THE GREAT LAKES in TUR]Bmlmms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ECO TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREAT LAKES IN TUR]Bmlmms Promedings of a 1988 Worbhap Supported by the Cheat Lakes Fishery Commission and fbE Sdenet Advkprjs hard of the hzemtio~~al$&+at CQqlmhh AN E~SYSTEMAPPROACH' .TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREAT LAKES IN TURBULENT TIMES Proceedings of a 1988 Workshop Supported by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Science Advisory Board of the International Joint Commission edited by Clayton J. Edwards USDA Forest Service Rhinelander, Wisconsin 54501 Henry A. Regier Institute for Environmental Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4 Citation (general): Edwards, C. J. and H .A. Regier, [ED. ] . 1990. An ecosystem approach to the integrity of the Great Lakes in turbulent times. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 90-4. 299 p. Citation (example for individual paper) : Kay, J .J. 1990. A non-equilibrium thermodynamic framework for discussing ecosystem integrity, p. 209-238. In C.J. Edwards and H.A. Regier [ed. 1. An ecosystem approachto the integrity of the Great Lakes in turbulent times. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 90-4. GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Support of this publication by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Science Advisory Board of the International Joint Commission does not imply that the findings or conclusions contained herein are endorsed by either body. PREFACE A "Workshop on Integrity and Surprise" was convened in Burlington, Ontario, on 14-16 June 1988 under the auspices of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Board of Technical Experts (GLFC/BOTE) and the International Joint Commission's Great Lakes Science Advisory Board (IJC/SAB) . The Workshop was supported by funds from the SAB and BOTE. In addition, the Donner Canadian Foundation supported the contributions of several Canadian collaborators. This workshop was a sequel of two earlier initiatives. One of these was the Ecosystem Approach Workshop, convened in Hiram, Ohio, in 1983 under the auspices of IJC/SAB, GLFC/BOTE, the International Association of Great Lakes Research, and Great Lakes Tomorrow. The other was the third series of Canada-U ..S. Inter-University Seminars (CUSIS 111) of 1983-4, which concluded with a meeting in Racine, Wisconsin. The 1983 Hiram Worksfiop emphasized practical 'aspects of ecosystem politics. The CUSIS Seminars emphasized ecosystemic governance.2 This 1988 Burlington Workshop emphasized scientific and conceptual aspects of ecosystemic policies in the context of great practical uncertainty.---Two working groups were convened to explore the implications for policy and for - theory and testing of ecosystem integrity and surprise -in the Great Lakes basin. With the exception of the introductory paper providing a range of individual perspectives on ecosystem integrity, the papers in these proceedings are categorized according to the two above- mentioned working groups. The first paper in each categojr provides an overview of that working group's discussions and conclusions. - This workshop was organized and convened by a joint committee of the SAB and BOTE. A. P. Lino Grima and Richard A. Ryder represented BOTE; Timothy F. H. Allen and Clayton ' J. R. Vallentyne, "Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Management of the Great Lakes Basin, Workshop Held at Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio, March 22-24, 1983, Environmental Conservation 10 :3 (1983): 273-274 and W.J. Christie et al., "Managing the Great Lakes as a Home, 'I Journal of Great Lakes Research 12 (1986): 2-17. L.K. Caldwell, [ED. 1, Perspectives on Ecosystem Management for the Great Lakes (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988). iii J. Edwards represented SAB; and Henry A. Regier represented GLFC and SAB. Clayton Edwards and Henry Regier had major editing responsibilities, but all authors assisted with reviewing and editing of papers. Randy L. Eshenroder and Madeline Haslam of GLFC and Martha L. Walter of Ann Arbor, Michigan, helped with the publication process. TABLE OF COlWENTS Preface. .......................iii Perspectives on the Meaning of Ecosystem Integrity in 1975, by Henry A. Regier and Robert L. France ... 1 Implications For Policy Integrity and Surprise in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem: Implications for Policy, by Henry A. Regier, George R. Francis, A.P. Grim, Andrew L. Hamilton, and Sally Lerner .............. 17 Values in Integrity, by Sally Lerner ......... 37 Rehabilitating Great Lakes Integrity in Times of Surprise, byRafal Serafin. ............ 45 Ecosystem Integrity and Network Theory, by Robert E. Ulanowicz ..................... 69 Integrality, Context, ,and Other Industrial Casualties, by Willem H. Vanderburg. ......... 79 Evaluating the Benefits of Ecosystem Integrity, byWalterE.Westman. ................ 91 Implications for Theory and Testing Integrity and Surprise in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem: Implications for Theory and Testing, by Lloyd M. Dickie and Bruce L. Bandurski ......105 Integrity and Surprise in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem: The Perspective Hierarchy Theory, by Timothy F.H. Allen. ................121 Thermodynamics and Ecosystem Integrity, by Joel L.Fisher.......... .............131 Trophic Dynamics and Ecosystem Integrity in the Great Lakes: Past, Present, and Possibilities, by Thomas D. Fontaine and Donald J. Stewart. .....153 Theoretical Framework for Developing and Operationalizing an Index of Zoobenthos Community: Application to Biomonitoring with Zwbenthos Communities in the Great Lakes, by Robert L. France ..............169 Flexible Governance, by Georye Francis ........195 A Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamic Framework for Discussing Ecosystem Integrity, by James J. Kay. ...209 Aquatic Harmonic Communities: Surrogates of Ecosystem Integrity, by Richard A. Ryder and Steve R. Kerr. ....................239 Ecological Bases for an Understanding of Ecosystem Integrity in the Great Lakes Basin, by Robert J. Steedman and Henry A. Regier .............257 Political and Ecological Systems: Integrity?, by Edward Cowan, Tom Muir and John R. Vallentyne. ....273 Landscape Ecology: ~nalyticalApproaches to Pattern and Process, by Carol A. Wessman .......285 PERGPECTIVES ON THE MEANING OF ECOSYSTEM IN'I93GRITY IN 1975 Henry A. Regier an8 Robert L. France Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S lA5 ABSTRACT. We have reviewed and analyzed the proceedings of a Symposium on the Integrity of Water convened in 1975 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We presupposed that all the participants had at least some minimal commitment to the purpose of the goal of integrity as specified in the U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. We perceived a spectrum of interpretations of the term integrity and have divided this spectrum'into five classes according to the substance of the goal and supporting strategies with which speakers have invested the term integrity. We have then provided a summary sketch of each of these classes. The word integrity figures prominently in Section 304 of the U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. To clarify the concept of integrity, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency convened a Symposium on the Integrity of Water in Washington, M3 on March 10-12, 1975. The proceedings (U.S. Government Printing Office Stock No. 055-001-01068-1) were published in 1977. The focus of the 1975 Symposium was on the definition and interpretation of water quality integrity as viewed and discussed by representatives from federal and state government agencies, industry, academia, and conservation/environmental groups. Almost all the participants were American. The Symposium was designed to interrelate two concepts of integrity, 1) as a desirable characteristic of natural ecosystems, and 2) as a moral or cultural principle, and then apply this combined concept to the real-world pragmatic use of integrity for setting regulatory practices. During the Symposium, it was noted (by R.B. Robie) that "from ,the many interpretations presented, it can clearly be seen that integrity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.Ig One way to sort out these differences is to examine the various 'perspectives of the Symposium participants with respect to the degree of refonn deemed necessary to achieve integrity. We discerned five different degrees of refonn from the Symposium proceedings and have excerpted text that we consider to be illustrative of each refonn objective. We then attempt a general characterization of strategies for each objective. The five refonn objectives are: deep refonn, partial refonn, incremental advances, holding the line, and slowing the rate of retreat. For each of the excerpts that follow we have given the name of the symposium participant and the page(s) on which the statement may be found. We have classified the statements, not the participants, who made those statements. We emphasize that a statement taken out of context should not be used to infer the degree of reform to which a speaker might be committed. SYMPOSIUM EXCERPTS RELATED TO FIVE REFORM OBJECTIVES Deep Reform Senator Muskie, in the Senate debate on the conference report: "These policies simply mean that streams and rivers are no longer to be considered part of the waste treatment process." And elsewhere: "This legislation would clearly establish that no one has the right to pollute, that pollution continues because of technological limits, not because of any inherent right to use the nation's waterways for the purpose of disposing of wastes. -- R. Outen, p. 217. The goal of the Act