Global Programme of Action (GPA) Source Category Recommended Approaches*
ds and bilateral ts are not explicit in
nts are not explicit in
ns are at the national
uction goal and 25% ease in volunteers by
restore shellfish habitats, protect fishery resource
ocal involvement and dentification of indicator
* CME Action Plan (CME AP) goals are listed by number and subdivision (e.g., CME AP 1 .l-3), GPA references refer to section in document (e.g., GPA 104 (a-c). Other abbreviations are: BAT = best available technology. BEP = best environmental practice, CANUSLANT refers to the USICanadian agreement on oil spill response, and POPS = persistent organic pollutants.
Some regional actions certainly have been met. They include development of regional contingency plans for accidental releases of oil, and regional monitoring programs. Regional monitoring has occurred through the Gulfwatch Program for such contaminants as heavy metals and organic chemical contaminants, including some POPS, such as PCBs, DDT, mercury and selected pesticides.
At the Wolfville Review Conference in 1994, participants did explore some of the regional institutional strengthening issues raised in Chapter 3 of the GPA. Participants noted the need: to involve federal and provincial agencies not presently linked to the Gulf of Maine initiative, such as natural resource management agencies; to develop .regulatory programs of action for protecting coastal and marine habitats; to form a Scientific Advisory Committee; to develop a centralized site for distribution of Gulf of Maine publications; to examine the management structure of the Council including the rotating nature of the Secretariat; and to hrther expand NGO participation.
A number of additional institutional aspects of regional strengthening are raised by the GPA. They include: the possibility of entering new regional arrangements and agreements; harmonizing of environmental and control standards; exploring the use of innovative financial mechanisms; promoting regional capacity building in research and management training; and encouraging interregional cooperation.
While it is beyond the scope of the present discussion paper to explore various institutional arrangements in regional seas cooperation, various institutional innovations in other marine regions in light of sustainable development thinking stand out. They include: formal adoption of sustainable development principles and approaches through an amended or new agreement; development of an Agenda 21 for the regional sea area; specific protocols on problem areas, such as land-based pollution and special area protection; and clear acceptance and definition of management approaches such as best available techniques and best environmental practices. The issue of whether a treaty or hrther programs between national governments might further support the Gulf of Maine Council and its initiatives also arises in light of the GPA (para. 3 l(c)).
The GPA methodology also raises the possible need to reassess problem identification and priority setting in light of the numerous factors set out in Chapter 2, particularly under section B, such as the impacts on public health, ecosystem health and cultural values. For example, introduction of invasive species, development of aquaculture, forestry runoff and operation of incinerators, are all raised as potential problems of the GPA and yet have not been specifically listed as priority issues in the Gulf of Maine region.
The GPA certainly does not seek to impose any solutions upon the existing regional cooperation framework which has demonstrated numerous strong points and successes. As stated in para. 32(b) of the GPA:
The Programs of Actions should be developed and implemented on a timetable appropriate to regional or subregional circumstances and decided upon by the governing bodies of the regional or subregional agreements, conventions or arrangements as appropriate . . . .
The Gulf of Maine has initiated a process for developing actions with the CME AP although these are not directly parallel to GPA recommendations.
On November 20-22, 1996, approximately 45 representatives from government, nongovernmental organizations, industry, academia and First Nations, met in Durham, New Hampshire, at the New England Conference Center to consider regional actions for implementing the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) The Gulf of Maine pilot project, funded and sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), had two main purposes: to allow participants to compare the status of existing management arrangements in the Gulf of Maine region with GPA suggested objectives and actions, and to make specific recommendations for strengthening institutional arrangements and GPA implementation in the region
Following welcoming remarks by Janine Ferretti and Martha Rosas explaining the role and objectives of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a plenary session with five topic areas introduced participants to the management challenges raised by the GPA for the Gulf of Maine (GOM) region. John Karau, Chief, Marine Environment Division, Environment Canada, and Thomas Laughlin, Deputy Director, Office of International Affairs, NOAA, provided an overview of the Global Programme of Action and its recommended methodology. David Keeley, State Planner, Maine State Planning Office updated participants on recent Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment initiatives relating to land-based pollution and activities. Examples of measurable objectives included restoring 10,000 acres of regionally significant habitats by 2001 and reducing the amount of marine debris along the Gulf of Maine shores by 15 percent from 1995 levels by 2001. Michael Connor, Director, Environmental Quality Department, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and Catriona Moir, Manager, Ecosystem and Risk Management, Nova Scotia Department of the Environment, reviewed US and Canadian management approaches to land-based sources of pollution. Robert Rutherford, Head Habitat Planning, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and John Teal, Scientist Emeritus, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, described and evaluated Canadian and US management approaches to physical alteration and habitat destruction (and restoration).
Before breaking up into two groups, Judith Pederson provided highlights of the background paper findings. Participants were then briefed by David VanderZwaag on seven key GPA challenges to be addressed. The challenges presented through overheads were as follows:
1) Spec!fici~.> challenge: The GPA urges specific targetsltimetable for i?zdividual sources (agricultural, industrial) and affected areas of land-based pollution (Para. 25)
2) Gnp challenge: Are there priority problems raised by the GPA, such as aquaculture development and pollution, that are not being addressed in the GOM region? Are there gaps in regional management objectives? For example, the GPA urges regional sewage treatment targets but the GOM Action Plan does not directly address sewage treatment.
3) Action challenge: The GPA provides a "menu" of possible regional actions to address source categories of land-based pollution/activities. What is the appropriate US-Canada action agenda? For example, regarding regional sewage actions suggested by the GPA (para. 98), should there be regional programslprojects for sharing technical know-how and experiences with environmentally sound sewage treatment for transboundary sewage problems in particular? For regional actions on POPS (para. 105), should there be a
regional institution (e.g., a working group) to evaluate POPS management objectives, such as setting priorities and exploring substitution~reduction options? For regional physical alterationhabitat protection actions (para. 153), should there be a regional system of marine and coastal protected areas, a regional program on endangered species and coastal habitats and/or regional management of transboundary living resources?
1) ,lp/>rouchr.v ~ ~ ~ t i . n n . ~ ~ . ~ challenge Participants and managers need to son our the meanings and ways to operationalize key GP.A managemenr approaches and measures For example. is the precautiona~ approach he@ applied in the region? .Are best available techn~ques and best en\.~ronmental practices being implemented and approaches shared''
5) Regzonal agreements, arrangenzents strengthening challenge: Is there a need for new agreements, such as, a framework convention (between national governments) with - -
specific protocols (e.g., on land-based sources, special area protection, environmental impact assessment, integrated coastal area management); an updated Gulf of Maine Agreement in light of sustainable development principles? Should there be a regional information and technology clearinghouse mechanism? Should there be regional training and research centers? What innovative financing mechanisms might be consideredlHow might public participation and Aboriginal involvement be strengthened? How might support for research and monitoring activities, nationally and regionally, be strengthened? Should there be reporting and compliance mechanisms and/or dispute settlement arrangements?
6 ) hiterregional and international cooperation challenge: Is there a need to "link into" broader regional initiatives, such as the environmental management initiatives of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation and on upcoming protocols on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals under the Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)? What lessons might be learned from other regional seas arrangements such as those for the Mediterranean and the North East Atlanticq What are the regional implications of global agreements, such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1992 Biodiversity Convention?
7) CEC Pilot Projecl challenge: What should be the next steps for regional cooperation support? Some possible options for CEC project support include: convening a comparative regional seas conference to share experiences and innovations in sustainable coastal and ocean management; holding a workshop on harmonizing environmental standards; supporting projects that improve point and non-point source pollution inventories; and holding a workshop to further implementation of management approaches, such as the precautionary approach and integrated coastal area management.
In a short plenary session at the beginning of Day 2 of the Workshop to answer any participant questions and compare working group agendas, Ronald Perley, representing the Union of New Brunswick Indians, noted his concerns over the limited reference in the GPA to indigenous peoples and First Nation governance issues. As a result, he requested that his status be changed from a participant to an observer at the workshop.
A summary of Working Group I and I1 discussions and conclusions follow.
Working Group I Summary Report Working Group I adopted the procedure of comparing the five year GOM Council on the Marine Environment Action Plan to the GPA. The Council's Action Plan focuses on habitats and identifies goals, strategies and specific targets for the region to achieve. Working Group I began by discussing the degree to which the GOM Action Plan has identified and assessed those problems enumerated in para. 21 of the GPA. In particular the Group noted that the GOM Action Plan has not apparently addressed concerns for biodiversity, cultural values, radioactive materials, military installations, and aquaculture. Additionally, it was suggested that vessel-source pollution and invasive species were appropriate concerns to be addressed by a regional action program on land-based sources (LBS) of pollution, because of their recognized effects on the marine environment. Neither are covered by the GOM Action Plan and the GPA does not specifically cover vessel-source pollution. Debate occurred over whether a regional action plan should deal with problems already being addressed by other jurisdictions (e.g., military installations are regulated by other agencies). It was accepted however that a regional approach to pollution in the GOM should take into consideration the sources of marine environmental degradation, in order to properly assess whether to address them within its mandate.
A related concern was the need to distinguish between problems most appropriately tackled by regional institutions and those best left to state or provincial agencies, that is, does a particular problem become a regional concern because it causes regional effects, or because the occurrence of the problem is ubiquitous throughout the GOM?
Following initial conceptual discussion, the Group proceeded to examine whether the GOM Action Plan has comprehensively identified and assessed the specific GPA source categories (listed in Table 1 above), and taken the proposed regional actions.
In examining GOM actions on "Sewage" it was noted that the Action Plan is silent on the transboundary transportation of sewage. The efficacy of establishing regional standards for sewage treatmentdisposal and water quality monitoring versus merely establishing standardized objectives (e.g., environmental health) was discussed. Some potential recommendations to promote the GPA approach in the GOM included:
creating a system to communicate alternative ways of meeting management objectives on source control, treatment, disposal, re-use of water, etc.,
determining the assimilative capacity of the marine environment;
working towards the adoption of standards on sewage management, but emphasizing environmental health, not source control; and
identification and control of illegal or unregulated discharges
In discussing "POPS" the group agreed that the GOM Action Plan may not mitigate threats. Similarly, the Action Plan lacks specific proposals to deal with "Heavy Metals" and "Oils". Potential recommendations included:
the use of the Great Lakes Clean-up program as a model in the GOM;
the use of the CEC Sound Management of Chemicals Initiative and encouragement of the CEC to consider GOM management needs, especially with regards to atmospheric depositions, and non-point sources,
the need for more and better inventories of sources;
the need for comprehensive monitoring;
the need for a budget model to determine presence and circulation of pollution sources in the GOM; and
the establishment of a clearinghouse on inventories, control technologies, etc.
A caveat to any potential regional actions on POPs was made. It was agreed, that regional initiatives should not duplicate national, regional, or global efforts to eliminate POPs in the marine environment.
Radioactive substances were briefly discussed. It was accepted that the GOM Action Plan process had not addressed the issue. Uncertainties exist as to the significance of radioactive contamination in the region and whether management is adequate to protect environmental health. It was recommended that the GOM Council determine whether radioactive substances are suitably managed and whether they are a threat to the Gulf of Maine ecosystem.
The Group was undecided as to whether or not to address "Nutrients" at the regional level. Although it is a ubiquitous problem in the Gulf, arguably it only has direct local effects. It was remarked that the GPA anticipates an ecosystem approach. No consensus emerged however on any specific recommendations for nutrient management.
The Group dispensed with "Sediment Mobilization" by determining that it is subsumed under "Physical Alteration and Destruction of Habitats". Similarly there was very little discussion of "Litter", because the GOM Action Plan proposes adequate actions.
Finally, the Group determined that the GOM Action Plan has addressed the "Habitat" issue effectively, but that there was an opportunity for strengthening and broadening its efforts. Recommendations included:
assessing the threats to significant species and their habitats, (including the effects of noise and boat propellers on marine species and habitat);
identifying and assessing crucial habitats for commercial fish species, keeping in mind biodiversity and sustainable development concerns;
identifying and assessing crucial habitats for significant species;
restoration and protection of spawning and feeding habitats vital to the health of species;
promoting Marine Protected Areas, especially with respects to particular vulnerable species (e.g., the Northern Right Whale);
assessing the socio-economic value of species and their habitats;
assessing the threats to significant ecosystem functions; and
establishing a mechanism for inter-regional cooperation for the protection of the marine ecosystem.
Before reviewing the general recommendations for the Group in light of Professor VanderZwaag's seven challenges (see early discussion), the Group discussed existing barriers to strengthening and broadening LBS pollution management in the Gulf of Maine. Constraints to a more activist and comprehensive management approach were identified as: weak political leadership and public knowledge, a need for more incentives for agencies and NGOs to take on more activities, an absence of a regional regulatory authority, the non-binding nature of the GOM Agreement, the strictly local focus of state and provincial governments and their constituents, a deficit of funding and a lack of clear socio-economic, cultural and environmental valuation of a healthy marine ecosystem.
Six projects to flesh out implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities were generated by Working Group I and endorsed by the general group discussion for follow-up by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The six project ideas were accepted from the general group discussion and with detail based on group drafting were accepted, as follows:
1. Defining Socio-Economic and Environmental Benefits of GPA Implementation
Given the existing hurdle of limited political priority for protection of the marine environment, a study of valuation approaches and actual quantification of critical marine values is viewed as an important step in GPA implementation. GPA paragraph 22 urges clear consideration of socio-economic benefits, including, cultural values, and importance of coastal and marine resources in establishment of priorities for regional management actions.
A non-exhaustive list of coastal and marine values were suggested for analysis and quantification. Besides measuring values of resource uses, such as fish landings, existing and future aquaculture developments and traditional fisheries activities, this project would also examine ecosystem values, for example, contributions of salt marsh habitats. The value of shellfish beds and forgone economic benefit of closed shellfish beds would be a further topic of study. The economic importance of tourism and eco-tourism would also be highlighted, and measured through various methods such as entry-exit surveys.
2. Supporting Continued Assessment and Management of Regionally Significant SpeciesMabitats Including Present and Potential Threats
In line with the GPA call for regional steps to protect critical habitats and endangered species (para. 33(b)), this project proposes five actions:
support for existing activities to identify regionally significant habitats and species;
identify existing and potential threats to such habitats and species;
compile data on life-cycle habitat needs;
develop mitigative strategies; and
couple information, on regionally significant speciesthabitats in standard electronic format for inclusion in a user friendly GIs-based information management system and to be accessed via the regional clearinghouse mechanism
3. Strengthening a Regional Information Clearinghouse
To implement paragraph 32 (c) of the GPA, urging strengthening of regional information network, and linkages with other information systems, a regional clearinghouse should be expanded beyond the offerings of Environmental Data and Information Management System (EDIMS) and Research Environmental Data and Information Management System (REDIMS). This regional clearinghouse project could expand the existing system to meet all stakeholders needs, e.g.:
improve the GOM home page and publicize widely;
update the metadata directory and expedite access;
maintain resident data sets in support of the GOM projects and programs;
maintain an updated registry of GOM professionals and management personnel in social, legal and natural scientific fields;
maintain an updated registry of research facilities, community groups, NGOs and other organizations having relevance to the GOM environment;
provide linkages and references to other clearinghouses, e.g., in North America; and
provide linkage and reference to relevant bibliographic repositories
4. Improving Existing Inventories on Land-based Sources of Pollution and Facilitating their Use
This project, assisting in implementation of paragraphs 21 and 22 of the GPA, assessing problems and establishing priorities for action, has three goals:
to improve the quality of information in the existing point source inventory including expansion of the types of information and number of environmental sources covered;
to determine priority contaminants and establish a regional agenda for controlling their production, use and disposal; and
to increase the number of persons using the information to make decisions-to educate the region's residents about priority pollutants.
At least two project outputs are envisaged. Existing land-based source inventories on point and non-point sources would be updated and project results placed for public, academic community and decision-maker dissemination on the Internet and existing distribution centers (e.g., EDIMS and REDMS).
5. Workshop on Strengthening Regional Arrangements for Managing Land-based Activities in the Gulf of Maine
A regional workshop to consider actions pursuant to Chapter 3 of the GPA on strengthening regional cooperative arrangements is proposed with at least five themes:
lessons to be learned from other regional sea arrangements, such as the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic (Aspects of cooperation to be examined include institutional structures, scientific advisory mechanisms, financial arrangements, protection of biodiversity and standardslapproaches to land-based pollution);
learning from USICanada Environmental Agreements and Arrangements, for example the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the International Joint Commission. and British . - Columbia/Washington marine environmental cooperation;
reassessing regional arrangements in light of sustainable development principles, including the principles of public participation, integrated coastal area management, precaution, environmental impact assessment and indigenous rights;
understanding and strengthening inter-regional cooperation in addressing land-based activities (Accomplishments and constraints of existing management initiatives outside the geographic scope of the GOM will be examined including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Convention and the North American Right Whale Recovery Plan. The potential role of the 1979 Bonn convention on the Protection of Migratory Species of Wild Animals will also be explored once the reasons for the lack of participation by the United States and Canada are assessed), and
seeking consensus on the future strengthenings in regional arrangements
6 . Developing an Effective Approach to Sustainable Community Involvement in Coastal Resource Management
In line with the GPA's call for involvement of local authorities and communities in all stages of developing and implementing programs of action for addressing land-based activities (para. 23 (a)), this project proposes a five-point strategy:
strengthening community awareness and involvement for GOM-GPA target issues, particularly non-point source pollution (POPS and bacteria), shellfish contamination and habitat protection;
creating a sustainable mechanism to support community research and management activities;
documenting current community approaches;
developing a how to manual for establishing local monitoring networks and including success stories, data management, quality assurancelquality control protocols, start up approaches, support networks, strengthening partnerships and incentivelrecognition programs; and
providing incentives to encourage public participation in GPA implementation activities and foster recognition of successful management efforts.
Working Group 11 Summary Report Working Group I1 initially discussed what is currently known about the Gulf of Maine in reviewing the nine priority areas identified by the GPA. For example, the decoupling of nearshore and offshore circulation patterns suggests that pollution effects should be examined separately in each area. Using the working matrix provided, Group I1 worked through the various source categories and evaluated what is known about the ongoing activities in the Gulf of Maine relative to problem areas, priorities, management objectives, strategies and measures, criteria for evaluating effectiveness and program support elements. Not all issues were examined, but the group primarily focused on identification and assessment of problems, setting management objectives and recommending program support elements or actions that need to be taken to address the issues. They identified three areas which integrate the GPA source categories as point sources, non-point sources and habitat alterations. The challenge to the group that was highlighted by David VanderZwaag's presentation was used in conjunction with the working matrix and examined in more detail at the end of the session. The group also adopted a vision statement which guided the final recommendations. The following discussion combines the evaluation of the GPA with the final recommendations.
Habitats: Working Group I1 decided that protection, destruction and alteration of habitats are one of the most important focuses in implementing the GPA because, in addition to physical destruction, they are the recipient of pollution and because they are integral to ecosystem productivity. There were two basic philosophies expressed by the group; one wanted to see more mapping, inventories, and identification of critical habitats, another noted that decades could go by with no action taken thereby allowing further degradation of the habitats and thus urged implementation of actions. Although Canada has developed maps of its critical fish habitats, neither country is doing a particularly good job of mapping bird and waterfowl habitats. It was also noted that development along the shore, e.g., building culverts, causeways, dams and filling activities, alter sediment movements, salinity regimes, and water delivery systems that interfere with anadromous species movements and alter important habitats. The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act was used as an example to describe one approach to protection. The Act makes it almost impossible to alter salt marshes and coastal dunes, and provides relatively good protection for inland wetlands through local commissions responsible for administering the regulations.
In addition to high priority placed on discussing land-based and coastal habitat alterations, others expressed concern about fishing gear impacts to the sea floor. It was recognized that fishing practices are not "land-based activities within the meaning of the GPA. However, because of fishing gear impacts on benthic habitats, an issue related to other habitat destruction that may have a regional ecosystem impact, it was decided to highlight this issue for consideration by the appropriate regulatory mechanisms.
It was agreed that there is a need to:
improve understanding of how coastal ecosystems function and how they fit into the regional ecosystem health)(
develop a process to review and assemble the current scientific knowledge and integrate expert opinion on the value and function of ecosystems (this should be available via the clearinghouse),
establish ecosystem criteria for the habitats, e.g., rocky intertidal descriptions may include; substitute type, slope, salinity, turbidity, exposure, and contaminant leads, etc.
Development of these criteria and themes should provide guidance for regional science efforts. These priorities should be made available to all developers and environmental managers and regulators
Final actions proposed by Group I1 concerning habitats were as follows:
establish criteria for marine habitats, incorporating mapping, assessment, use and interconnectivity of various habitats;
regulate actions that alter sediment supply, water supply, structure, and sediment deposition;
determine composition and life cycles of "key" species in coastal habitats;
establish guidelines for coastal engineeringidevelopment which incorporate life cycle analysis of "key" species;
create an ongoing process for identifying and updating information with regard to criticaWrepresentative habitats; and
develop "big picture" or marine ecosystem "models" for predictive and management purposes.
Sewage and effluent: As the group reviewed sewage treatment in the United States and Canada, the differences in how the two countries treat effluent entering the marine environment became apparent..The permitting process and jurisdiction is less clear in Canada than in the United States
-% especially regarding discharges to the marine environment, and the monitoring records are better and more available in the United States, but could be improved. It was agreed that bacteria, solids and possible links to noxious algal blooms are among the issues to be explored and that metals and organic chemicals (including POPs, hydrocarbons, pesticides and others) may be significantly reduced by the - U S technology approach of requiring secondary treatment. However, as population growth increases, there will be continued increasing loads of contaminants even with secondary treatment.
Suggested actions:
share information with regard to standards and criteria, and
share approaches on standards and criteria in order for different jurisdictions to meet regional and local habitat objectives.
POPS: There was considerable discussion about the sources of POPs, many of non-point source origins POPs were discussed in terms of the Gulfwatch Program and its effectiveness in looking at pollution. Gulfwatch is a monitoring program sponsored by the Council on the Marine Environment to identify pollution trends and "hot spots" throughout the Gulf It was duly noted that the Council was evaluating the Gulfwatch Program which is completing 5 years of monitoring. Issues identified were that: (1) Gulfwatch may not be analyzing for all relevant tissue residue contaminants, (2) new generations of pesticides may need to be re-examined for their environmental effects, and (3) compounds may act as estrogen mimic disrupters and are potential threats.
Suggested actions:
re-evaluate monitoring in the Gulf of Maine of POPS, and estrogen mimc disrupters,
I share research and information, and
determine whether there is a role for volunteer monitoring, which fosters community
I awareness.
Radionuclides: The Group did not identify radionuclides as a priority due, in part, to lack of
I sufficient information suggesting serious concerns.
Heavy Metals: The issues of point source removal of metals was discussed with sewage and
I effluent assessment, at least for the states, where secondary treatment removes up to 80 percent of metals from effluent. Nonetheless as populations increase, contaminant releases will also increase even with pretreatment and advanced treatments. However, mercury, a major
I contaminant in seafood and of human health concern, enters the Gulf primarily from atmospheric deposition. As the discussion continued, it became evident that monitoring is needed, for mercury and other metals, that the sources may be at some distance from where the metals accumulate and/or have an effect, and cross international boundaries, and that standards may need to be 1 , harmonized. Several working group members thought this would make an ideal candidate for a CEC pilot proiect which would review both the structure of how to address the problem of
7 & -
I sources crossing national boundaries as well as the standards in the Gulf of Maine. ~.~ -. . ~ . - _~_,'
Suggested actions:
I / ~ j 4 examme an appropriate process for identifying, researching, and reducing sources,
./* evaluate "in place" contaminants as sources of non-point pollution, and
I , emphasize source reduction in communities and throughout the region.
OiLE!ydrocarhons: There was considerable discussion about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
I (PAHs) and oil as an issue of importance as either a point or non-point source of pollution. The group identified non-point source pollution as a major contributor, and noted that there are no water quality criteria for PAHs. Similarly, the build up in sediments of PAHs which are related to
I diseases in fish, are of concern 'for dredging projects and movement of contan~inants with sediments. Europe appears to be doing a good job at managing non-point sources of "oil" pollution and it is recommended that a good Gulf of Maine activity may be to look at these
I strategies which may also be a candidate for a CEC pilot project. Disposal of used oil containers at sea was of great concern. Building waste collection facilities for oil and other litter and marine debris at the docks is a community type activity that should he applied regionally.
I Although it was noted that most oil spills are land-based and that chronic activities (e.g., from disposing of motor oil in s t o m drains, from home activities, and from vehicles leaking oil) are the
I most important factor in oil pollution contamination. The group also decided that prevention of oil spills at sea, e.g., from offloading and transfer, was also a major concern and that the region should improve its contingency planning process. The group suggested that there should be an
I evaluation of traffic and trade, consideration requiring the global positioning system (GPS) to manage ship traffic and the requirement for double-hulled tankers. It was noted that the GPA does
not deal with shipping, but the group saw shpping as a habitat issue in terms of locating pons, dredging and shipping activities
Suggested actions:
set standardsiguidelines for PAH concentrations;
evaluate effectiveness of effluent standards;
emphasize pollution prevention, source reduction; and
( 0 develop management strategies with regard to spill prevention whlch consider improvement of ship traffic management strategies and other means such as requiring GPS technology and use of double-hulled ships.
Nzrfrients: Based on a recent NOAA workshop, nutrients as a cause of eutrophcation are not an issue for the Gulf as a whole and are problematic in very few, localized, small embayments. The Massachusetts Bays Program has fknded a project that developed a model for assessing embayment sensitivity to nutrients, which is currently being field tested. This is available for others to test. Canada uses buffer zones to protect estuaries and nearshore environments. Elements of an overall watershed management plan should include identification of nitrogen sensitive areas.
Suggested actions:
consider innovative technologies, such as alternatives to traditional septic systems;
assess relationship and linkage between embayments; and
consider downstream consequences and impacts on surrounding waters.
Sediments: The group noted that there are two issues related to sediments, contaminants associated with sediments and anthropogenic alteration with sediment transport patterns (both as barricades and through erosion). The issue of water quality criteria, which are concentration-based, do not necessarily protect habitats and do not prevent unacceptable contaminant accumulation in sediments. Siltation from land-based erosive processes or sediment movement (e.g., as is occurring in the Bay of Fundy) are other concerns. Several members noted that fishing gear impacts are another source of sediment disturbance and alteration of sea floor bottom. It was agreed that there should be compatible standards between Canada and the United States for dredging and "hot spots".
Suggested actions:
make sediment standards consistent with water quality standards.
harmonize standards and disposal of dredged materials standards across borders; and
share information and technology.
Litter: Beach litter cleanup programs are well-established, successful and support should be continued. Furthermore, requiring a deposit on cans and bottles has greatly decreased the volume of bottles and cans found along the beaches. Oil containers, Styrofoam containers, rope, aquaculture wastes and marine debris continue to be found along beaches. It was also noted that household hazardous wastes are not adequately dealt with in the GPA.
Suggested actions
establish oil container repositories at wharves,
create, distribute facilities for disposal of oil containers, Styrofoam, etc ,
facilitate proper disposal of household hazardous wastes;
support existing marinelcoastal cleanup efforts; and
'- enhance offshore enforcement.
The group then stepped back from the GPA source category approach and examined some broader issues. The discussion focused on the principle of precautionary approach and its relation to pollution prevention and regulatory and management approaches to protection of the ecosystem. The group also pondered the philosophical question, how should the precautionary approach be applied in regional terms when we know very little? After reviewing the discussion in
- the GPA regarding the precautionary approach, the group decided that this would be a good topic -.' for another workshop. Regional guidelines should be developed concerning the precautionary approach and its applications.
Near the end of the workshop, the group discussed a number of topics. Source categories were reviewed with respect to point and non-point sources. It was noted that the NOAA point source inventory stimulated Canadian managers to begin to compile data, and although this first document may not include all elements, it is a good start. The discussion focused on the need to develop good loading estimates and relate these to protection of the environment. The group also identified a need for 'harmonized' standards and for improved monitoring and inventories. It was postulated that developing regional performance standards, e.g., for sewage, may encourage innovation and not lead communities to install the "big pipe".
Discussion of habitat issues in the "regional" context underscored the need to identi& a group to look at the larger fisheries issues picture. Although gear impacts are altering the sea floor, e.g., through sediment disturbance, physical alteration of geoIogical features and biota, the relationship between these impacts and fish productivity is poorly understood and not being addressed by the New England Fisheries Management Council. Another body may be needed to integrate habitats, ecosystem considerations with stock assessment and fisheries management.
After stepping back from evaluating the source categories to considering broader issues, Working Group I1 found larger actions and goals that they felt needed to be considered:
evaluate cumulative interactive impacts of contaminants;
integrate science and management;
encourage community approaches to solve sub-watershed problems; and
establish a clearinghouse to provide access to information, with focus on assessment technologies and models.
After a discussion on whether to re-evaluate these priorities, it was decided instead to consider the next step: the development of a structure or process to deal with the problems on a regional and local level.
It was decided that one key component of any structure is participation and communication between scientists, NGOs, including local communities, and the three levels of government. The importance of these three groups was compared to the legs of a tripod; each must be involved for any sort of mechanism or agenda to move forward. In order to develop this integrated approach, it is necessary to foster interactions that allow everyone to communicate and agree on objectives. The issue of trust was discussed as an important factor in encouraging participation by groups such as First Nations. Programs such as the ~assachuset ts Bays Program and citizen's advocacy groups, were mentioned as models of interactions which involved consensus and education. The group discussed the structure of such a process, then focused on the specifics, namely the issues and actions to be considered in each area identified in the GPA as they apply to the Gulf of Maine region.
The overall need to improve the protection of the environment was reflected in Working Group 11's final vision statement:
The Gulf of Maine is a shared, public resource of world class ecological, economic, scientific and intrinsic value. Much is already known about the interactive, chemical and biological processes that produce this bounty. At the same time, it is clear that the communities interested in the protection of the Gulf of Maine face major scientific and management challenges at the national, regional and community levels. To meet these challenges, there is a consensus that we need to build on a our successes. harmonize - management approaches to protect regional ecological goods and services, and explore new approaches to integrate these activities in a way that supports the full - ~ - .- participation of all interested parties.
In the final plenary session, tasked with finalizing workshop recommendations, Henrietta List and Jessie Davies summarized discussions and recommendations from Working Groups I and 11, respectively. Participants agreed that Working Group I1 discussions tended to be much more specific in focusing on particular GPA source category priorities and actions, their focus was directed towards point and non-point sources and habitats as the three major categories of land-based pollution in the marine environment. Their recommendations identified the need for regional arrangements and structures that are responsible for implementation and the need to develop action plans that address point and non-point sources of pollution and minimization of habitat alteration. These actions items are best developed by experts not represented by those sitting around the table. The six project recommendations of Working Group I were compatible and perhaps inherent in the deliberations of Working Group 11. There was inadequate time to discuss action items and priorities for activities.
Concerns were expressed by some participants whether a priority ranking for the six project proposals for the CEC should be followed given the lack of time to reach a true consensus. A strong recommendation was made to treat the six projects as a programmatic package for furthering GPA implementation in the Gulf of Maine region. Project 5 was suggested to be a possible early step for facilitating implementation of the other project components, although Working Group I1 emphasized that addressing habitat issues was the top priority. Participants appeared to agree on the advisability of treating the six projects as integrally related and each having an important priority. Protection of regionally significant species and habitats was certainly a strong priority theme for both working groups.
A representative from the Gulf of Maine Council noted the need for early conclusion and prompt dissemination of the workshop report. Such a document, would allow the Council to consider workshop recommendations at its meeting in early December for possible endorsement.
The workshop concluded with closing remarks and words of thanks from Martha Rosas, Thomas Laughlin, John Karau, Judith Pederson and David VanderZwaag A special appreciation was extended to worlang group facilitators, Colleen Mercer Clarke and Gordon Wallace for their endurance in leading participants through the complexities of the GPA
APPENDIX 1 - GULF OF MAINE COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS, WORKSHOP SUMMARIES, AND REPORTS*
Sustaining Our Common Heritage Report and Executive Summary (1990)
Sustaining Our Common Heritage Conference Proceedings (1 990)
Gulf-links: A Resource Guide to Coastal Organizations in the Gulf of Maine Regon (1991)
Gulf of Maine Satellite Photo Poster (1991)
Funding the Gulf of Maine Program (1 99 1)
The Gulf of Maine Action Plan 199 1-2000 (1 99 1)
Habitat Mitigation in the Gulf of Maine: Stemming the Tide of Environmental Degradation (1991)
Nonpoint Source Pollution Report (1992)
Regional Seas Analysis Report (1992)
The Environmental Impacts of Finfish Culture Workshop Summary (1992)
Gulfwatch 10-year Plan (1 992)
Environmental Quality Monitoring Plan and Executive Summary (1992)
The Gulf of Maine Watershed Map Poster (1993)
Sustaining Our Common Heritage: An Update (1994)
Gulf of Maine State of the Environment Fact Sheet (1994)
Summaly Report of Activities 199 1-1994 (1 994)
Gulfwatch Annual Summaries (1 991 -1 994)
Economic Prospects for the Gulf of Maine (1995)
A Sea Beside the Sea Brochure (1995)
Our Common Heritage Magazine (1995, 1996)
Gulf of Maine Council Annual Reports
Workshop and Conference Reports:
Environmental Educators Workshop Summary (1991)
Assessing US and Canadian Laws and Programs Affecting the Marine and Coastal
Environment of the Gulf of Maine (1992)
Comparative Assessment of State Laws Protecting the Marine Environment
of the Gulf of Maine (1992)
Gulf Science Workshop Proceedings: Woods Hole (co-sponsored with Regional
Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine (1992)
Action Plan Workshop Report: Halifax, Nova Scotia (1992)
Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture Workshop Report (1993)
Shellfish Bed Restoration Workshop Report (1994)
Gulf of Maine SciencePolicy Workshop Summary: National Academy of Sciences (1994)
Priority Speciesmabitat Workshop Report (1994)
Second Sustaining Our Common Heritage Conference Proceedings and Executive
Summary (1 994)
*From Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, undated, Appendix 111.
Working Group I
Mercer Clarke, Colleen - Facilitator Director CBCL Limited 1489 Hollis Street P.O. Box 606 Halifax, NS B3J 2R7 CANADA Tel: (902) 421-7241 Fax: (902) 423-3938 e-mail: [email protected]
Bewers, Michael J. Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1721 Lower Water Street P.O. Box 500 Halifax, NS B3J 2S7 CANADA Tel: (902) 426-2371 Fax: (902) 426-5342 e-mail: [email protected]
Butler, Michael Director Coastal Information Program Development Oceans Institute of Canada 1226 LeMarchant Street Halifax, NS B3H 3P7 CANADA Tel: (902) 494-1977, 494-3879 Fax: (902) 494-1334 e-mail: [email protected]
Coon, David Policy Director Conservation Council of New Brunswick 180 St. John Street Fredericton, NB E3B 4A9 CANADA Tel: (506) 458-8747 Fax: (506) 458-1 047 e-mail: [email protected]
MacCallum, Raymond - Rapporteur Student Dalhousie Law School - Marine and Environmental Law Programme 6061 University Avenue Halifax, NS B3H 4H9 CANADA Tel: (902) 425-4148 Fax: (902) 494-1316 e-mail: [email protected]
Brady, Peg Director Mass. Coastal Zone Management Program 100 Cambridge Street Room 2000 Boston, MA 02202 USA Tel: (617) 727-9530 x400 Fax: (617) 727-1598 e-mail: [email protected]
Christmas, Eric J. Native Fisheries Program Manager Scotia Fundy Region Native Fisheries Branch Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1505 Barrington St. 17 North - P.O. Box 550 Halifax, NS B3J 257 CANADA Tel: (902) 426-901 1 Fax: (902) 426-1484
Haney, David Director Community & Economic Development Serv. The MEG Companies 25 Orchard View Drive Londonderry. NH 03053-3376 USA Tel: (603) 434-6700 Fax: (603) 434-0214 e-mail, [email protected]
Hawboldt, Steve Program Director Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP) 158 St. George Street P.O. Box 395 Annapolis Royal, NS BOS 1AO CANADA Tel: (902) 532-7533 Fax: (902) 678-1 253 e-mail: [email protected]
Jones, Stephen Research Associate Professor University of New Hampshire Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Durham, NH 03824 USA Tel: (603) 862-2175 Fax: (603) 862-1 101 e-mail: [email protected]
Keeley, David State Planner Maine State Planning Office 184 State Street - Station #38 Augusta, ME 04333-0078 USA Tel: (207) 287-6077 Fax: (207) 287-6489 e-mail: [email protected]
List, Henrietta E. Riverwatch-Maine 806 Branch Road Wells. ME 04090 USA Tel: (207) 985-7967 Fax: (207) e-mail: [email protected]
Hildebrand, Larry Head, Coastal Liaison Environment Canada 45 Alderney Drive, 5th floor Queen Square Dartmouth, NS B2Y 2N6 CANADA Tel: (902) 426-9632 Fax: (902) 426-4457 e-mail: [email protected]
Karau, John Chief, Marine Environment Division Hazardous Waste Branch Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd Place Vincent Massey, 12th Floor Hull, QC KIA OH3 CANADA Tel: (819) 953-1699 1953-2264 Fax: (81 9) 953-091 3 e-mail: [email protected]
Kinney, Kenton E. Community Planner Province of New Brunswick Department Municipalities, Culture and Housing P.O. Box 6000 Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1 CANADA Tel: (506) 453-2171 Fax: (506) 457-4991 e-mail: [email protected]
Moir, Catriona M. Manager Ecosystem and Risk Management Nova Scotia Department of the Environment Policy Planning and Coordination 5151 Terminal Road, 7th Floor Halifax, NS B3J 387 CANADA Tel: (902) 424-3617 Fax: (902) 424-0503 e-mail: [email protected]
Pacheco, Percy A. Environmental Engineer - NOAA Strategic Environmental Assessments Division NIORCA1 - Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment 1305 East West Highway - SSMC4 9th floor Silver Spring , MD 2091 0 USA Tel: (301) 713-3000 Fax: (301) 713-4384 e-mail: [email protected]
Shaffner, James Manager Hazardous Material Section Operations Branch - New Brunswick Departrnent of Environment P.O. Box 6000 - 364 Argyle Street Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1 CANADA Tel: (506) 453-2079 Fax: (506) 453-2893 e-mail: [email protected]
Varney, Robert Commissioner New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 6 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 USA Tel: (603) 271-3449 Fax: (603) 271-2867 e-mail: [email protected]
VanderZwaag, David Associate Professor Marine and Environmental Law Program Dalhousie Law School - Weldon Building Halifax. N.S. B3H 4H9 CANADA Tel: (902) 494-349511 045 Fax: (902) 494-1 316 e-mail: [email protected]
Rosenberg, Andrew Regional Administrator NOAAINMFS Northeast Region 1 Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01 930 USA Tel: (508) 281-9210 Fax: (508) 281-9371 e-mail: [email protected]
Teal, John Scientist Emeritus Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 567 New Bedford Road Rochester, MA 02770 USA Tel: (508) 763-2390 Fax: (508) 763-2640 e-mail: [email protected]
Watkins, Margaret Principal Planner New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 6 Hazen Drive - P.O. Box 2008 Concord, NH 03301 USA Tel: (603) 271-7889 Fax: (603) 271-7894 e-mail: [email protected]
Whinemore, Ray Research Engineer NCASl P.O. Box 53015 Medford, MA 021 53-001 5 USA Tel: (617) 627-3254 Fax: (617) 627-3831 e-mail: [email protected]
Working Group I1
Wallace, Gordon - Facilitator Associate Professor University of Massachusetts - Boston Environmental Sciences Program I 0 0 Morrissey Blvd. Boston. MA 02125-3393 USA Tel: (61 7) 287-7447 Fax: (61 7) 287-7474 e-mail: [email protected]
Ayer, William Manager. Land and Water Planning New Brunswick Department of the Environment 364 Argyle Street - P.O. Box 6000 Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1 CANADA Tel: (506) 457-4846 Fax: (506) 457-7823 e-mail: [email protected]
Connor, Michael Director Environmental Quality Department Massachusetts Water Resource Authority 100 First Avenue Charleston Navy Yard Boston, MA 02129 USA Tel: (617) 241-6507 Fax: (617) 241-6550 e-mail: [email protected]
Crighton, Steve Planner St.Croix Estuary Project Inc. 165 1/2 Water Street St. Andrews. NB EOG 2x0 CANADA Tel: (506) 529-4868 Fax: (506) 529-4878 e-mail: [email protected]
Bhaskar, Radika - Rapporteur Student MIT Sea Grant 440 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02173 USA Tel: (617) 225-8171 1 (617) 252-1741 Fax: (617) 252-1615 e-mail: [email protected]
Butler, Mark Marine Coordinator Ecology Action Center 5168 Argyle Street, Suite 31 Halifax, NS B3J 2B3 CANADA Tel: (902) 429-2202 1423-9700 Fax: (902) 423-641 0 e-mail: [email protected]
Copley, Maureen Marine Policy Advisor Marine Environmental Division Environment Canada 351 St-Joseph Blvd. 12th Floor Hull. QC KIA OH3 CANADA Tel: (81 9) 953-6949 Fax: (81 9) 953-0913 e-mail: [email protected]
Davies, Jessie Director Environmental and Sustainable Development Research Centre University of New Brunswick P.O. Box 4400 Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3 CANADA Tel: (506) 453-4886 Fax: (506) 453-4883 e-mail: [email protected]
Duncan, Ramona Senior Advisor, Environmental Science Department of Fisheries and Oceans STN 1280 - 200 Kent Street Ottawa, ON K1V 8T3 CANADA Tel: (613) 990-0303 Fax: (613) 990-5510
Gould, Diane M. Executive Director Massachusetts Bays Program Marine Coastal Zone Management 100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006 Boston, MA 02146 USA Tel: (61 7) 727-9530 Fax: ( 61 7) 727-2235 e-mail: [email protected]
Kay, Elizabeth Environmental Communications Consultant I State of Massachusetts Representative Gulf of Maine Council for the Marine Environment 45 Hampton Circle Hull, MA 02045 USA Tel: (61 7) 925-8977 Fax: (61 7) 925-1 236 e-mail: [email protected]
Lowe, Allison Executive Director Atlantic Coastal Action Program - Saint John 1 Market Square P.O. Box 6878 Station A Saint John, NB E2L 453 CANADA Tel: (506) 652-2227 Fax: (506) 633-21 84 e-mail: [email protected]
Pederson, Judith Manager, Coastal Resources Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant College Program 292 Maine St. E38-300 Cambridege, MA 02139 USA Tel: (617) 252-1741 Fax: (617) 252-1615 e-mail: [email protected]
Dunn, Russell World Wildlife Fund 1250 24th Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 USA Tel: (202) 778-9562 Fax: (202) 293-921 1
Hartman, David Senior Planner New Hampshire Coastal Program Office of State Planning 2 112 Beacon Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Tel: (603) 271-2155 Fax: (603) 271-1728 e-mail: [email protected]
Laughlin, Thomas L. Deputy Director Office of International Affairs National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce 14th and Constitution Avenue, Room 5230 Washington, DC 22207 USA Tel: (202) 482-61 96 Fax: (202) 482-4307 e-mail: [email protected]
Perley, Ronald Environmental Liason Union of New Brunswick Indians 385 Wilsey Road - Compartment #44 Fredericton. NB E3B 5N6 CANADA Tel: (506) 458-9444 Fax: (506) 458-2850
Ramirez-Flores, Oscar M. Director General de lnvestigacion en Procesos para el Desarrollo Sustentable lnstituto Nacional de Pesca - Semarnap Pitagoras 1320. Piso 3 Col. Sta. Cruz Atoyac Mexico, D.F. 03310 MEXICO Tel: (525) 688-1548 ,
Fax: (525) 601-2793 e-mail: OSCarmr f@Se~ id~r .~nam.m~
Rutherford, Robert Head Habitat Planning - Department of Fisheries and Oceans P.O. Box 550 Halifax, NS B3J 2S7 CANADA Tel: (902) 426-8398 Fax: (902) 426-1489 e-mail: [email protected]
Shelley, Peter Senior Attorney The Conservation Law Foundation. Inc 120 Tillson Avenue Rockland, MA 04841 USA Tel: (207) 594-8107 Fax: (207) 596-7706 e-mail. pshelley@clf org
CEC STAFF
Ferretti, Janine Director Cornission for Environmental Cooperation 393 St-Jacques Suite 200 Montreal, QC H2Y IN9 CANADA Tel: (514) 350-4317 Fax: (514) 350-4314 e-mail: [email protected]
Rosas, Martha Program Manager Comission for Environmental Cooperation 393 St-Jacques Suite 200 Montreal, QC H2Y IN9 CANADA Tel: (514) 350-4326 Fax: (514) 350-4314 e-mail: [email protected]
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Plant Industry Directorate. 1994. Registration of Antifouling Coatings, Regulatory Directive - Dir. 94-03
Ahmed, Farid E. 1991. Seafood Safety: Committee on Evaluation of the Safety of Fishery Products. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 432 pp.
Banner, Arnold, and Jon Libby. 1995. Identification of Important Habitats in the Lower Casco Bay Watershed: US Fish and Wildlife Service Gulf of Maine Project.
Bewen, J.M. 1995. The declining influence of science on marine environmental policy. Chemistly and Ecology. 10: 9-23.
Beyeler, Marc, Elena Eger, and Vincio Macias Zamora. 1996. Conserving the Marine Resources of the Southern California Bight: Draft Background Paper. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Black, D.E., D.K. Phelps, and R.L. Lapan. 1988. The effect of inherited contamination on egg and larval winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus. Marine Environmental Research 25: 45-62.
Bothner, M.H., M. Buchholtz ten Brink, and F.T. Manheim. 1996. The decrease of metal concentrations in surface sediments of Boston Harbor. Paper read at Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Dynamics: A Scientific Symposium and Workshop, at St. Andrews, New Brunswick.
Bright, Sarah, S. 1995. Z+e Wild Gulf Almanac: Edtlcafional Resotrrces about Habitats and Eco~ystems in the Gulf of Maine Watershed. Wiscasset, Maine: Chewonki Foundation.
Buchsbaum, Robert, Linda Deegan, and Andrea Cooper. 1995. Status Report on the Plum Island Sound Minibay Project. Massachusetts Bays Program.
Buchsbaum. Robert, Linda Deegan, and Robert Gamtt 1996. Changes in fish community of Plum Island Sound, Massachusetts from 1967 through 1994 Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine.
Cameron, J , and W. Wade-Gery. 1992. Addressing Uncertaing: Lmi: Polic~ and the Development ofthe Precautionary I'rinciple. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 92-43. London: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.
Canadian Heritage 1994. Parks Canada Guiding Pvii~ciples and Opevatioi~al Policies. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Capuzzo, Judith McDowell, Anne McElroy, and Gordon Wallace. 1987. Fish and Shellfish Contamination in New England Waters: An Evaluation and Review of Available Data on the Distribution of Chemical Contaminants. Coast Alliance.
Carefoot, Thomas. 1979. Paczfic Seashores: A Guide to Inierfidal Ecology First ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
CBEP. 1996. Casco Bay Plan. Casco Bay Estuary Project.
Chandler, Mark, Phil Colmsso, and Robert Buchsbaum. 1996a. Differences in fish communities among nearshore habitats in Boston Harbor and Northern Massachusetts Bay. Paper read at Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Dynamics, at St Andrews, New Bmswick.
Chin, Y.P., S. McGroddy, and P. Gschwend. 1992. Partitioning of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to marine porewater organic colloids. Environmental Science and Technology 26: 1621-1626.
Chircop, A,, D. VanderZwaag and P. Mushkat 1995. The Gulf of Maine Agreement and Action Plan: A novel but nascent approach to transboundaty marine environmental protection. Marine Policy 19: 3 17-333.
Clark, R.B. 1989. Marine Pollution 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Clean Annapolis River Project 1996 Our Watershed, Our Responsibiliry. Annapolis Watershed Env~ronmental Management Handbook.
Conkling, P.W. (ed.) 1995. From Cape Cod to the Bay ofFundy: An Environmental A f lm of the Gulfof Maine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Environmental Stewardship Branch 1996. Discl~ssion Paper on Conservation Easement Legislatio?~ for New Brunswick. Fredericton, New Brunswick.
DFO. 1995. Groundfish Stock Status Report. Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Scotia-Fundy Region.
DREP. 1995. Damariscotta River Estuaty: A Management Plan. Damariscotta River Estuary Project.
Eaton, P.B., A. G. Gray, P.W. Johnson and E. Hundert 1994. State of the Environment in the Ailanfic Hegio~i. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
Environment Canada. 1986. Wetlands in Canada: A Valuable Resozlrce, Fact Sheet 86-4. Ottawa.
Environment Canada. 1996. Canada Endangered Species Protection Act; A Summary. Ottawa.
Environment Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1996. Disczrssio~~ Paper on Developing Canada's National Programme of Action for the Protectio~~ of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities. Hull, Quebec: National Programme of Action Secretariat, Environment Canada.
Environment Canada and Health and Welfare Canada. 1991. Prioriq Substance List Assessment H e w No. 2: Efflzlents from Pulp A4jN.r Using Bleachjng. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada
EOEA. 1990. An Environment at Risk: The First Annual Report on the State of the Massachusetts Environment: Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston, MA.
Ferdinand, W. Jr. 1992. Non-point Source Water PoNuiion Control in the Gulf of Maine. Prepared for the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.
Freestone, David, and Ellen Hey. 1996. Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Challenges and Opportunities. In The Precazrtiona~ Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation, David Freestone and Ellen Hey, ed. London: Kluwer Law International.
Foote-Smith, Christie. 1995. Partnership to Restore Massachusetts Wetlands: Action Plan, Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program.
FMESP. 1996. Fundy Marine Ecosystem Science project. 1996. Draft Workshop Background Paper, January 29-February 1, 1996. Wells, P.G., A. Evans, M. Brylinsky, G.R. Daborn, S. Hawboldt, P.W. Hicklin, J.A. Percy and L. White, ed.
Gilbert, James. 1995. The status of seal populations in northern New England Paper read at Pinneped Populations in Gulf of Maine: Status, Issues and Management. Boston, Massachusetts.
GOMRMRP. 1992. Gulf of Maine Research Plan: Gulf of Maine Regional Marine Research Program.
Gottholm, B. William, and Donna Turgeon. 1992. Toxic Contaminants in the Gulf of Maine. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, MD.
Government of Canada. 1991. The State of Canada's Environment. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Sewices Canada.
Government of Canada. 1995a. CEPA Review %he Government Response. Ottawa: CEPA Office, Environment Canada.
Government of Canada. 1995b. Pollution Prevention: A Federal Stratep for Action. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Government of Canada. 1996. 7he State of Canada2.s Environment. Ottawa: Internet Edition.
Government of New Brunswick. 1995. A Wi1dlij"e Policy for New Bnm.n*ick. Fredericton, New Bmnswick.
GPA. 1995. Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, UNEP (OCA)/LBAIIG.217.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, undated. Work in Progress: Five Year Report ofthe Gulf of Maine Co~rncil on the Marine Environment 1990-1995. Augusta, Maine: Maine State Planning Ofice.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 1991. The Gulf of Maine Action Plan 1991-2000.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 1993. Program Highlights. Boston: Ofice of Environmental Affairs.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 1995. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment: Summary Report of Activities: 1991-1994. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. MayIJune 1995. Program Highlights Boston: Ofice of Environmental Affairs.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. February 1996. Program Highlights Augusta, Maine: Maine State Planning Office.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 1996. The Gulf of Maine Action Plan: 1996-2001
Harvey, J. and Friends of the Bay of Fundy. 1994. Tzrrning the Tide: A Citizen S Action Guide to the Bay of Fun+. Fredericton: Conservation Council of New Bmnswick, Inc.
Hoburg, C. 1992. Comparing Canadian performances in environmental policy. In Canadian Environn~ental Policy Ecosystems, Politics and Process , R. Boardman ed., Oxford. Oxford University Press.
House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. 1995. It's about our Health: Towar& Pollution Prevention, CEPA Revisited. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Hunt, Carlton 1992 Letter Data Report to USEPA for Contaminant Concentrations in Water Column at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, Ma
Jones, S. H., F. T. Short, and M. Webster. 1992. Pollution. In The Ecology of the Great Bay Estzrary, New Hampshire and Maine: An Estuarine Profile and Bibliography, F. T . Short, ed., Durham, NH: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program.
Jordan, A. and T. O'Riordan. 1994. 7he Precautionary Principle in U. K. Environmental Laus and Policy. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 94-1 1. London: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.
Kenney, Mary K., and James R. Gilbert. 1994. Increase in Harbor and Gray Seal I'opzrlations in Maine. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Kimbrough, Renate D. 1985. Laboratory and human studies on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and related compounds. Environmental HeaNh Perspecfives 59: 99- 106.
Konrad, V., S. Ballard, R. Erb and A. Morin (ed.). Undated. The &GulfofMaine: Sustaitzing Our Common Heritage. Proceedings of an International Conference held in Portland, Maine, December 10-12, 1989. Maine State Planning Office and Canadian-American Center, University of Maine.
Kraus, Scott, and Greg Early. 1995. Population trends in southern New England as reflected in survey and stranding data. Paper read at Pinneped Populations in Gulf of Maine: Status, Issues and Management, at Boston, MA.
Larsen, Peter F., Donald F. Gadbois, and Anne C. Johnson. 1986. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine sediments: distributions and mode of transport. Marine Environmental Research 18: 23 1-244.
Lucero, Gene, Katherine Moertl, Raymond Holmes, and Caren Arnstein. 1989. Superfund Handbook: A Glide to Managing Responses to Toxic Releases Under Szperjind. 3rd edition. Chicago: ENSR.
Marine Law Institute and Oceans Institute of Canada. 1992. Assessing US and Canadian Laws and Programs AfSecting the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Gulf of Maine. Prepared for the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.
Massport and USACE. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project. Massachusetts Port Authority, US Amy Corps of Engineers.
MBP. 199 1. Sources and Loadings of Pollutants to the Massachusetts Bays. Massachusetts Bays Program.
MBP. 1992. Review of Water Quality Planning Programs Relative to ~&ssachusetts B q s . Massachusetts Bays Program.
MBP. 1996. Massachusetts Bays I996 Comprehensive Conservatio?i and Management Plan: An Evolving Plan for Action. Massachusetts Bays Programs.
MCZM. 1992. Coastal Brief: Coastsweep 1991-1992. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management.
MDPH 1988. Advisoly on consumption of lobster tomalley from Massachusetts waters. Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
MDPH. 1989. Policy on use of organotin in Massachusetts.
Menzie-Cura, Associates. 1995. Organic Loadingsfrom the Merrimack River to Massachusetts Bay. Massachusetts Bays Program.
Milton, G. Randy 1995. Nova Scotia. In Waterjowl Habitat Restoration Enhancement and Managenzent in the Atlantic Flp~ay William R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whitternore, P. Kehoe, L. Roberts, ed. Dover, Delaware: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
MSPO 1995. Land-based Sources ofPollution: An Inventoy of the Gulf of Maine. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AfTairs, US Department of State.
MSPO, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996. Working draft. Current Watershed Management Initiatives, Projects, Agencies, and Organizations in the Gulf of Maine Region. Maine State Planning OficeMaine Coastal Program.
Muiray, J.L., R.G. Shearer and S.L. an. 1996. Environmental Studies No. 73. Synopsis of Research Conducted Under the IYY4:Yj Northern Contarnina?lts Progrum. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
h M . 1993a. Annual Review of Toxic Contantina?~ts Discharged hy MWRA: 1993. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
MWRA. 1993b. The State of Boston Harbor 1992. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
MWRA. 1994a. Deer Island EfJuent Characterization: .June-November 1993. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
MWRA. 1994b. Sources of Contaminants to Boston Harbor: Revised Loading Estimates. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
MWRA. 1995 The State of Boston Harbor: Connecting the Harbor to its Wafersheds 1994. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
MWRA. 1996. NPDES compliance summary report fiscal year 1995. MWRA Environmental Quality Department Technical Report No. 96-2.
McAdie, H.G. 1995. Atmospheric Deposition to the Gulf ofMaine. Ottawa: International Joint Commission.
McElroy, Anne, Michael Shiaris, Judith McDowell Capuzzo, Brian Howes, and John Molongoski. 1994. Bioavailabilit~ and Biotransjormafion of Polycyclic Hydrocarbons in Benthic Environments of CoastalMassachusetts. Massachusetts Bays Program.
McGroddy, Susan E., and John W. Farrington. 1995. Sediment porewater partitioning of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in three cores from Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. Environmental Science & Technology 29: 1542- 1550.
McGroddy, Susan E., John W. Farrington, and Philip M. Gschwend. 1996. Comparison of the in situ and desportion sediment-water partitioning of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls. Environmental Science & Technology 30: 172-177
Moore, Robert. 1996. Shellfish Resources in the GzrqofMaine. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.
NOAA 1991. Second Summary of Data on Chemical Contaminants in Sediments from the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NOAA. 1993. Ozrr Living Oceans: Report on the Stafus of US Living Marine Resources, 1993. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NOAA 1994. GulfofMaine Point Source Inventory: A Summav by Watershedfor 1991. Silver Spring, Maryland: Pollution Sources Characterization Branch, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.
NOAANMFS. 1995. Sfatlts of the Fishery Resolrrces off the Northeastern United States for 1994. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration1 National Marine Fisheries Service.
National Research Council 1995. Improving Interactions Befiveen Coastal Scietzce and Policy: Proceedings of the Gulf ofMaine Symposium. Kennebunkport, Maine, November 1-3, 1994. washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
New Brunswick Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing, 1996. Draj Proposalfor a Provitzcial Land Use Policy for Nen' Brzi~ls~vick's Coastal Lands. Fredericton, New
NHDES. 1994. Best Management Practices to Conbol Non-point Source Polhrtion. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
NHDES. 1996. 1996 Coastal Basin Non-point Source Po/lution Assessn~ent and Abafement Plan: Non-point Source Program. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
NHOSP 1995 Exeter'Squamscott Watershed Non-poznf Pollutro?~ Control Project Oflice of State Planning, New Hampshire Coastal Program
Noble, D.G. and S.P. Bums. 1990. Contaminants in Canadian Seabirch, SOE Fact Sheet No. 90-1. Ottawa: Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection.
Nova Scotia Department of the Environment and Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries. 1994 Coastal Zoo: A Conslrltation Paper Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Wastes in Marine Environments. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
O'Connor, Thomas P., and Benoit Beliaeff. 1995. Recent Trends in Coastal Environmet~tal Ozrality: Results .Jrom the Mussel Watch Project. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
O'Riordan, T, and J. Cameron, ed. 1994. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Cameron May.
Pait, Anthony S., Alice E De Souza, and Daniel R. G. Farrow. 1992. Agricultzrre Pesticide Use in Coastal Areas: A National Summary. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Pederson, Judith. 1994. Gulf of Maine Habitat: Workshop Proceedings. Paper read at Regional Marine Research Program for the Gulf of Maine and Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine, at West Boothbay Harbor, Maine.
Pesticide Registration Review Team, 1990. Recommetzdations for a Revised Federal Pest Management Regulator)/ System: Final Report December 1990. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Platt, David D., Richard Podolsky, Harry Thurston, and Janice Harvey. 1995. The top of the food chain: marine mammals and birds of the Gulf of Maine. In From Cape Cod to the Bay of Fzitzdy: An Environmental Atlas of the Gulf of Maine, P . W. Conkling, ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Power, T.D. 1995. The Conservation Easement, A New Tool for Conservation on Private Lands. In Ecosystem Monitoritzg and Protected Areas, Tom B. Herman, Soren Bondmp-Nielsen, J.H. Martin Willison and Neil W.P. Munro, ed., Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas, held at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 16-20 May 1994. Wolfville, Nova Scotia: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association.
RARGOM. 1995. The Health of the Grrlfof Maine Ecosystem: Czrm~rlative Impacts of Multiple Stressors. Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine.
RARGOM. 1996. Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Dynamics. Paper read at Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Dynamics: A Scientific Symposium and Workshop, at St. Andrews, New Brunswick.
Schwartz, Jack, Nina M. Duston, and Carol A. Batdorf 1991. PCBs in Winter Flounder, American Lobster, and Bivalve Molluscs from Bostotz Harbor, Salem Harbor, and Comtal Massachusetts 1984-1989. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.
Schwartz, Jack, Nina M. Duston, and Carol A. Batdorf 1993. Metal Concentrations in Winter Flounder, American Lobster and Bivalve Molluscs from Boston Harbor, Salem Harbor and Coastal Mas.~achusetts: A Summary of Data Collected from 1986-1991. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.
Schauffler, M., ed. 1995. Annual Report 1993-1994 Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. In Our Common HeritageIGulj' of Maine Vol. 1, WinteriSpring. Augusta, Maine: Maine State Planning Office.
Sheavly, Seba B. 1995. 1994 US National Coastal Cleanup Results. Center for Marine Conservation.
Shelton, Dinah. 1996. The Impact of Scientific Uncertainty on Environmental Law and Policy in the United States. In f ie Precautionar7/ Principle and International Law: f ie Challenge of Implementation, David Freestone and Ellen Hey, eds. London: Kluwer Law International.
Short, F.T. 1992. Estuarine hydrochemistry. In The Ecology of the Great Bay Estuav, Nav Hanipshire and Maine: An Estuarine ProJile and Bibliography F . T . Short, ed., Durham: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program.
Short, F.T., and A.C. Mathieson. 1992. Estuarine Primary Producers. In The Ecology of the Great B q Estuary, New Hanipshire and Maine: An Estuarine ProJile and Bibliography. F . T. Short, ed., Durham, NH: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program.
Sinclair, Michael, Scott Wilson, D.V. Subba Roa. 1992. Overview of the Biological Oceanography of the Gulf of Maine, in Proceedings of the Gulf of Maine Scientific Workshop, January 8-10, 1991, Jack Wiggins and Christopher Mooers, eds Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Smith, Richard A., Richard B. Alexander, and M. Gordon Wolman. 1987. Water-quality trends in the nation's rivers. Scieizce 235: 1607-161 5.
Sowles, John, Robert Crawford, John Machell, Peter Hennigar, Steven Jones, Judith Pederson, Karen Coombs, Glenn Atkinson, Shelly Mathews, Darrell Taylor, and Gareth Harding. 1994. Evaluation of Gulfiatch 1992: Secorzd Year of the Gulf ofMaine Environmental Monitoring Plar?. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.
Statistics Canada 1994. Human Activiv and the Environment 1991. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology
Stegeman, John J. 1981. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon and their metabolism in the marine environment. In Polycyclic Hydrocarbons and Carzcer. H. V. Gelboin and P. 0. P. Ts'o, ed., New York: Academic Press.
Stright, R.N. JuneIJuly 1991. Joint Response to Spills. In Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, Turning the Tide 3(2):2. Fredericton, New Brunswick: Department of the Environment.
Thurston, Harry and Peter Larsen. 1994. GulfofMaine State ofthe Environment Fact Sheet.
Townsend, David W. 1992. An overview of the oceanography and biological productivity of the Gulf of Maine. Paper read at The Gulf of Maine: Proceedings of a Conference 1989, at Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 198th Assessment of Qzrincy Bqv Contamination: Szmimay Report. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region I.
USEPA. 1988b. 7he Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance System, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. US Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1990. Suspended, Cat1celled and Restricted Pesticides. US Environmental Protection Agency, 20T-1002.
USEPA. 1993. Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Lfe Metals Criteria, edited by M. G. Prothro. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy. Washington, D.C. : US Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1996. Release of Toxics Reduced,
USFWS 1991. GuIf of Mart~e Coastal and Estuary Program. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5.
Valiela, I., G. Collins, J. Kramer, K. Lajtha, M. Geist, B. Seely, J. Brawley, and C.H. Sham. mss. Nitrogen loading from coastal watersheds to receiving waters: Review of methods and calculation of loading to Waquoit Bay.
Van Dusen, K. and A.C. Johnson Hayden 1989. The Gulf of Maine: Sustaitzing Ozrr Common Heritage. Augusta, Maine: Maine State Planning Ofice.
VanderZwaag, David, 1995. Canada and Marine Environmental Protectzon: Chartrtlg a Legal Cozrrse Towar& Sustainable Development. London: Kluwer Law International.
WA DEP. 1994. Shoreline Armoring EEffects on Physical Coastal Processes i~7 Puget Sound, Washington Coastal Erosion Management Series, Vol. 5, Rpt #94-78. Olympia: Washington Department of Ecology
Wells, P.G., P.D. Keizer, G.R. Dabom, D. Johnston, J.L. Martin. 1996. The Chemical Environment of the Bay of Fundy: A Summary of Research since the Mid-1980s. In Draft Workshop Background Paper, Fundy Marine Ecosystem Project, January 29-February 1, 1996: 25-48.
Wells, P.G. and S.J. Rolston. 1991. Health of Our Oceans: A Status Report on Canadian Marine Environmental Qzrali@. Ottawa: Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection.
Widoff, Lissa, ed. 1996. Conference Report. Bridging the GuF A Watershed o f Watersheds. A U S and Canadian Citizen's Conference on Environmental Monitoring in the Gulf of Maine. May 30-June 1, 1996. Collaboration of Community Foundations in the Gulf of Maine.
World Resources Institute. 1990. WorldResources 1990-91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zurbrigg, E.J. 1996. Towards an Environment Ca?zada Strategy for Coastal and Marine I'rotectedAreas. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Wildlife Service.
1 Information provided to the authors by the Water & Wastewater Section, New Brunswick Department of the Environment (August 19, 1996).
Information provided to the authors by the Municipal Services Division, Nova Scotia Department of Municipal AEairs (August 16, 1996). Data covers Yarmouth, Digby, Annapolis and Kings counties.
33 U.S.C. 5 1251 et seq (1994)
June 19, 1974,25 U.S.T. 1280, T.I.A.S. 7861 5 Canadian Coast Guard Maritimes and United States Coast Guard First District, Jornt
Canada/United States Transboundmy Polluhon Response Workshop Report (Dartmouth, Nova Scotia) December 6-8, 1994
6 A copy of the Agreement may be found in the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, lhe GulfofMaine Action Plan 1991-2000 (July 1991), Appendix
7 At the December 1991 meeting, the Council decided to expand its membership to include a non- governmental member from each state and provincial jurisdiction and industry representative~ have been appointed.
8 South Carolina Fish Hatchely Act of 1990, Title IV, Regional Marine Research Programs, Public Law 101-593 sec. 401-407.
16 U.S.C.A. 5 1451 at 5 1452(2)(A) (West Supp. 1996). 10 S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 1
l2 42 U.S.C. 5 7401 et seq (1994). " 42 U.S.C. jj 13101 et seq (1994). 1J Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann., ch. 211 15 38 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., ch. 26 l6 R.S.C. 1985, c. 16 (4th Supp) 17 Pho~phorozrs Concentration Regulations SORl89-501. Concentrations of phosphorous are not to
exceed 5 percent by weight expressed in phosphorous pentoxide or 2.2 percent by weight expressed as elemental phosphorous.
I X R.S.C. 1985, C. C-11. l9 Federal Water Quality Management Programs may be established for inter-jurisdictional waters
becoming a matter of national concem while Federal-Provincial Water Quality Management - -
Agreements are possible for managing federal waters or any waters, other than federal waters, the water quality of which has become a matter of urgent national concem.
20 R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.
Ibid., s. 36(3). 22 See New Brunswick's Water Qualit): Regulation - Clean Environment Act, N.B. Reg. 82-126, s.
3(4) and Nova Scotia's Activities Designation Regulations, N.S. Reg. 47/95, s.7. I
22 See New Brunswick's Clean Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6, s. 33 and Nova Scotia's Environment Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 1, s. 68. I
24 See New Brunswick's Health Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. H-2, s. 35.1(Q(g)(h) and Nova Scotia's ~ e a l t h ~ c t , R.S.N.S. 1989, i. 195, s. 38.
'' See New Bmswick's General Regulation-Health Act, N.B. Reg. 88-200, s. 230(2) and Nova
I Scotia's Health Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 195, s. 38(1).
26 See New Bmnswick's General RegztIation-Health Act, N.B. Reg. 88-200, s. 238 and Nova I
Scotia's On-Site Savage Disposal Systems - Subdivision ofLand Regulations, N.S. Reg. 135182, s. 7. I
27 See New Bmnswick's General Regrlation-Health Act, N.B.Reg. 88-200, s. 240(b). 28 See New Brunswick's Clemz Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6, s. 32(c) and Nova Scotia's
Environment Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 1, s. 110(l)(b). I
29 42 U.S.C. $6901 et seq (1994).
42 U.S.C. 4 9601 et seq (1994). I
" Pub. L. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986).
" R.S.C. 1985, C. P-9. I
" ihid., s. 5.
'-.R.C., c. 1253.
" Ihid, s. l 8(d).
'' R.S.N.B. 1973,c.P-8.
37 ibid., s. 19.
'' Ibid., ss. 16, 12
" S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 1 40 Ihrd., s. 81. I' Activities Designation Regulations, N.S. Reg. 47/95
'' Ibid,s.6. " Environment Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, C. 1, s. 56. M Pesticide Regulations, N.S. Reg. 61/95, s. 16.
45 ibid. .. S. 19. 46 7 U.S.C. 5 136 et seq (1994).
" 33 U.S C. § 2401 et seq (1994)
4X S.C. 1992, c. 34. 49 Chlorobiphenyls Regulations, SOW9 1 - 152
50 Ibid., s. 3(l)(d).
5 1 SOW90-5.
52 Ihid., s. 5. " Storage of PCB Material Regulations, SOW92-507
'"ransportation of Dangerous Good Regulations, SOR.185-77, s. 8.7. Provincial laws have adopted federal transportation standards by reference. See Dangerous Good Trmportation Regulations, N.S. Reg. 152185 and General Regulation-Transportation of Dungerous G o d s Act, N.B. Reg. 89-67.
5 5 PCB Management Regulations, N . S. Reg. 52195 " Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 ("Ocean Dumping Act'?, 16
U.S.C. 5 1431 et seq. (1994); 33 U.S.C. 5 1401 et seq(1994). '7 Pulp andPaper Industry Emission Regulatio?~, N.B. Reg. 83-128.
N.S. Reg. 35/95. ' 9 Solid Wa.rte-Resource Management Regulations, N.S. Reg. 25/96, s. 38 and Schedule D. Limits
have been set at 0.5 mglreference cubic meter. '" Pzilp and Paper Mill Eflzient Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations, SORl92-267, s. 4. 61 Pz~lp and Paper Mill Defoamer and WoodChq Regulations, SOW92-268. 62 See generally, Sfandardr of Performance for New Stationafy Sources, 40 C.F.R. Pt. 60;
National Enzis.rion Standard for Hazardous Air PoN~rtants for Source Cafeguries, 40 C.F.R. Pt. 63.
61 Seconda~y ad ~melter Release Regulations, SOW9 1 - 155
6' C.R.C., c. 819. 66 For example, Nova Scotia requires approvals for designated activities and various metal related
industries have been listed as requiring approval to operate. They include: electroplating plants, foundries, smelters, steel mills, pewter facilities, battery manufacturing plants and rolling stock manufacturing plants. See Activities Designatio?~ Regulations, N.S. Reg. 47195, s. 15.
67 C.R.C., c. 828. 68 R.S.C. 1985, C. S-9. 69 See Response Organizations and Oil Handling Facilities Regulationr, SOW95-405.
70 See Petrolezrm Product Storage and Handling Regulation, N.B. Reg. 87-97, s. 68 and Used Oil Regulationr, N . S. Reg. 5 1/95, s. 14.
71 Used Oil Regulations, N.S. Reg. 5 1/95, s. 13. Maximum allowable concentrations are set for PCBs, total organic halogens, cadmium, chromium and lead. Ibid, Schedule A
Pefroleum Storage Product andHandling Regulation, N.B. Reg. 87-97, s. 43 and Petroleum Storage Regulations, N.S. Reg. 62/95, s. 11.
73 Petroleum Storage Regulations, N.S. Reg. 62/95, s. 9 and Clean Environment Act. R.S.N.B 1973, c. C-6, s. 5.X
Pefrolezrm Storage Product and Handling Regulation, N.B. Reg. 87-97, s. 209. 75 Motor Fuel andFuel OilApproval Regulations, N.S. Reg. 21/96, ss. 6 and 8 76 33 U.S.C. 5 2701 et seq (1994). 77 Carriage ofLiyuidBulkDa~?gerou.~ Goods, 46 USC. 5 3703a
'"3 U.S.C. 5 1221 et seq (1994). 79 Pub. L. 93-627, 88 Stat. 2126 (1975). " Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 425,30 Stat. 1148, 1150-1155.
43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq(1994). " 16U.S.C. 4 1451 et seq(1994). 83 C.R.C., c. 1424. 81 Ibid, s. 2. 85 Solid Waste-Resource Management Regulations, N.S. Reg. 25/96. " Ihid, ss. 19 and 22.
" Ibid. s. 14.
" Ibid, s. 3 1
" Ibid.:s.39. %I Ibid. s. 30 and Schedule "B". Implementation dates vary, for example, redeemed beverage
containers are banned from April 1, 1996 while polyethylene bags and packing from April 1, 1998.
9' S.N.B. 1991, c. B-22.
92 Ihid , S. 4(4)(h). 93 General Regulation-Beverage container.^ Act, N.B. Reg. 92-54. 94 R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6, s. 5.3. 95 N.B. Reg. 82-126, s. 3. Waters of the Province are defined to include coastal waters within the
jurisdiction of the Province. Clean Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6, s. 1
% The Clean Environment Act does provide for the establishment of regional solid waste
commissions to construct and manage solid waste collection and disposal facilities. R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6, s. 15.3.
97 Environme?~tal Impact Assessment Regulation, N.B. Reg. 87-83, Schedule A(m). 98 33 U.S.C.A. 5 1901 et seq. (West Supp. 1996). 99 R.C.S. 1985, c. F-14, s. 35.
Inn Ibid, s. 37.
lo' R.S.C. 1985, c N-22.
Io2 Ibid, ss. 3, 5.
Io3 S.C. 1992, c. 37. 104 Ibid., s. 5.
lo' Environmeni Acf, S.N.S. 1994-94, c. 1, s. 50; and Activities Designation Regzrlations, N.S. Reg. 47195.
'" Environmental Assessment Regulations, N.S. Reg. 26/95, Schedule A.
lo7 Watercourse Alteration Regulations, N.B. Reg. 90180, S.3
lox Envi~o~zinentalImpct Assessment Regulation, N.B. Reg. 87-83, Schedule A
lo' R.S.C. 1985, c. W-9, as amended by S.C. 1994, c. 23.
"" S.C. 1994, c. 22.
R.S.C. 1985, c. N-14, as amended by R.S.C. 1985, c. 39 (4th Supp.).
' I 2 S.N.B. 1975, C. E-1.1. 113 Ecological Resewes Regulation, N.B. Reg. 83-79.
"' R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 438. 115 S.N.S. 1992, c. 2.
'I6 S.N.B. 1996, c. E-9.101 (Bill 18, 1996).
Species listed include among others the peregrine falcon, piping plover, and bald eagle, Endangered Species Regulation -Endangered Species Act, N.B. Reg. 96-26.
$18 R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 504, s. 19.
16 USC. 5 3501 et seq.
I*" 16 USC. 5 1431 et seq.; 33 USC. 5 1401 et seq.
16USC. § 661 et seq.
122 16 USC. § 1531 et seq.
12" 16 USC. 5 1361 et seq.
12"8 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 5 480-A et seq.
'25 38 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., 5 435.
126 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 13 1 4 5 1 et seq.
Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann., ch. 131, 5 40.
lZ8 Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann., ch. 1 3 2 4 5 13.
lZ9 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann., ch. 482-A.
