-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Rural Seasonal Average 8-hour Daily Maximum Ozone by Region,
1997-2004
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
southeast
Midwest
Source: EPA
Note: Ozone concentrations are in parts per billion (ppb)
Figure 2. Rural Seasonal Average 8-hour Maximum Ozone Concentrations by EPA Region,
1997-2004.
Source: Sidebar "Ozone Reduction in Rural Areas Shows Regional Improvements" on page 20 of
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005a. Evaluating Ozone Control Programs in
the Eastern United States: Focus on the NOx Budget Trading Program, 2004. EPA454-K-05-001.
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2005/ozonenbp/, last accessed September 5, 2006.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
15
-------
Trend of Ozone Seasonal Means at Sites Across Ontario
|1980 - 2004)
40T
35
30
25
Summer Mean
Winter Mean
O 15
U
10
/
Note: Based on data from 22 ozone sites operated over 25 years.
Seasonal definitions - Summer j May to September); Winter (January to April, October to December).
Figure 3. Trend of Ozone Seasonal Means at Sites Across Ontario (1980-2004).
Source: Figure 2.5 of Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Air Quality in Ontario 2004 Report.
Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006. . ISBN 1710-8128 or 0-7794-9921-2.
http://www.airqualityontario.com/press/publications.cfm. last accessed September 6, 2006.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
: r**^ -
«*&)it'!.V''S ""**•''' ' ^>r'f^n""*-. - •~f~-«,t' r^.Z- J —
/* /
* J/
PM2_S Levels at Selected Sites Across Ontario
98* Pereentiie PM2.E Daily Average
(2004)
/> $
V '/ x/ V° X S//S
-------
Industrial Midwest
16-
14-
12-
10-
c
o
6
4-
2-
0-
119 PMiS Monitcchg Srtes
-9%
Sulfate
PM2.£ Remainder
(mostly carbon)
Nitrate
Crustal
-5%
•17%
4%
*
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Y&ar
Figure 5. Trends of PM2.s and its chemical constituents in the Industrial Midwest of the
U.S., 1999-2003.
Source: Figure 16 of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004a. The Particle
Pollution Report: Current Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 2003. EPA 454-
R-04-002. http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd04/pm.html. last accessed September 5, 2006.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Indicator #4501
Note: This indicator has not yet been put into practice. The fol-
lowing evaluation was constructed using input from investiga-
tors collecting invertebrate community composition data from
Great Lakes coastal wetlands over the last several years. Neither
experimental design nor statistical rigor has been used to specif-
ically address the status and trends of invertebrate communities
of coastal wetlands of the five Great Lakes.
Assessment: Not Assessed
Purpose
To directly measure specific components of invertebrate com-
munity composition; and
To infer the chemical, physical and biological integrity and
range of degradation of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
State of the Ecosystem
Development of this indicator is still in progress. Thus, the state
of the ecosystem could not be determined using the wetland
invertebrate community health indicator during the last 2 years.
Teams of Canadian and American researchers from several
research groups (e.g. the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands
Consortium, the Great Lakes Environmental Indicators project
investigators, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (REMAP) group of researchers, and others) sampled
large numbers of Great Lakes wetlands during the last two years.
They have reported an array of invertebrate communities in
Great Lakes wetlands in presentations at international meetings,
reports, and peer-reviewed journals.
In 2002 the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium conduct-
ed extensive surveys of wetland invertebrates of the 4 lower
Great Lakes. These data are not entirely analyzed to date.
However, the Consortium-adopted Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI,
Uzarski et al. 2004) was applied in wetlands of northern Lake
Ontario. The results can be obtained from Environment Canada
(Environment Canada and Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority 2004).
Uzarski et al. (2004) collected invertebrate data from 22 wet-
lands in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron during 1997 through
2001. They determined that wetland invertebrate communities of
northern Lakes Michigan and Huron generally produced the
highest IBI scores. IBI scores were primarily based on richness
and abundance of Odonata, Crustacea plus Mollusca taxa rich-
ness, total genera richness, relative abundance Gastropoda, rela-
tive abundance Sphaeriidae, Ephemeroptera plus Trichoptera
taxa richness, relative abundance Crustacea plus Mollusca, rela-
tive abundance Isopoda, Evenness, Shannon Diversity Index,
and Simpson Index. Wetlands near Escanaba and Cedarville,
Michigan, scored lower than most in the area. A single wetland
near the mouth of the Pine River in Mackinac County, MI, con-
sistently scored low, also. In general, all wetlands of Saginaw
Bay scored lower than those of northern Lakes Michigan and
Huron. However, impacts are more diluted near the outer bay
and IBI scores reflect this. Wetlands near Quanicassee and
Almeda Beach, MI, consistently scored lower than other
Saginaw Bay sites.
Burton and Uzarski (unpublished) also studied drowned river
mouth wetlands of eastern Lake Michigan quite extensively
since 1998. Invertebrate communities of these systems show lin-
ear relationship with latitude. However, this relationship also
reflects anthropogenic disturbance. Based on the metrics used
(Odonata richness and abundance, Crustacea plus Mollusca rich-
ness, rotal genera richness, relative abundance Isopoda, Shannon
Index, Simpson Index, Evenness, and relative abundance
Ephemeroptera), the sites studied were placed in increasing com-
munity health in the order Kalamazoo, Pigeon, Muskegon,
White, Pentwater, Pere Marquette, Manistee, Lincoln, and
Betsie. The most impacted systems of eastern Lake Michigan are
located along southern edge and impacts decrease to the north.
Wilcox et al. (2002) attempted to develop wetland IBIs for the
upper Great Lakes using microinvertebrates. While they found
attributes that showed promise during a single year, they con-
cluded that natural water level changes were likely to alter com-
munities and invalidate metrics. They found that Siskiwit Bay,
Bark Bay, and Port Wing had the greatest overall taxa richness
with large catches of cladocerans. They ranked microinvertebrate
communities of Fish Creek and Hog Island lower than the other
four western Lake Superior sites. Their work in eastern Lake
Michigan testing potential metrics placed the sites studied in
decreasing community health in the order Lincoln River, Betsie
River, Arcadia Lake/Little Manistee River, Pentwater River, and
Pere Marquette River. This order was primarily based on the
median number of taxa, the median Cladocera genera richness,
and also a macroinvertebrate metric (number of adult
Trichoptera species).
Pressures
Physical alteration and eutrophication of wetland ecosystems
continue to be a threat to invertebrates of Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. Both can promote establishment of non-native vegeta-
tion, and physical alteration can destroy plant communities alto-
gether while changing the natural hydrology to the system.
Invertebrate community composition is directly related to vege-
tation type and densities; changing either of these components
will negatively impact the invertebrate communities.
177
-------
Acknowledgments
Authors: Donald G. Uzarski, Annis Water Resources Institute,
Grand Valley State University, Lake Michigan Center, 740 W.
Shoreline Dr., Muskegon, MI, 49441; and
Thomas M. Burton, Departments of Zoology and Fisheries and
Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824.
Sources
Environment Canada and Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority. 2004. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring
Project: year 2 technical report. Downsview, ON. ECB-OR.
Uzarski, D.G., Burton, T.M., and Genet, J.A. 2004. Validation
and performance of an invertebrate index of biotic integrity for
Lakes Huron and Michigan fringing wetlands during a period of
lake level decline. Aquat. Ecosystem Health & Manage.
7(2):269-288.
Wilcox, D.A., Meeker, J.E., Hudson, P.L., Armitage, B.J., Black,
M.G., and Uzarski, D.G. 2002. Hydrologic variability and the
application of index of biotic integrity metrics to wetlands: a
Great Lakes evaluation. Wetlands 22(3):588-615
Authors' Commentary
Progress on indicator development has been substantial, and
implementation of basin-wide sampling to indicate state of the
ecosystem should be possible before SOLEC 2006.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
2007
178
-------
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Indicator ID: 4502
Overall Assessment: N/A
Note: This indicator has not yet been put into practice. The following evaluation was
constructed using input from investigators collecting fish community composition data from
Great Lakes coastal wetlands over the last several years. Neither experimental design nor
statistical rigor has been used to specifically address the status and trends offish
communities of coastal wetlands of the five Great Lakes.
Purpose
To assess the fish community composition and to infer suitability of habitat and water quality for
Great Lakes coastal wetland fish communities.
State of the Ecosystem
Development of this indicator is still in progress. Fish indices of biological integrity have been
proposed for selected parts of the ecosystem (e.g., Lake Erie river mouths (Thoma 1999)
Michigan and Ontario coastal wetlands (Uzarski et al. 2005), and coordinated basinwide
sampling has recently been completed by several groups. Thus, progress on indicator
development has been substantial, and assessment of data derived from sampling conducted
between 2002 and 2005 to indicate the state of the ecosystem should be possible before the next
SOLEC. Teams of Canadian and American researchers from several research groups (e.g., the
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium of the Great Lakes Commission (GLCWC), the U.S.
EPA Star Grant funded Great Lakes Environmental Indicators group in Duluth, MN (GLEI), a
group of Great Lakes Fishery Commission researchers led by Patricia Chow-Fraser of McMaster
University (GLFC), the U.S. EPA REMAP group of researchers led by Tom Simon, and others)
have sampled large numbers of Great Lakes wetlands during the last 5 years using comparable
methods. They have reported on an array of fish communities in Great Lakes wetlands in
presentations at international meetings and in reports. These data are now beginning to appear in
refereed journals as individual studies (Uzarski et al. 2005, Seilhamer and Chow Fraser 2006)
Work is also underway to integrate the datasets for true basinwide assessment (e.g., Brazner et al.
2006; Bhagat et al. in review). The composition offish communities is related to plant
community type within wetlands and, within plant community type, is related to amount of
certain types of anthropogenic disturbance (Uzarski et al. 2005; Wei et al. 2004, Seilhamer et al.
2006; Johnson et al. 2006), especially water quality as affected by urban and agricultural
development (Seilhamer and Chow Fraser 2006; Bhagat et al. in review). Uzarski et al. (2005)
found no relationship between wetland fish composition and Great Lake suggesting that fish
communities of any single Great Lake were more impacted than any other. However, of the 61
wetlands sampled in 2002 from all five lakes, Lakes Erie and Ontario tended to have more
wetlands containing cattail communities (a plant community type that correlates with nutrient
enrichment), and the fish communities found in cattails tended to have lower richness and
diversity than fish communities found in other vegetation types. In contrast, Thoma (1999) and
Johnson et al. (2006) were unable to find coastal wetlands on the US side of Lake Erie that
experienced minimal anthropogenic disturbances. Wetlands found in northern lakes Michigan and
Huron tended to have relatively high quality coastal wetland fish communities. The seven
wetlands sampled in Lake Superior contained relatively unique vegetation types so fish
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
communities of these wetlands were not directly compared with those of wetlands of other lakes.
When the fish communities of reference wetlands are compared across the entire Great Lakes, the
most similar sites come from the same ecological province rather than from any single Great
Lake or specific wetland types. Data from several GLEI project studies indicate that the
characteristic groups of fish species in reference wetlands from each ecological province tend to
have similar water temperature and aquatic productivity preferences. When a wetland becomes
affected by human development, the fish community changes to the fish community typical of a
warmer, richer, more southerly wetland. This finding may help us anticipate the likely effects of
regional climate change on the fish communities of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Brazner et al.
looked at how 8 different candidate fish IBI components varied by lake, wetland type, ecological
province and anthropogenic stress at 80 wetlands across the entire US Great Lakes. Overall, each
of these 4 features explained approximately equal amounts of variation in those components.
John Brazner and co-workers from the U.S. EPA Laboratory in Duluth, MN sampled fishes of
Green Bay, Lake Michigan, wetlands in 1990, 1991, 1995, 2002, and in 2003. They sampled
three lower bay and one middle bay wetland in 2002 and 2003 and their data suggested that these
sites were improving in water clarity and plant cover, and supported a greater diversity of both
macrophyte and fish species, especially more centrarchid species, than they had in previous years.
They also noted that the 2002, and especially 2003, year classes of yellow perch were very large.
Brazner's observations suggest that the lower bay wetlands are improving slowly and the middle
bay site seems to be remaining relatively stable in moderately good condition (J. Brazner,
personal observation). The most turbid wetlands in the lower bay were characterized by mostly
warm-water, turbidity-tolerant species such as gizzard shad, Dorosomct cepedicmum; white bass,
Morone chrysops; freshwater drum, Aplodinotus grunniens; common shiners, Luxilus cornutus,
and common carp, Cyprinus carpio, while the least turbid wetlands in the upper bay were
characterized by several centrarchid species, golden shiner, Notemigonus chrysoleucas; logperch,
Percina caprodes; smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu, and northern pike, Esox lucius.
Green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus, was the only important centrarchid in the lower bay in 1991,
while in 1995, bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfishes,i. macrochirus andi. gibbosus, had become
much more prevalent and a few largemouth bass, M. salmoides, were also present. There were
more banded killifish, Fundulus diaphanus, in 1995 and 2003 compared with 1991 and white
perch were very abundant in 1995, as this exotic species became dominant in the bay. The upper
bay wetlands were in relatively good condition based on the fish and macrophyte communities
that were observed. Although mean fish species richness was significantly lower in developed
wetlands across the whole bay, differences between less developed and more developed wetlands
were most pronounced in the upper bay where the highest quality wetlands in Green Bay are
found (Brazner 1997).
Round gobies, Neogobius melanostomus, were introduced to the St. Clair River in 1990 (Jude et
al. 1992), and have since spread to all of the Great Lakes. Jude studied them in many tributaries
of the Lake Huron-St. Clair River-Lake Erie corridor and found that both species (round and
tubenose gobies Proterorhinus marmoratus} were very abundant at river mouths and colonized
far upstream. They were also found at the mouth of Old Woman Creek in Lake Erie, but not
within the wetland proper. Jude and Janssen's work in Green Bay wetlands showed that round
gobies had not invaded three of the five sites sampled, but few were found in lower Green Bay
along the sandy and rocky shoreline west of Little Tail Point.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Uzarski and Burton (unpublished) consistently collected a few round gobies from a fringing
wetland near Escanaba, MI where cobbles were present. In the Muskegon River-Muskegon Lake
wetland complex on the eastern shoreline, round gobies are abundant in the heavily rip-rapped
harbor entrance to Lake Michigan, Muskegon Lake, and have just begun to enter the
river/wetland complex on the east side of Muskegon Lake (D. Jude, personal observations; Ruetz,
Uzarski, and Burton, personal observations). Based on intensive fish sampling prior to 2003 at
more than 60 sites spanning all of the Great Lakes, round gobies have not been sampled in large
numbers at any wetland or been a dominant member of any wetland fish community (Jude et al.
2005). Round gobies were collected at 11 of 80 wetlands sampled by the GLEI project (Johnson
et al. unpublished data). Lapointe (2005) assessed fish-habitat associations in the shallow (<3 m)
Canadian waters of the Detroit River in 2004 and 2005 using boat-mounted electorfishing and
boat seining techniques. The round goby avoided complex macrophytes in all seasons at upper,
mid, and downstream segments of the Detroit River. However, in 2006 beach seining surveys at
shoreline sites in Canadian waters of Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and western Lake Erie,
both tubenose and round gobies were collected in areas with aquatic vegetation (L.D. Corkum,
Univ. of Windsor, unpublished data). It seems likely that wetlands may be a refuge for native
fishes, at least with respect to the influence of round gobies (Jude et al. 2005).
There is little information on the habitat preferences of the tubenose goby within the Great Lakes
with the exception of studies on the Detroit River (Lapointe 2005), Lake St. Clair and the St.
Clair River (Jude and DeBoe 1996, Pronin et al. 1997; Leslie et al. 2002). Within the Great
Lakes, tubenose goby that were studied at a limited number of sites along the St. Clair River and
on the south shore of Lake St. Clair occurred in turbid water associated with rooted submersed
vegetation (Vallisneria americana, Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton richardsonii and
Chora sp.) (Leslie et al. 2002). Few specimens were found on sandy substrates devoid of
vegetation, supporting similar findings by Jude and DeBoe (1996). Leslie et al. (2002) collected
tubenose goby in water with no or slow flow on clay or alluvium substrates, where turbidity
varies and where rooted vegetation was sparse, patchy or abundant. Lapointe (2005) found that
the association between tubenose goby and aquatic macrophytes differed seasonally in the Detroit
River. For example, tubenose goby was strongly negatively associated with complex macrophytes
in the spring and summer, but positively associated with complex macrophytes in the fall
(Lapointe 2005). Because tubenose goby shared habitats with fishes representing most
ecoethological guilds, Leslie et al. (2002) suggested that the tubenose goby would expand its
geographic range within the Great Lakes.
Ruffe have never been found in high densities in coastal wetlands anywhere in the Great Lakes.
In their investigation of the distribution and potential impact of ruffe on the fish community of a
Lake Superior coastal wetland, Brazner et al. (1998) concluded that coastal wetlands in western
Lake Superior provide a refuge for native fishes from competition with ruffe. The mudflat-
preferring ruffe actually avoids wetland habitats due to foraging inefficiency in dense vegetation
that characterizes healthy coastal wetland habitats. This suggests that further degradation of
coastal wetlands or heavily vegetated littoral habitats could lead to increased dominance of ruffe
in shallow water habitats elsewhere in the Great Lakes.
There are a number of carp introductions (see Wetland Restoration and Rehabilitation or common
carp discussion) that have the potential for substantial impact on Great Lakes fish communities,
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
including coastal wetlands. Goldfish, Carassius auratus, are common in some shallow habitats,
and occurred along with common carp young-of-the-year in many of the wetlands we sampled
along Green Bay. In addition, there are several other carp species, e.g., grass carp,
Ctenopharyngodon idella, bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, and silver carp,
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix that escaped aquaculture operations and are now in the Illinois
River and migrating toward the Great Lakes through the Chicago Sanitary Canal. The black carp,
Mylopharygodon piceus, has also probably been released, but has not been recorded near the
Great Lakes yet. Most of these species attain large sizes; some are planktivorous, and also eat
phytoplankton, snails, and mussels, while the grass carp eats vegetation. These species represent
yet another substantial threat to food webs in wetlands and nearshore habitats with macrophytes
(USFWS 2002).
In 2003, Jude and Janssen (unpublished data) determined that bluntnose minnows, Pimephales
notatus, and johnny darters, Etheostoma nigrum, were almost absent from lower bay wetland
sites, but comprised 22% and 6% respectively, of upper bay catches. In addition, other species,
usually associated with plants and/or clearer water, such as rock bass, sand shiners Notropis
stramineus, and golden shiners Notemigonus crysoleucus, were also present in upper bay
samples, but not in lower bay samples. In 2003, Jude and Janssen found that there were no
alewife Alosapseudoharengus or gizzard shad in upper Green Bay site catches when compared
with lower bay wetland sites, where they composed 2.7 and 34% respectively of the catches by
number.
Jude and Pappas (1992) found that fish assemblage structure in Cootes Paradise, a highly
degraded wetland area in Lake Ontario, was very different from other less degraded wetlands
analyzed. They used ordination analyses to detect fish-community changes associated with
degradation.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Donald G. Uzarski, Annis Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University,
Lake Michigan Center, 740 W. Shoreline Dr., Muskegon, MI 49441;
Thomas M. Burton, Departments of Zoology and Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824;
John Brazner, US Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, 6201
Congdon Blvd., Duluth, MN 55804;
David Jude, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, 430 East University, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; and
Jan J.H. Ciborowski, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON,
N9B 3P4
Data Sources
Brazner, J. C. 1997. Regional, habitat, and human development influences on coastal wetland and
beach fish assemblages in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 23 (1), 36-51.
Brazner, J. C., Tanner, D. K., Jensen, D. A., Lemke, A. 1998. Relative abundance and distribution
of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) in a Lake Superior coastal wetland fish assemblage. J. Great
Lakes Res.24 (2), 293-303.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Jude, D.J., Albert, D., Uzarski, D.G., and Brazner, J. 2005. Lake Michigan's coastal wetlands:
Distribution, biological components with emphasis on fish and threats. In M. Munawar and T.
Edsall (Eds.). The State of Lake Michigan: Ecology, Health and Management. Ecovision World
Monograph Series, Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society, p. 439-477
Jude, D. J., Pappas, J. 1992. Fish utilization of Great Lakes coastal wetlands . J. Great Lakes Res.
18(4), 651-672.
Jude, D. J., R. H. Reider, G. R. Smith. 1992. Establishment of Gobiidae in the Great Lakes basin.
Can. J.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49, 416-421.
Uzarski, D.G., T.M. Burton, M.J. Cooper, J. Ingram, and S. Timmermans. 2005. Fish Habitat
Use Within and Across Wetland Classes in Coastal Wetlands of the Five Great Lakes:
Development of a Fish Based Index of Biotic Integrity. Journal of Great Lakes Research
31 (supplement 1): 171-187.
Bhagat, Y. 2005. Fish indicators of anthropogenic stress at Great Lakes coastal margins:
multimetric and multivariate approaches. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Windsor. 120 p.
Bhagat, Y., J.J.H. Ciborowski, L.B. Johnson, D.G. Uzarski, T.M. Burton, S.T.A.Timmermans,
and M.J. Cooper. In review. Testing a fish index of biotic integrity for Great Lakes coastal
wetlands: stratification by plant zones. Submitted to Wetlands (June 2006)
Brazner, J.C., N. P. Danz, G. J. Niemi, R. R. Regal, A. S. Trebitz, R. W. Howe, J. M. Hanowski,
L. B. Johnson, J. J. H. Ciborowski, C. A. Johnston, E. D. Reavie, V. J. Brady, and G. V. Sgro.
2006. Evaluating geographic, geomorphic and human influences on Great Lakes wetland
indicators: multi-assemblage variance partitioning. Ecological Indicators In press.
Johnson, L.B., J. Olker, J.J.H. Ciborowski, G.E. Host, D. Breneman, V. Brady, J. Brazner, andN.
Danz. 2006. Identifying Response of Fish Communities in Great Lakes Coastal Regions to Land
Use and Local Scale Impacts. Bull. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. [also in prep for submission to J. Great
Lakes Research]
Lapointe, N.W.R. 2005. Fish-habitat associations in shallow Canadian waters of the Detroit
River. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario.
Leslie, J.K., C.A. Timmins and R.G. Bonnell. 2002. Postembryonic development of the tubenose
goby Proterorhinus marmoratus Pallas (Gobiidae) in the St. Clair River/Lake system, Ontario.
Arch. Hydrobiol. 154:341-352.
Thoma. R.F. 1999. Biological monitoring and an index of biotic integrity for Lake Erie's
nearshore waters. Pages 417-461 in T.P. Simon (Editor). Assessing the sustainability and
biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Wei, A., Chow-Fraser, P. and Albert, D. 2004. Influence of shoreline features on fish
distribution in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 111 3-1123.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Seilheimer, T.S. and Chow-Fraser, P. 2006. Development and use of the Wetland Fish Index to
assess the quality of coastal wetlands in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Submitted to Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 63:354-366.
Last Updated
SOLEC 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Wetland-Dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Indicator #4504
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Deteriorating
Species across the Great Lakes basin exhibited both positive and negative
population trend tendencies. Five species exhibited significantly negative
species population trends while only one species exhibited a significantly
positive species population trend.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Poor
Unchanging
Most species in this lake basin exhibited negative population trend
tendencies. However, of the only two significant species population trends,
one was positive and one was negative.
Mixed
Deteriorating
Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population
trend tendencies. However, four out of eight species exhibited significantly
negative population trends. There were no significantly positive species
population trends.
Mixed
Deteriorating
Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population
trend tendencies. Two focal species (Bullfrog and Northern Leopard Frog)
exhibited significant population trend declines. Only one species exhibited a
significantly positive population trend.
Mixed
Unchanging
Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population
trend tendencies. Two species exhibited significantly increasing population
trends, while only one species showed a significant declining species
population trend.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Purpose
To directly measure species composition and relative occurrence of frogs and toads and to
indirectly measure the condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to factors that influence
the health of this ecologically important component of wetland biotic communities.
Ecosystem Objective
To restore and maintain diversity and self-sustaining populations of Great Lakes coastal wetland
amphibian communities. Breeding populations of amphibian species across their historical range
should be sufficient to maintain populations of each species and overall species diversity
(Anonymous 1989).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Numerous amphibian species occur in the Great Lakes basin and many of these are associated
with wetlands during part of their life cycle. Because frogs and toads are relatively sedentary and
have semi-permeable skin, they are likely to be more sensitive to, and indicative of, local sources
of wetland contamination and degradation than are most other vertebrates. Assessing species
composition and relative abundance of calling frogs and toads in Great Lakes wetlands can
therefore help to infer wetland habitat quality.
Geographically extensive and long-term monitoring of calling amphibians is possible through the
enthusiasm, skill and coordination of volunteer participants trained in the application of
standardized monitoring protocols. Information about abundance, distribution and diversity of
amphibians provides data for calculating trends in population indices as well as investigating
habitat associations, which can contribute to effective long-term conservation strategies.
Status of Amphibians
Since 1995, Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) volunteers have collected amphibian data at 548
discrete routes across the Great Lakes basin. An annual summary of amphibian routes monitored
is provided in Table 1.
Thirteen amphibian species were recorded during the 1995 - 2005 period (Table 2). Spring
Peeper was the most frequently detected species and was commonly recorded in full chorus (Call
Level Code 3) when it was encountered. Green Frog was detected in more than half of the survey
stations and was most often recorded at Call Level Code 1 (calling individuals could be discretely
counted). Grey Treefrog, American Toad and Northern Leopard Frog were also common, being
recorded in approximately one-third or more of all survey stations. Grey Treefrog was recorded
with the second highest average calling code (1.8), indicating that MMP observers usually heard
several individuals calling simultaneously at each survey station. Chorus Frog, Bullfrog and
Wood Frog were detected in approximately one-quarter of survey stations, while the remaining
five species were detected in less than 3 percent of survey stations.
Trends in amphibian occurrence were assessed for eight species commonly detected on MMP
routes (Figure 1). For each species, the annual proportion of stations where that species was
present within a route was calculated to derive annual indices of occurrence. The overall
temporal trend in occurrence for each species was assessed by combining route-level trends in
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
station occurrence. Statistically significant declining trends were detected for American Toad,
Bullfrog, Chorus Frog, Green Frog and Northern Leopard Frog. Spring Peeper exhibited a
statistically significant increasing population trend.
These data will serve as baseline data with which to compare future survey results. Anecdotal
and research evidence suggests that wide variations in occurrence of many amphibian species at a
given site is a natural and ongoing phenomenon. Additional years of data will help distinguish
whether the patterns observed (i.e., decline in American Toad, Bullfrog, Chorus Frog, Green Frog
and Northern Leopard Frog population indices) indicate significant long-term trends or simply
natural variation in population sizes inhabiting marsh habitats. Bullfrog, for example, did not
experience a significant population index trend from 1995 to 2004 (Crewe et al. 2006; Archer et
al. 2006) but with the addition of 2005 data, its population index declined significantly. Further
data are thus required to conclude whether Great Lakes wetlands are successfully sustaining these
amphibian populations. MMP amphibian data are being evaluated to determine how information
from their community composition can be used to gain a better understanding of Great Lakes
coastal wetland condition in response to various human induced stressors.
Future Pressures
Habitat loss and deterioration remain the predominant threat to Great Lakes amphibian
populations. Many coastal and inland Great Lakes wetlands are located along watersheds that
experience very intensive industrial, agricultural and residential development. Therefore, these
wetlands are under continued stress as increased pollution from anthropogenic runoff is washed
down watersheds into these sensitive habitats. Combined with other impacts such as water level
stabilization, sedimentation, contaminant and nutrient inputs, climate change and invasion of
exotic species, Great Lakes wetlands will likely continue to be degraded and as such, should
continue to be monitored.
Future Activities
Because of the sensitivity of amphibians to their surrounding environment and the growing
international concern about amphibian population status, amphibians in the Great Lakes basin and
elsewhere will continue to be monitored. Wherever possible, efforts should be made to maintain
high quality wetland habitat as well as associated upland areas adjacent to coastal wetlands.
There is also a need to address other impacts that are detrimental to wetland health such as inputs
of toxic chemicals, nutrients and sediments. Restoration programs are underway for many
degraded wetland areas through the work of local citizens, organizations and governments.
Although significant progress has been made in this area, more work remains for many wetland
areas that have yet to receive restoration efforts.
Further Work Necessary
Effective monitoring of Great Lakes amphibians requires accumulation of many years of data,
using a standardized protocol, over a large geographic expanse. A reporting frequency for
SOLEC of five years would be appropriate because amphibian populations naturally fluctuate
through time, and a five-year timeframe would be sufficient to indicate noteworthy changes in
population indices. More rigorous studies will relate trends in species occurrence or relative
abundance to environmental factors. Reporting will be improved with establishment of a
network of survey routes that accurately represent the full spectrum of marsh habitat in the Great
Lakes basin.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Most MMP amphibian survey routes have been georeferenced to the survey station level.
Volunteer recruitment has also improved significantly since the last status reporting period. Four
additional important tasks are in progress: 1) develop the SOLEC wetland amphibian indicator as
an index for evaluating coastal wetland health; 2) improve the program's capacity to monitor and
report on status of wetland specific Beneficial Use Impairments among Great Lakes Areas of
Concern; 3) develop and improve the program's capacity to train volunteer participants to
identify and survey amphibians following standard MMP protocols, and; 4) develop the capacity
to incorporate a regional MMP coordinator network component into the MMP to improve
regional and local delivery of the program throughout the Great Lakes basin. Also, further work
is required to determine the relationship between calling codes used to record amphibian
occurrence and survey count estimates.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Steve Timmermans and Ryan Archer, Bird Studies Canada.
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies Canada in partnership with
Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National
Program Office. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring Program volunteers are gratefully
acknowledged.
Sources
Anonymous. 1989. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. Office of
Consolidation, International Joint Commission United States and Canada. Available online:
http://www.ijc.org/rel/agree/quality.html. Last accessed August 29, 2006.
Anonymous. 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program training kit and instructions for
surveying marsh birds, amphibians, and their habitats. Revised in 2003 by Bird Studies Canada.
41pp.
Archer, R.W., T.L. Crewe, and S.T.A. Timmermans. 2006. The Marsh Monitoring Program
annual report, 1995-2004: annual indices and trends in bird abundance and amphibian occurrence
in the Great Lakes basin. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. 35pp.
Timmermans, S.T.A. 2002. Quality Assurance Project Plan for implementing the Marsh
Monitoring Program across the Great Lakes basin. Prepared for United States Environmental
Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office Assistance I.D. #GL2002-145. 31pp.
Timmermans, S.T.A., S.S. Badzinski, and K.E. Jones. 2004. The Marsh Monitoring
Program annual report, 1995-2002: annual indices and trends in bird abundance and amphibian
occurrence in the Great Lakes basin. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. 48pp.
Weeber, R.C., and M. Valliantos (editors). 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program 1995-
1999: Monitoring Great Lakes wetlands and their amphibian and bird inhabitants. Published by
Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 47pp.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. Number of routes surveyed for amphibians within the Great Lakes basin, from 1995 to
2005.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Table 2. Frequency of occurrence (Percent Station-Years Present) and average Call Level Code
for amphibian species detected at MMP survey stations within the Great Lakes basin, from 1995
through 2005. Average calling codes are based on the three level call code standard for all MMP
amphibian surveys; Code 1 = little overlap among calls, numbers of individuals can be
determined, Code 2 = some overlap, numbers can be estimated, Code 3 = much overlap of calls,
too numerous to be estimated.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
List of Figures
Figure 1. Trends (percent annual change) in station occurrence (population index) of eight
amphibian species commonly detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, from 1995 to 2005.
Values in parentheses are upper and lower 95% confidence limits, respectively, for trend values
given.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Last Updated
SOLEC 2006
Year
Number of
Routes
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
115
177
208
168
163
158
166
156
156
146
177
Table 1. Number of routes surveyed for amphibians within the Great Lakes basin, from 1995 to
2005.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
»--» — ' - '—^^"^^v/ &---* T«* v .w£v?
Species Percent Station-
Years
Present 1
Spring Peeper
Green Frog
Grey Treefrog
American Toad
Northern Leopard Frog
Chorus Frog
Bullfrog
Wood Frog
Fowler's Toad
Pickerel Frog
Cope's Grey Treefrog
Mink Frog
Blanchard's Cricket Frog
69.3
54.3
39.2
36.9
31.1
26.5
25.8
18.0
2.4
2.4
1.6
1.2
0.6
Average
Calling Code
2.5
1.3
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.5
samples
le years considered as individual
Table 2. Frequency of occurrence (Percent Station-Years Present) and average Call Level Code
for amphibian species detected at MMP survey stations within the Great Lakes basin, from 1995
through 2005. Average calling codes are based on the three level call code standard for all MMP
amphibian surveys; Code 1 = little overlap among calls, numbers of individuals can be
determined, Code 2 = some overlap, numbers can be estimated, Code 3 = much overlap of calls,
too numerous to be estimated.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
' ^i^3|i^t&il.ia*M^
$*"*^
x
Q)
c
o
3
Q.
O
Q.
American Toad
-0.8 (-1.6,-0.1) P< 0.05
60
55-
50
45 •
40 •
35-
30
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Green Frog
-1.2 (-2.0,-0.5) P< 0.01
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Spring Peeper
1.5(0.6, 2.4) P< 0.001
Bullfrog
-1.5 (-2.4, 0.6) P< 0.01
60
55-
50-
45-
40-
35-
30
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Grey Treefrog
0.5 (-0.5, 1.5)P = 0.30
70-
65-
60-
55-
50
45
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Wood Frog
0.1 (-0.8, 1.0)P = 0.92
40
35-
30-
25-
20
Chorus Frog
-1.2 (-2.2, -0.2) P< 0.05
65-
55-
45-
35-
25
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Northern Leopard Frog
-1.3 (-2.2, -0.5) P< 0.01
65 •
55-
45 •
35 •
25
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year
Figure 1. Trends (percent annual change) in station occurrence (population index) of eight
amphibian species commonly detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, from 1995 to 2005.
Values in parentheses are upper and lower 95% confidence limits, respectively, for trend values
given.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Indicator #4506
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Trend not assessed
Contaminants at AOCs exceeded concentrations at reference sites. Dioxin
equivalents and DDE concentrations in eggs exceeded the Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines, and sum PCBs exceeded partial
restriction guidelines for consumption from some sites.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Trend Not Assessed due to insufficient data
Lake Michigan
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Trend Not Assessed due to insufficient data
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Trend Not Assessed due to insufficient data
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Trend Not Assessed
Contaminants at AOCs exceeded concentrations at reference sites. Dioxin
equivalents and DDE concentrations in eggs exceeded the Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines, and sum PCBs exceeded partial
restriction guidelines for consumption from some sites.
Mixed
Trend Not Assessed
Contaminants at AOCs exceeded concentrations at reference sites. Dioxin
equivalents and DDE concentrations in eggs exceeded the Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines, and sum PCBs exceeded partial
restriction guidelines for consumption from some sites.
Purpose
•To assess the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in snapping turtle eggs;
•To assess contaminant trends and physiological and ecological endpoints in snapping turtles; and
•To obtain a better understanding of the impact of contaminants on the physiological and
ecological health of the individual turtles and wetland communities.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
,
•.- .tx:ii=,.,,«,,ifa, .1. ,i ==, :a,,.i, i,,,,,,,i, i,=£,.»i,
Ecosystem Objective
Snapping turtle populations in Great Lakes coastal wetlands and at contaminated sites should not
exhibit significant differences in concentrations of organochlorine chemicals, mercury, and other
chemicals, compared to turtles at clean (inland) reference site(s). This indicator supports Annexes
1,2, 11 and 12 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Snapping turtles inhabit (coastal) wetlands in the Great Lakes basin, particularly the lower Great
Lakes. While other Great Lakes wildlife species may be more sensitive to contaminants than
snapping turtles, there are few other species that are as long-lived, as common year-round, inhabit
such a wide variety of habitats, and yet are limited in their movement among wetlands. Snapping
turtles are also at the top in the aquatic food web and bioaccumulate contaminants. Plasma and
egg tissues offer a nondestructive method to monitor recent exposure to chemicals as well as an
opportunity for long-term contaminant and health monitoring. Since they inhabit coastal wetlands
throughout the lower Great Lakes basin, they allow for multi-site comparisons on a temporal and
spatial basis. Consequently, snapping turtles are a very useful biological indicator species of local
wetland contaminant trends and the effects of these contaminants on wetland communities
throughout the lower Great Lakes basin.
Status of Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
For more than 20 years, the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) has periodically collected snapping
turtle eggs and examined the species' reproductive success in relation to contaminant levels on a
research basis. More recently (2001-2005), CWS is examining the health of snapping turtles
relative to contaminant exposure in Canadian Areas of Concern (AOCs) of the lower Great Lakes
basin. The work by the CWS has shown that contaminants in snapping turtle eggs differ over time
and among sites in the Great Lakes basin, with significant differences observed between
contaminated and reference sites (Bishop et al. 1996, 1998). Snapping turtle eggs collected at two
Lake Ontario sites (Cootes Paradise and Lynde Creek) had the greatest concentrations of
poly chlorinated dioxins and number of furans (Bishop et al. 1996, 1998). Eggs from Cranberry
Marsh (Lake Ontario) and two Lake Erie sites (Long Point and Rondeau Provincial Park) had
similar levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorines among the study sites
(Bishop et al. 1996, 1998). Eggs from Akwesasne (St. Lawrence River) contained the greatest
level of PCBs (Bishop et al. 1998). From 1984 to 1990/91, levels of PCBs and dichlorodiphenyl-
dichloroethene (DDE) increased significantly in eggs from Cootes Paradise and Lynde Creek, and
levels of dioxins and furans decreased significantly at Cootes Paradise (Struger et al. 1993;
Bishop et al. 1996). More recently, American researchers have also used snapping turtles as
indicators of contaminant exposure (Dabrowska et al. 2006).
Eggs with the greatest contaminant levels also showed the poorest developmental success (Bishop
et al. 1991, 1998). Rates of abnormal development of snapping turtle eggs from 1986-1991 were
highest at all four Lake Ontario sites compared to other sites studied (Bishop et al. 1998).
Lake Erie and connecting channels
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
From 2001 to 2003, CWS collected snapping turtle eggs at or near three Canadian Lake Erie or
connecting channels AOCs: Detroit River, St. Clair River, and Wheatley Harbour AOCs, as well
as two reference sites. Mean sum PCBs ranged from 0.02 |o,g/g at Algonquin Park (reference site)
to 0.93 (ig/g at Detroit River. Sum PCB levels were highest at Turkey Creek (Detroit River),
followed by Wheatley Harbour, then St. Clair NWA (near St. Clair River AOC) and lastly,
Algonquin Provincial Park, an inland reference site (Figure 1). Dioxin equivalents of sum PCBs
in eggs from the Detroit River, Wheatley Harbour, and St. Clair River AOCs, and p,p'-DDE
levels in eggs from the Wheatley Harbour and the Detroit River AOCs, exceeded the Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines. Sum PCBs in eggs from the Detroit River and Wheatley
Harbour AOCs exceeded partial restriction guidelines for consumption (de Solla and Fernie
2004). An American study in 1997 funded by the Great Lakes Protection Fund found that sum
PCBs appeared to be higher in the American AOCs in Ohio, where concentrations ranged from
0.18 to 3.68 (ig/g; concentrations were highest from the Ottawa River AOC, followed by the
Maumee River AOC, Ashtabula River AOC, and the Black River within Maumee River AOC
(Dabrowska et al. 2006). The reference sites used near the American AOCs may have higher
contaminant exposure than the Canadian reference sites.
Lake Ontario and connecting channels
From 2002 to 2003, CWS collected snapping turtle eggs at or near seven Lake Ontario and
connecting channel AOCs: Hamilton Harbour, Niagara River (Ontario), St. Lawrence River
(Ontario), and Toronto, as well as two reference sites. Mean sum PCBs varied ranged from 0.02
Hg/g at Algonquin Park (reference site) to 1.76 (ig/g at Hamilton Harbour (Grindstone Creek).
Sum PCB levels were highest at Hamilton Harbour (Grindstone Creek), followed by the second
site at Hamilton Harbour (Cootes Paradise), then Lyons Creek (Niagara River) (Figure 1). There
is evidence that PCB levels in snapping turtle eggs have been declining at the inland reference
site of Algonquin Park (1981-2003) and the heavily contaminated Hamilton Harbour AOC (1984-
2003). Long term trends at the St. Lawrence River AOC are difficult to determine, due to the high
degree of variability of contaminant sources in the area; PCBs have been reported as high as 738
(ig/g at Turtle Creek, Akwesasne (de Solla et al. 2001).
Flame retardants (polybrominated diphenyl ethers [PBDEs]) are one of the chemicals of emerging
concern because they are bioaccumulative and may potentially affect wildlife and human health.
Sum PBDE concentrations varied, but they were an order of magnitude lower than sum PCBs in
snapping turtle eggs collected from the seven AOCs (2001-2003). Sum PBDE levels were lowest
at Algonquin Park (6.1 ng/g sum PDBE), where airborne deposition is likely the main
contaminant source, and greatest at the Hamilton Harbour (Cootes Paradise; 67.6 ng/g) and
Toronto (Humber River; 107.0 ng/g) AOCs, indicative of urban areas likely being the main
source of PBDEs.
Pressures
Future pressures for this indictor include all sources of toxic contaminants that currently have
elevated concentrations (e.g. PCBs, dioxins), as well as contaminants whose concentrations are
expected to increase in Great Lakes wetlands (e.g. PBDEs). Non-bioaccumulative compounds in
which there are chronic exposures (e.g. PAHs) also pose a potential threat. Snapping turtle
populations face additional pressures from harvesting of adult turtles, road-side killings during
the nesting season in June, and habitat destruction.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Management Implications
The contaminants measured by are persistent and bioaccumulative, with diet being the primary
source of exposure for snapping turtles, and thus indicate contamination that is available
throughout the aquatic food web. Although commercial collection of snapping turtles has ceased,
collection for private consumption persists. Therefore, consumption restrictions are required at
selected AOCs. Currently, only eggs are routinely sampled for contaminants, but body burdens of
females could be estimated using egg burdens, and thus used for determining if consumption
guidelines are needed. At some AOCs (i.e., Niagara River [Lyons Creek], Hamilton Harbour),
there are localized sediment sources of contaminants that may be rehabilitated through dredging
or capping. Mitigation of contaminant sources should eventually reduce contaminant burdens in
snapping turtles.
Comments from the author(s)
Contaminant status of snapping turtles should be monitored on a regular basis across the Great
Lakes basin where appropriate. Once the usefulness of the indicator is confirmed, a
complementary U.S. program is required to interpret basin-wide trends. This species offers an
excellent opportunity to monitor contaminant concentrations in coastal wetland populations.
Newly emerging contaminants also need to be examined in a long-term monitoring program. As
with all long-term monitoring programs, and for any indicator species used to monitor persistent
bioaccumulative contaminants, standardization of contaminant data is necessary for examining
temporal and spatial trends or combining data from different sources.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Shane de Solla, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON,
Shane.deSolla@ec.gc.ca, and Kim Fernie, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
Burlington, ON, kim.fernie@ec.gc.ca
Special thanks to Drs. Robert Letcher, Shugang Chu, and Ken Drouillard for chemical analyses,
particularly of the PBDEs. Thanks also go to other past and present CWS staff (Burlington,
Downsview, National Wildlife Research Centre), the wildlife biologists not associated with the
CWS, and private landowners.
Data Sources
Bishop, C.A., Brooks, R.J., Carey, J.H., Ng, P., Norstrom, R.J., and Lean, D.R.S. 1991. The case
for a cause-effect linkage between environmental contamination and development in eggs of the
common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra s. serpentind) from Ontario, Canada. J. Toxic. Environ.
Health 33:521-547.
Bishop, C.A., Ng, P., Norstrom, R.J., Brooks, R.J., and Pettit, K.E. 1996. Temporal and
geographic variation of organochlorine residues in eggs of the common Snapping Turtle
(Chelydra serpentina serpentind) (1981-1991) and comparisons to trends in the herring gull
(Larus argentatus) in the Great Lakes basin in Ontario, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
31:512-524.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Bishop, C.A., Ng, P., Pettit, K.E., Kennedy, S.W., Stegeman, J.J., Norstrom, R.J., and Brooks,
RJ. 1998. Environmental contamination and developmental abnormalities in eggs and hatchlings
of the common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentind) from the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River basin (1989-1991). Environ. Pollut. 101:143-156.
Dabrowska, S., Fisher, W., Estenik, J., Kidekhel, R., and Stromberg, P. Polychlorinated biphenyl
concentrations, congener profiles, and ratios in the fat tissue, eggs, and plasma of snapping turtles
(Chelydra s. serpentina) from the Ohio basin of Lake Erie, USA. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol.
51:270-286.
de Solla, S.R., Bishop, C.A., Lickers, H., and Jock, K. 2001. Organochlorine pesticide, PCB,
dibenzodioxin and furan concentrations in common snapping turtle eggs (Chelydra serpentina
serpentina) in Akwesasne, Mohawk Territory, Ontario, Canada. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol
40:410-417
de Solla, S.R. and Fernie, KJ. 2004. Characterization of contaminants in snapping turtles
(Chelydra serpentina) from Canadian Lake Erie Areas of Concern: St. Clair, Detroit River, and
Wheatley Harbour. Environ Pollut. 132:101-112
Struger, J., Elliott, J.E., Bishop, C.A., Obbard, M.E., Norstrom, R.J., Weseloh, D.V., Simon, M.,
and Ng, P. 1993. Environmental contaminants in eggs of the common Snapping Turtles
(Chelydra serpentina serpentina) from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin of Ontario,
Canada (1981, 1984).
List of Figures
Figure 1. Sum PCB concentrations in snapping turtle eggs from various Canadian locations
throughout the lower Great Lakes basin, 2001 through 2003. Means ± standard errors are
presented.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
~? 2.0.
O)
"0
§
0> 1.5-
5
3 LO-
CO
O
Q. 0.5'
E
0
1
T
J_ r~i r
J-
— i i — i
J-
n n
1
11 sfl?!""!"
Fn5O-iroo>:D>-<'>-aa>
Si=^.!2>,S(DC 00 C
§) 'c
is C0 TO
0 $ | I
c
o
o
CO
Location
Figure 1. Sum PCB concentrations in snapping turtle eggs from various Canadian locations
throughout the lower Great Lakes basin, 2001 through 2003. Means ± standard errors are
presented.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Indicator #4507
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Deteriorating
Species across the Great Lakes basin exhibited both positive and negative
population trend tendencies. Significantly negative population trends
occurred for 14 species, while only six species exhibited significantly
positive population trends.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Mixed
Deteriorating
Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population
trend tendencies. Despite an equal number of significantly positive and
negative trends among species, certain focal species did not occur at a level
sufficient for trend analysis, or were absent from monitoring stations.
Poor
Deteriorating
Most species in this lake basin exhibited a negative population trend. Eight
significantly negative species population trends occurred, while there were
Status and Trend no significantly positive species population trends.
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Deteriorating
Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population
trend tendencies. Significantly negative population trends occurred for
seven species, while only three species exhibited significantly positive
population trends.
Mixed
Deteriorating
Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population
trend tendencies. Significantly negative population trends occurred for six
species, while only two species exhibited significantly positive population
trends.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
s*^t-^'^o'i!ifr^J^1 »t*"s,--Tvz--'r"%x**-""«
Purpose
• To assess wetland bird species composition and relative abundance, and to infer condition of
coastal wetland habitat as it relates to factors that influence the biological condition of this
ecologically and culturally important component of wetland communities.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Assessments of wetland-dependent bird diversity and abundance in the Great Lakes are used to
evaluate health and function of coastal and inland wetlands. Breeding birds are valuable
components of Great Lakes wetlands and rely on the physical, chemical and biological condition
of their habitats, particularly during breeding. Presence and abundance of breeding individuals
therefore provide a valuable source of information about wetland status and population trends.
Because several wetland-dependent birds are listed as species at risk due to the loss and
degradation of their habitats, the combination of long-term monitoring data and analysis of
habitat characteristics can help to assess how well Great Lakes coastal wetlands are able to
provide habitat for these sensitive species as well as other birds and wetland-dependent wildlife.
Geographically extensive and long-term monitoring of wetland-dependent birds is possible
through the enthusiasm, skill and coordination of volunteer participants trained in the application
of standardized monitoring protocols. Information about abundance, distribution and diversity of
marsh birds provides data for calculating trends in population indices as well as investigating
habitat associations which can contribute to effective, long-term conservation strategies.
Status of Wetland-Dependent Birds
Since 1995, Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) volunteers have collected bird data at 508
discrete routes across the Great Lakes basin. An annual summary of bird routes monitored is
provided in Table 1.
From 1995 through 2005, MMP volunteers recorded 56 bird species that use marshes (wetlands
dominated by non-woody emergent plants) for feeding, nesting or both throughout the Great
Lakes basin. Red-winged Blackbird was the most commonly recorded non-aerial foraging bird
species observed by MMP participants, followed by Swamp Sparrow, Marsh Wren and Yellow
Warbler. Among birds that nest exclusively in marsh habitats, the most commonly recorded
species was Marsh Wren, followed by Virginia Rail, Common Moorhen, Pied-billed Grebe,
American Coot and Sora. Among bird species that typically forage in the air above marshes, Tree
Swallow and Barn Swallow were the two most commonly recorded bird species.
With eleven years of data collected across the Great Lakes basin, the MMP is becoming an
established and recognized long-term marsh bird population monitoring program. Bird species
occurrence, abundance, activity and detectability vary naturally among years and within seasons.
Population indices and trends (i.e., average annual percent change in population index) are
presented for several bird species recorded at Great Lakes MMP routes, from 1995 through 2005
(Figure 1). Species with significant basin-wide declines were American Coot (not shown), Black
Tern, Blue-winged Teal (not shown), Common Grackle (not shown), Common Moorhen (not
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
shown), Least Bittern, undifferentiated Common Moorhen/American Coot (calls of these two
species are difficult to distinguish from one another), Northern Harrier (not shown), Pied-billed
Grebe, Red-winged Blackbird, Sora, Tree Swallow and Virginia Rail (Figure 1). Statistically
significant basin-wide population increases were observed for Common Yellowthroat, Mallard,
Northern Rough-winged Swallow (not shown), Purple Martin (not shown), Trumpeter Swan (not
shown), Willow Flycatcher (not shown) and Yellow Warbler (not shown). American Bittern and
Marsh Wren populations did not show a significant trend in abundance indices from 1995 through
2005 (Figure 1). Declines in population indices of species that use wetlands almost exclusively
for breeding such as Least Bittern, Black Tern, Common Moorhen, American Coot, Sora, Pied-
billed Grebe and Virginia Rail, combined with an increase in some wetland edge and generalist
species (e.g., Common Yellowthroat, Willow Flycatcher and Mallard) suggest changes in wetland
habitat conditions may be occurring. Difference in habitats, regional population densities, timing
of survey visits, annual weather variability and other factors likely interplay with water levels to
explain variation in wetland dependent bird populations. American Bittern, for example, showed
a significant declining population index from 1995 to 2004 (Crewe et al. 2006; Archer et al.
2006) but recently its population index has rebounded. As such, further years of data will
hopefully help explain natural population variation from significant population trends.
Future Pressure
Future pressures on wetland-dependent birds will likely include continuing loss and degradation
of important breeding habitats through wetland loss, water level stabilization, sedimentation,
contaminant and nutrient inputs and invasion of exotic plants and animals.
Future Activities
Wherever possible, efforts should be made to maintain high quality wetland habitat and adjacent
upland areas. There is also a need to address other impacts that are detrimental to wetland health
such as water level stabilization, invasive species and inputs of toxic chemicals, nutrients and
sediments. Restoration programs are underway for many degraded wetland areas through the
work of local citizens, organizations and governments. Although significant progress has been
made, considerably more conservation and restoration work is needed to ensure maintenance of
healthy and functional wetland habitats throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Further Work Necessary
MMP wetland monitoring activities will continue across the Great Lakes basin. Continued
monitoring of at least 100 routes through 2006 is projected to provide good resolution for most of
the wetland-dependent birds recorded by MMP volunteers. Recruitment and retention of program
participants will therefore continue to be a high priority. Priority should also be placed on
establishing regional goals and acceptable thresholds for species-specific abundance indices and
species community compositions. Assessments to determine relationships among survey indices,
bird population parameters and critical environmental parameters are also needed.
Previous studies have ascertained marsh bird habitat associations using MMP bird and habitat
data. As more data is accumulated, these studies should be periodically updated in order to
provide a better understanding of the relationships between wetland bird species and habitat.
Most MMP bird survey routes have been georeferenced to the level of individual survey stations.
Volunteer recruitment has also improved significantly since the last status reporting period. Five
additional important tasks are in progress: 1) develop the SOLEC wetland bird indicator as an
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
index for evaluating coastal wetland health; 2) improve the program's capacity to monitor and
report on status of wetland specific Beneficial Use Impairments among Great Lakes Areas of
Concern; 3) improve and revise MMP bird survey protocols to coincide with continentally
accepted marsh bird monitoring survey standards; 4) develop and improve the program's capacity
to train volunteer participants to identify and survey marsh birds following standard MMP
protocols, and; 5) develop the capacity to incorporate a regional MMP coordinator network
component into the MMP to improve regional and local delivery of the program throughout the
Great Lakes basin.
Although more frequent updates are possible, reporting trends in marsh bird population indices
every five or six years is most appropriate for this indicator. A variety of efforts are underway to
enhance reporting breadth and efficiency.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Steve Timmermans and Ryan Archer, Bird Studies Canada
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies Canada in partnership with
Environment Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes
National Program Office. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring Program volunteers are
gratefully acknowledged.
Sources
Anonymous. 1989. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. Office of
Consolidation, International Joint Commission United States and Canada. Available online:
http://www.ijc.org/rel/agree/quality.html. Last accessed August 29, 2006.
Anonymous. 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program training kit and instructions for
surveying marsh birds, amphibians, and their habitats. Revised in 2003 by Bird
Studies Canada. 41pp.
Archer, R.W., T.L. Crewe, and S.T.A. Timmermans. 2006. The Marsh Monitoring Program
annual report, 1995-2004: annual indices and trends in bird abundance and amphibian occurrence
in the Great Lakes basin. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. 35pp.
Timmermans, S.T.A. 2002. Quality Assurance Project Plan for implementing the Marsh
Monitoring Program across the Great Lakes basin. Prepared for United States
Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office
Assistance I.D. #GL2002-145. 31pp.
Timmermans, S.T.A., S.S. Badzinski, and K.E. Jones. 2004. The Marsh Monitoring
Program annual report, 1995-2002: annual indices and trends in bird abundance and amphibian
occurrence in the Great Lakes basin. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. 48pp.
Weeber, R.C., and M. Valliantos (editors). 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program 1995-
1999: Monitoring Great Lakes wetlands and their amphibian and bird inhabitants. Published by
Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 47pp.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
' ^i^3|i^t&il.ia*M^
$*"*^
List of Tables
Table 1. Number of routes surveyed for marsh birds within the Great Lakes basin, from 1995 to
2005.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Trends (percent annual change) in relative abundance (population index) of marsh
nesting and aerial foraging bird species detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, from 1995
to 2005. Values in parentheses are upper and lower 95% confidence limits, respectively, for trend
values given.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Last Updated
SOLEC 2006
Year Number of
Routes
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
145
177
175
151
154
153
146
170
131
118
183
Table 1. Number of routes surveyed for marsh birds within the Great Lakes basin, from 1995 to
2005.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
American Bittern
-5.0 (-10.6, 1.1) P = 0.10
8.0-
6.0-
Black Tern
-12.4 (-16.1,-8.7) P< 0.0001
Common Yellowthroat
1.5(0.0, 3.0) P = 0.05
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Least Bittern
-10.7 (-15.1,-6.0) P< 0.0001
6.0
5.0
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1.0
Mallard
5.4 (2.2, 8.8) P < 0.001
Marsh Wren
-1.5 (-3.1,-0.2) P = 0.07
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
C
o
3
Q.
O
Q.
10.0
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0
Moorhen/Coot
-4.8 (-7.2, -2.3) P < 0.001
Pied-billed Grebe
-6.9 (-10.3, -3.4) P< 0.001
Red-winged Blackbird
-1.6 (-2.6, -0.6) P< 0.01
28.0
26.0
24.0-
22.0
20.0 •
18.0
16.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Sora
-4.7 (-8.3, -1.0)P = 0.01
Tree Swallow
-5.7 (-7.8, -3.7) P < 0.0001
30.0
25.0 •
20.0 •
15.0 •
10.0
3.0
2.5-
2.0-
1.5-
1.0
Virginia Rail
-2.3 (-4.3, -0.3) P = 0.02
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year
Figure 1. Trends (percent annual change) in relative abundance (population index) of marsh
nesting and aerial foraging bird species detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, from 1995
to 2005. Values in parentheses are upper and lower 95% confidence limits, respectively, for trend
values given.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Indicator #4510
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Purpose
To assess the periodic changes in area (particularly losses) of coastal wetland types, taking into
account natural lake level variations.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain total areal extent of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, ensuring adequate representation of
coastal wetland types across their historical range (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
Annexes 2 and 13).
State of the Ecosystem
The status of this indicator has not been updated since the 2005 State of the Lakes report. Future
updates to the status of this indicator will require the repeated collection and analysis of remotely
sensed information. Currently, technologies and methods are being assessed for an ability to
estimate wetland extent. Next steps, including determination of funding and resource needs, as
well as pilot investigations must occur before an indicator status update can be made. The
timeline for this is not yet determined. However, once a methodology is established, it will be
applicable for long-term monitoring of this indicator, which is imperative for an improved
understanding of wetland functional responses and adaptive management. The 2005 assessment
of this indicator follows.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Wetlands continue to be lost and degraded, yet the ability to track and determine the extent and
rate of this loss in a standardized way is not yet feasible.
In an effort to estimate the extent of coastal wetlands in the basin, the Great Lakes Coastal
Wetland Consortium (GLCWC) coordinated completion of a binational coastal wetland database.
The project involved building from existing Canadian and U.S. coastal wetland databases
(Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2003, Herdendorf et al. 1981a-
f), and incorporating additional auxiliary Federal, Provincial and State data to create a more
complete, digital Geographic Information System (GIS) vector database. All coastal wetlands in
the database were classified using a Great Lakes hydrogeomorphic coastal wetland classification
system (Albert et al. 2005). The project was completed in 2004.The GIS database provides the
first spatially explicit seamless binational summary of coastal wetland distribution in the Great
Lakes system. Coastal wetlands totaling 216,743 ha have been identified within the Great Lakes
and connecting rivers up to Cornwall, Ontario (Figure 1). However, due to existing data
limitations, estimates of coastal wetland extent, particularly for the upper Great Lakes are
acknowledged to be incomplete.
Despite significant loss of coastal wetland habitat in some regions of the Great Lakes, the lakes
and connecting rivers still support a diversity of wetland types. Barrier protected coastal wetlands
are a prominent feature in the upper Great Lakes, accounting for over 60,000 ha of the identified
coastal wetland area in Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan (Figure 2). Lake Erie
supports 22,057 ha of coastal wetland, with protected embayment wetlands accounting for over
one third of the total area (Figure 2). In Lake Ontario, barrier protected and drowned rivermouth
coastal wetlands account for 19,172 ha, approximately three quarters of the total coastal wetland
area.
Connecting rivers within the Great Lakes system also support a diverse and significant quantity of
wetlands (Figure 3). The St. Clair River delta occurs where the St. Clair River outlets into Lake
St. Clair, and it is the most prominent single wetland feature accounting for over 13,000 ha. The
Upper St. Lawrence River also supports a large area of wetland habitats that are typically
numerous small embayment and drowned rivermouth wetlands associated with the Thousand
Island region and St. Lawrence River shoreline.
Pressures
There are many stressors which have and continue to contribute to the loss and degradation of
coastal wetland area. These include: filling, dredging and draining for conversion to other uses
such as urban, agricultural, marina, and cottage development; shoreline modification; water level
regulation; sediment and nutrient loading from watersheds; adjacent land use; invasive species,
particularly non-native species; and climate variability and change. The natural dynamics of
wetlands must be considered in addressing coastal wetland stressors. Global climate variability
and change have the potential to amplify the dynamics by reducing water levels in the system in
addition to changing seasonal storm intensity and frequency, water level fluctuations and
temperature.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Management Implications
Many of the pressures result from direct human actions, and thus, with proper consideration of
the impacts, can be reduced. Several organizations have designed and implemented programs to
help reduce the trend toward wetland loss and degradation.
Because of growing concerns around water quality and supply, which are key Great Lakes
conservation issues, and the role of wetlands in flood attenuation, nutrient cycling and sediment
trapping, wetland changes will continue to be monitored closely. Providing accurate useable
information to decision-makers from government to private landowners is critical to successful
stewardship of the wetland resource.
Comments from the author(s)
Development of improved, accessible, and affordable remote sensing technologies and
information, along with concurrent monitoring of other Great Lakes indicators will aid in
implementation and continued monitoring and reporting of this indicator.
The GLCWC database represents an important step in establishing a baseline for monitoring and
reporting on Great Lakes coastal wetlands including extent and other indicators. Affordable and
accurate remote sensing methodologies are required to complete the baseline and begin
monitoring change in wetland area by type in the future. Other GLCWC-guided research efforts
are underway to assess the use of various remote sensing technologies in addressing this current
limitation. Preliminary results from these efforts indicate the potential of using radar imagery and
methods of hybrid change detection for monitoring changes in wetland type and conversion.
The difficult decisions on how to address human-induced stressors causing wetlands loss have
been considered for some time. Several organizations and programs continue to work to reverse
the trend, though much work remains. A better understanding of wetland functions, through
additional research and implementation of biological monitoring within coastal wetlands, will
help ensure that wetland quality is maintained in addition to areal extent. An educated public is
critical to ensuring that wise decisions about the stewardship of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem
are made.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Joel Ingram, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada;
Lesley Dunn, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada;
Krista Holmes, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada and
Dennis Albert, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension.
Contributors: Greg Grabas and Nancy Patterson, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment
Canada; Laura Simonson, Water Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey; Brian Potter,
Conservation and Planning Section-Lands and Waters Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources; Tom Rayburn, Great Lakes Commission, Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, General Dynamics
Advanced Information Systems.
Data Sources
Albert, D.A., Wilcox, D.A., Ingram, J.W., and Thompson, T.A. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic
classification for Great Lakes coastal wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2003. The Ontario Great Lakes
Coastal Wetland Atlas: a summary of information (1983 - 1997). Canadian Wildlife Service
(CWS), Ontario Region, Environment Canada; Conservation and Planning Section-Lands and
Waters Branch, and Natural Heritage Information Center, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981a. Fish and wildlife resources of
the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States, Vol. 1: Overview. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-vl.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981b. Fish and wildlife resources of
the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States, Vol. 2: Lake Ontario. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v2.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981c. Fish and wildlife resources of
the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States, Vol. 3: Lake Erie. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v3.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981d. Fish and wildlife resources of
the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States, Vol. 4: Lake Huron. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v4.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981e. Fish and wildlife resources of
the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States, Vol. 5: Lake Michigan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v5.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981f. Fish and wildlife resources of
the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States, Vol. 6: Lake Superior. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v6.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Great Lakes coastal wetland distribution and total area by lake and river.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Figure 2. Coastal wetland area by geomorphic type within lakes of the Great Lakes system.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Figure 3. Coastal wetland area by geomorphic type within connecting rivers of the Great Lakes
system.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
-
f '
_
Lake / River
Lake Superior
St. Marys River
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
St. Clair Rvier
Lake St. Clair
Detroit River
Lake Erie
Niagara River
Lake Ontario
Upper St. Lawrence River
Total
Area (ha)
26,626
10,790
61,461
44,516
13,642
2,217
592
25,127
196
22,925
8,454
216,545
Figure 1. Great Lakes coastal wetland distribution and total area by lake and river.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
• Barrier Protected
DOpen Embayment
D Protected Embayment
D Drowned River-Mouth
D Delta
Superior Huron
Michigan St. Clair
LAKE
Erie
Ontario
Figure 2. Coastal wetland area by geomorphic type within lakes of the Great Lakes system.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
in
CD
ro 3,500
o
I 3,000
2j 2,500
01
< 2,000
13,146
D Barrier Protected
• Open Embayment
D Protected Embayment
D Drowned River-Mouth
D Delta
St. Marys St. Clair Detroit Niagara
CONNECTING RIVER
Upper St.
Lawrence
Figure 3. Coastal wetland area by geomorphic type within connecting rivers of the Great Lakes
system.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Indicator #4858
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating (with respect to climate change)
Purpose
•To assess the ice duration and thereby the temperature and accompanying physical changes to
each lake over time, in order to infer the potential impact of climate change.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator is used as a potential assessment of climate change, particularly within the Great
Lakes basin. Changes in water and air temperatures will influence ice development on the Lakes
and, in turn, affect coastal wetlands, nearshore aquatic environments, and inland environments.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Air temperatures over a lake are one of the few factors that control the formation of ice on that
surface. Colder winter temperatures increase the rate of heat released by the lake, thereby
increasing the freezing rate of the water. Milder winter temperatures have a similar controlling
effect, only the rate of heat released is slowed and the ice forms more slowly. Globally, some
inland lakes appear to be freezing up at later dates, and breaking-up earlier, than the historical
average, based on a study of 150 years of data (Magnuson et al. 2000). These trends add to the
evidence that the earth has been in a period of global warming for at least the last 150 years.
The freezing and thawing of lakes is a very important aspect to many aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. Many fish species rely on the ice to give their eggs protection against predators
during the late part of the ice season. Nearshore ice has the ability to change the shoreline as it
can encroach upon the land during winter freeze-up times. Even inland systems are affected by
the amount of ice that forms, especially within the Great Lakes basin. Less ice on the Great Lakes
allows for more water to evaporate and be spread across the basin in the form of snow. This can
have an affect on the foraging animals (like deer), that need to dig through snow during the winter
in order to obtain food.
Status of Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Observations of the Great Lakes data showed no real conclusive trends with respect to the date of
freeze-up or break-up. A reason for this could be that due to the sheer size of the Lakes, it wasn't
possible to observe the whole lake during the winter season (at least before satellite imagery), and
therefore only regional observations were made (inner bays and ports). However, there was
enough data collected from ice charts to make a statement concerning the overall ice cover during
the season. There appears to be a decrease in the maximum ice cover per season over the last
thirty years (Figure 1).
The trends on each of the five Lakes show that during this time span the maximum amount of ice
forming each year has been decreasing, which, in-fact, can be correlated to the average ice cover
per season observed for the same time duration (Table 1). Between the 1970s and 1990s there
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
was at least a 10% decline in the maximum ice cover on each Lake, and almost as much as 18%
in some cases, with the greatest decline occurring during the 1990s. Since a complete freeze-up
did not occur on all the Great Lakes, a series of inland lakes (known to freeze every winter) in
Ontario were examined to see if there was any similarity to the results in the previous studies.
Data from Lake Nipissing and Lake Ramsey were plotted (Figure 2) based on the ice-on date
(complete freeze-over date) and the break-up date (ice-off date). As it turns out, the freeze-up
date for Lake Nipissing appears to have the same trend as the other global inland lakes: freezing
over later in the year. Lake Ramsey however, seems to be freezing over earlier in the season. The
ice-off date for both however, appear to be increasing, or occurring at later dates in the year.
These results contradict what is said to be occurring with other such lakes in the Northern
Hemisphere (see Magnuson et al. 2000).
The satellite data used in this analysis can be supplemented by on-the-ground citizen science
collected data. The IceWatch program of Environment Canada's Ecological Monitoring and
Assessment Network and Nature Canada have citizen scientists collecting ice-on and ice-off dates
of lakes throughout the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes basin. These volunteers use the same
criteria for ice-on and ice-off as does the satellite data, although the volunteers only collect data
for the portion of the lake that is visible from a single vantage point on the shore. The IceWatch
program began in 2000 as a continuation of a program run by the Meteorological Service of
Canada. Data from this program date back to the 1850s. An analysis of data from this database
and the Canadian Ice Database (Canadian Ice Services/Meteorological Service of Canada)
showed that ice break-up dates were occurring approximately one day earlier every seven years
between 1950 and 2004 for 341 lakes across Canada (Putter et al. 2006. Impress). The data from
IceWatch is not as comprehensive as the satellite collected data, but does show some trends in the
Great Lakes basin. From two sites with almost 100 years of data, Lake Nipissing is shown to be
thawing later in the season (Figure 3). IceWatch data from near Lake Ramsay indicate that lakes
have been freezing later over the past thirty years.
Pressures
Based on the results of Figure 1 and Table 1, it seems that ice formation on the Great Lakes
should continue to decrease in total cover if the predictions on global atmospheric warming are
true. Milder winters will have a drastic effect on how much of the lakes are covered in ice, which
in turn, will have an effect on many aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that rely on lake ice for
protection and food acquisition.
Management Implications
Only a small number of data sets were collected and analyzed for this study, so this report is not
conclusive. To reach a level of significance that would be considered acceptable, more data on
lake ice formation would have to be gathered. While the data for the Great Lakes is easily
obtained from 1972-present, smaller inland lakes, which may be affected by climate change at a
faster rate, should be examined. As much historical information that is available should be
obtained. This data could come from IceWatch observers and the IceWatch database from
throughout the Great Lakes basin. The more data that are received will increase the statistical
significance of the results.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Acknowledgments
Author: Gregg Ferris, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview, ON.
Updated by: Heather Andrachuk, Environment Canada, Ecological Monitoring and Assessment
Network (EMAN); Heather. Andrachuk@ec.gc.ca; (905)336-4411.
All data analyzed and charts created by the author.
Sources
Putter, M., B. Buckland, E. Kilvert, and H. Andrachuk. 2006. Earlier break-up dates of lake ice:
an indicator of climate change in Canada. In press.
Magnuson, J.J., Robertson, D.M., Benson, B.J., Wynne, R.H., Livingston, D.M., Arai, T., Assel,
R.A., Barry, R.G., Carad, V., Kuusisto, E., Granin, N.G., Prowse, T.D., Stewart, K.M., and
Vuglinski, V.S. 2000. Historical trends in lake and river ice covering the Northern Hemisphere.
Science 289(Sept. 8):1743-1746.
Ice charts obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Canadian Ice Service (CIS).
Data for Lake Nipissing and Lake Ramsey obtained from Walter Skinner, Climate and
Atmospheric Research, Environment Canada-Ontario Region.
Comments from the author
Increased winter and summer air temperatures appear to be the greatest influence on ice
formation. Currently there are certain protocols, on a global scale, that are being introduced in
order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
It would be convenient for the results to be reported every four to five years (at least for the Great
Lakes), and quite possibly a shorter time span for any new inland lake information. It may also be
feasible to subdivide the Great Lakes into bays and inlets, etc., in order to get an understanding of
what is occurring in nearshore environments.
Last Updated
SOLEC 2006
List of Tables
Table 1. Mean ice coverage, in percent, during the corresponding decade.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
List of Figures
Figure 1. Trends of maximum ice cover and the corresponding date on the Great Lakes, 1972-
2000. The red line represents the percentage of maximum ice cover and the blue line represents
the date of maximum ice cover.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Figure 2. Ice-on and ice-off dates for Lake Nipissing (red line) and Lake Ramsey (blue line). Data
were smoothed using a 5-year moving average.
Source: Climate and Atmospheric Research and Environment Canada
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Figure 3. Ice-off dates and trend line from 1900-2000 on Lake Nipising.
Source: Ecological and Monitoring Assessment Network (EMAN)
Lake
Erie
Huron
Michigan
Ontario
Superior
1970-1979
94.5
71.3
50.2
39.8
74.5
1980-1989
90.8
71.7
45.6
29.7
73.9
1990-1999
77.3
61.3
32.4
28.1
62.0
Change from
1970s to 1990s
-17.2
-10.0
-17.8
-11.7
-12.6
Table 1. Mean ice coverage, in percent, during the corresponding decade.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the
Lake Superior
50
40
30
20
10
0
i
If
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
if
2 CL
100
90-
BO'
70
60-
50
40 .
30 .
20-
10
0
Lake Huron
B
.
' • "
^,^
1
200
160 5
160 °
140 f
• 120 o =•
too gf
• B0 I -
60 g
4fl
s
. ">A ™
*° 5
• o
100 « ...... . . , .. ,,.»•
90 " , ' *
1 50
0 _. 70 '
o £ 60
is so
1 fe 40
x 30 ' , . . , " * , ,
CO * ' * .
S 20 '
10 • ' " • ;
0
•? N1? .? -? ^ N<» ^ ^ ^ ^' N* ^ $ i.
ice ^eson
Lake Ontario
100 .... . ,
1
o
0 _
S §
| 5
.i "
to
90 • «
80
70 • * * ' • *
60 •" * ,
50 ' . •
40 ' - •
30 •. • , • ' ' , , * ' ' M . .
20 ' ' . , • - * " •
10 •
0
200
iao
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 1. Trends of maximum ice cover and the corresponding date on the Great Lakes, 1972-
2000. The red line represents the percentage of maximum ice cover and the blue line represents
the date of maximum ice cover.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Ice-on Dates
Ice-off Dates
tK
V«
3SS
>, 350
0 345
JS 340-
' 335-
--;y.
••;>:•
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Ice Season
•*• Nipissing -•- Ramsey
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Ice Season
-f Nipissing -•- Ramsey
Linear (Nipssing) ^^Linear (Ramsay)
Figure 2. Ice-on and ice-off dates for Lake Nipissing (red line) and Lake Ramsey (blue line).
Data were smoothed using a 5-year moving average.
Source: Climate and Atmospheric Research and Environment Canada
145
135
125
115
105
-Ice Off Date Ice Off Trend Line
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
Year
Figure 3. Ice-off dates and trend line from 1900-2000 on Lake Nipisin^
Source: Ecological and Monitoring Assessment Network (EMAN)
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Indicator #4861
Assessment: Mixed, Trend Not Assessed
Data are available for water level fluctuations for all Lakes. A
comparison of wetland vegetation along regulated Lake Ontario
to vegetation along unregulated Lakes Michigan and Huron pro-
vides insight into the impacts of water level regulation.
160-year period, there also appear to be sub-fluctuations of
approximately 33 years. Therefore, to assess water level fluctua-
tions, it is necessary to consider long-term data.
Because Lake Superior is at the upper end of the watershed, the
fluctuations have less amplitude than the other lakes. Lake
Ontario (Figure 2), at the lower end of the watershed, more
clearly shows these quasi-periodic fluctuations and the almost
Purpose
To examine the historic water levels in all the Great
Lakes, and compare these levels and their effects on wet-
lands with post-regulated levels in Lakes Superior and
Ontario, where water levels have been regulated since
about 1914 and 1959, respectively; and
To examine water level fluctuation effects on wetland
vegetation communities over time as well as aiding in the
interpretation of estimates of coastal wetland area, especial-
ly in those Great Lakes for which water levels are not regu-
lated.
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective is to maintain the diverse array of
Great Lakes coastal wetlands by allowing, as closely as is
possible, the natural seasonal and long-term fluctuations of
Great Lakes water levels.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Naturally fluctuating water levels are known to be essential
for maintaining the ecological health of Great Lakes shore-
line ecosystems, especially coastal wetlands. Thus, comparing
the hydrology of the Lakes serves as an indicator of degradation
caused by the artificial alteration of the naturally fluctuating
hydrological cycle.
Great Lakes shoreline ecosystems are dependent upon natural
disturbance processes, such as water level fluctuations, if they
are to function as dynamic systems. Naturally fluctuating water
levels create ever-changing conditions along the Great Lakes
shoreline, and the biological communities that populate these
coastal wetlands have responded to these dynamic changes with
rich and diverse assemblages of species.
Status of Great Lakes Water Level Fluctuations
Water levels in the Great Lakes have been measured since 1860,
but 140 years is a relatively short period of time when assessing
the hydrological history of the Lakes. Sediment investigations
conducted by Baedke and Thompson (2000) on the Lake
Michigan-Huron system indicate quasi-periodic lake level fluc-
tuations (Figure 1), both in period and amplitude, on an average
of about 160 years, but ranging from 120-200 years. Within this
175.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Calendar year before 1950
IIII AD I DCIIIIIT
1950 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Year
Figure 1. Sediment investigations on the Lake Michigan-Huron system
indicates quasi-periodic lake level fluctuations.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1992 (and
updates)
complete elimination of the high and low levels since the lake
level began to be regulated in 1959, and more rigorously since
1976. For example, the 1986 high level that was observed in the
other lakes was eliminated from Lake Ontario. The level in Lake
Ontario after 1959 contrasts with that of the Lake Michigan-
Huron system (Figure 3), which shows the more characteristic
high and low water levels.
The significance of seasonal and long-term water level fluctua-
tions on coastal wetlands is perhaps best explained in terms of
the vegetation, which, in addition to its own diverse composi-
tion, provides the substrate, food, cover, and habitat for many
other species dependent on coastal wetlands.
Seasonal water level fluctuations result in higher summer water
levels and lower winter levels. Additionally, the often unstable
summer water levels ensure a varied hydrology for the diverse
plant species inhabiting coastal wetlands. Without the seasonal
variation, the wetland zone would be much narrower and less
diverse. Even very short-term fluctuations resulting from
197
-------
2007
Year
Figure 2. Actual water levels for Lake Ontario. IGLD-International Great Lakes Datum.
Zero for IGLD is Rimouski, Quebec, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Water level
elevations in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River system are measured above water level
at this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1992 (and updates)
177.5
177.0
176.5
176.0
175.5
Year
Figure 3. Actual water levels for Lakes Huron and Michigan. IGLD-International Great
Lakes Datum. Zero for IGLD is Rimouski, Quebec, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence
River. Water level elevations in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River system are measured
above water level at this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1992 (and updates)
inundation. At the same time, there is an
expansion of aquatic communities, notably
submergents, into the newly inundated
area. As the water levels recede, seeds
buried in the sediments germinate and
vegetate this newly exposed zone, while
the aquatic communities recede out-ward
back into the lake. During periods of low
water, woody plants and emergents
expand again to reclaim their former area
as aquatic communities establish them-
selves further outward into the lake. The
long-term high-low fluctuation puts natu-
ral stress on coastal wetlands, but is vital
in maintaining wetland diversity. It is the
mid-zone of coastal wetlands that harbors
the greatest biodiversity. Under more sta-
ble water levels, coastal wetlands occupy
narrower zones along the lakes and are
considerably less diverse, as the more
dominant species, such as cattails, take
over to the detriment of those less able to
compete under a stable water regime. This
is characteristic of many of the coastal
wetlands of Lake Ontario, where water
levels are regulated.
Pressures
Future pressures on the ecosystem include
additional withdrawals or diversions of
water from the Lakes, or additional regu-
lation of the high and low water levels.
These potential future pressures will
require direct human intervention to
implement, and thus, with proper consid-
eration of the impacts, can be prevented.
The more insidious impact could be
caused by global climate change. The
quasi-periodic fluctuations of water levels
are the result of climatic effects, and glob-
al warming has the potential to greatly
alter the water levels in the Lakes.
changes in wind direction and barometric pressure can substan-
tially alter the area inundated, and thus, alter the coastal wetland
community.
Long-term water level fluctuations, of course, have an impact
over a longer period of time. During periods of high water, there
is a die-off of shrubs, cattails, and other woody or emergent
species that cannot tolerate long periods of increased depth of
198
Management Implications
The Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board is undertak-
ing a comprehensive 5-year study (2000-2005) for the
International Joint Commission (IJC) to assess the current crite-
ria used for regulating water levels on Lake Ontario and in the
St. Lawrence River.
The overall goals of Environment/Wetlands Working Group of
the IJC study are (1) to ensure that all types of native habitats
-------
(floodplain, forested and shrubby swamps, wet meadows, shal-
low and deep marshes, submerged vegetation, mud flats, open
water, and fast flowing water) and shoreline features (barrier
beaches, sand bars/dunes, gravel/cobble shores, and islands) are
represented in an abundance that allows for the maintenance of
ecosystem resilience and integrity over all seasons, and (2) to
maintain hydraulic and spatial connectivity of habitats to ensure
that fauna have access, temporally and spatially, to a sufficient
surface of all the types of habitats they need to complete their
life cycles.
The environment/wetlands component of the IJC study provides
a major opportunity to improve the understanding of past water-
regulation impacts on coastal wetlands. The new knowledge will
be used to develop and recommend water level regulation crite-
ria with the specific objective of maintaining coastal wetland
diversity and health. Also, continued monitoring of water levels
in all of the Great Lakes is vital to understanding coastal wetland
dynamics and the ability to assess wetland health on a large
scale. Fluctuations in water levels are the driving force behind
coastal wetland biodiversity and overall wetland health. Their
effects on wetland ecosystems must be recognized and moni-
tored throughout the Great Lakes basin in both regulated and
unregulated lakes.
Acknowledgments
Author: Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Programs Office, Chicago, IL.
Much of the information and discussion presented in this sum-
mary is based on work conducted by the following: Douglas A.
Wilcox, Ph.D. (U.S. Geological Survey / Biological Resources
Division); Todd A. Thompson, Ph.D. (Indiana Geological
Survey); Steve J. Baedke, Ph.D. (James Madison University).
Sources
Baedke, S. J., and Thompson, T.A. 2000. A 4,700-year record of
lake level and isostasy for Lake Michigan. /. Great Lakes Res.
26(4):416-426.
International Joint Commission. Great Lakes Regional Office,
Windsor, ON and Detroit, MI.
International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board,
Technical Working Group on Environment/Wetlands.
http: //www. ijc.org.
Maynard, L., and Wilcox, D. 1997. Coastal wetlands of the
Great Lakes. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996
Background Paper. Environment Canada and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
1992 (and updates). Great Lakes water levels, 1860-1990.
National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD.
Authors' Commentary
Human-induced global climate change could be a major cause of
lowered water levels in the Lakes in future years. Further study
is needed on the impacts of water level fluctuations on other
nearshore terrestrial communities. Also, an educated public is
critical to ensuring wise decisions about the stewardship of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem are made, and better platforms to
getting understandable information to the public are needed.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2003
199
-------
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Indicator #4862
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Unchanging
Degradation around major urban areas
Mixed
Unchanging
High quality wetlands in north part of lake
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Deteriorating
Plowing, raking, and mowing on Saginaw Bay wetlands during low water
causing degradation. Northern wetlands high quality
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Unchanging
Generally poor on US shore with some restoration at Metzger marsh -
Presque Isle, PA and Long Pt, Ontario high quality wetlands
Poor
Unchanging
Degraded by nutrient loading and water level control. Some scattered
Canadian wetlands of higher quality.
Purpose
•To assess the level of native vegetative diversity and cover for use as a surrogate measure of
quality of coastal wetlands which are impacted by coastal manipulation or input of sediments.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Ecosystem Objective
Coastal wetlands throughout the Great Lakes basin should be dominated by native vegetation,
with low numbers of invasive plant species that have low levels of coverage. (Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
To understand the condition of the plant community in coastal wetlands it is necessary to
understand the natural differences that occur in the plant community across the Great Lakes
basin. The characteristic size and plant diversity of coastal wetlands vary by wetland type, lake,
and latitude, due to differences in geomorphic and climatic conditions. Major factors will be
described below.
Lake: The water chemistry and shoreline characteristics of each Great Lake differ, with Lake
Superior being the most distinct due to its low alkalinity and prevalence of bedrock shoreline.
Nutrient levels also increase in the lake basins further to the east, that is, in Lake Erie, Lake
Ontario, and in the upper St. Lawrence River.
Geomorphic wetland type: There are several different types of wetland based on the
geomorphology of the shoreline where the wetland forms. Each landform has its characteristic
sediment, bottom profile, accumulation of organic material, and exposure to wave activity. These
differences result in differences in plant zonation and breadth, as well as species composition. All
coastal wetlands contain different zones (swamp, meadow, emergent, submergent), some of
which may be typically absent in certain geomorphic wetland types. All Great Lakes wetlands
have recently been classified and mapped (Albert et al. In Press).
http://glc.org/wetlands/inventory.html
Latitude: Latitudinal differences in temperature result in floristic differences between the
southern and northern Great Lakes. Probably more important is the increased agricultural activity
along the shoreline of the southern Great Lakes, resulting in increased sedimentation and non-
native species introductions.
There are characteristics of coastal wetlands that make usage of plants as indicators difficult in
certain conditions. Among these are:
Water level fluctuations: Great Lakes water levels fluctuate greatly from year to year. Either an
increase or decrease in water level can result in changes in numbers of species or overall species
composition in the entire wetland or in specific zones. Such a change makes it difficult to monitor
change over time. Changes are great in two zones, the wet meadow where grasses and sedges
may disappear in high water or new annuals may appear in low water, and in shallow emergent or
submergent zones, where submergent and floating plants may disappear when water levels drop
rapidly.
Lake-wide alterations: For the southern lakes, most wetlands have been dramatically altered by
both intensive agriculture and urban development of the shoreline. For Lake Ontario, water level
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
control has resulted in major changes to the flora. For both of these cases, it is difficult to identify
base-line high quality wetlands for comparison to degraded wetlands.
There are several hundred species of plant that occur within coastal wetlands. To evaluate the
status of a wetland using plants as indicators, several different plant metrics have been suggested.
Several of these are discussed briefly here.
Native plant diversity: The number of native plant species in a wetland is considered by many as
a useful indicator of wetland health. The overall diversity of a site tends to decrease from south to
north. Different hydrogeomorphic wetland types support vastly different levels of native plant
diversity, complicating the use of this metric.
Non-native species: Non-native species are considered signs of wetland degradation, typically
responding to increased sediment, nutrients, physical disturbance, and seed source. The amount of
non-native species coverage appears to be a more effective measure of degradation than number
of non-native species, except in the most heavily degraded sites.
Submergent species: Submergent plants respond to high levels of sediment, nutrient enrichment,
and turbidity, and plant species have been identified that respond to each of these changes.
Floating species, such as Lemna spp., are similarly responsive to nutrient enrichment. While
submergents are valuable indicators whose response to changing environmental conditions is well
documented, they also respond dramatically to natural fluctuations in the water level, making
them less dependable as indicators in the Great Lakes than in other wetland settings.
Nutrient responsive species: Several species from all plant zones are known to respond to nutrient
enrichment. Cattails (Typha spp.) are the best known responders.
Salt tolerance: Many species are not tolerant to salt, which is introduced along major coastal
highways. Narrow-leaved cattails are known to be very tolerant to high salt levels.
Floristic Quality Index (FQI): Many of the states and provinces along the Great Lakes have
developed indices based on the "conservatism" of all plants growing there. A species is
considered conservative if it only grows in a specific, high quality environment. FQI has proved
effective for comparing similar wetland sites. However, FQI of a given wetland can change
dramatically in response to a water level change, limiting its usefulness in monitoring the
condition of a given wetland from year to year without development of careful sampling
protocols. Another problem associated with FQIs is that the conservatism values for a given plant
vary between states and provinces.
Status of Wetland Plant Community Health
The state of the wetland plant community is quite variable, ranging from good to poor across the
Great Lakes basin. The wetlands in individual lake basins are often similar in their characteristics
because of water level controls and lake-wide near-shore management practices. There is
evidence that the plant component in some wetlands is deteriorating in response to extremely low
water levels in some of the Great Lakes, but this deterioration is not seen in all wetlands within
these lakes. In general, there is slow deterioration in many wetlands as shoreline alterations
introduce non-native species. However, the turbidity of the southern Great Lakes has reduced
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
with expansion of zebra mussels, resulting in improved submergent plant diversity in many
wetlands.
Trends in wetland health based on plants have not been well established. In the southern Great
Lakes (Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the Upper St. Lawrence River), almost all wetlands are
degraded by either water level control, nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, or a combination of
these factors. Probably the strongest demonstration of this is the prevalence of broad zones of cat-
tails, reduced submergent diversity and coverage, and prevalence of non-native plants, including
reed (Phragmites australis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), purple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria), curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum),
and frog bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae). In the remaining Great Lakes (Lake St. Clair, Lake
Huron, Lake Michigan, Georgian Bay, Lake Superior, and their connecting rivers), intact, diverse
wetlands can be found for most geomorphic wetland types. However, low water conditions have
resulted in the almost explosive expansion of reed in many wetlands, especially in Lake St. Clair
and southern Lake Huron, including Saginaw Bay. As water levels rise, the response of reed
should be monitored.
One of the disturbing trends is the expansion of frog bit, a floating plant that forms dense mats
capable of eliminating submergent plants, from the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario
westward into Lake Erie. This expansion will probably continue into all or many of the remaining
Great Lakes.
Studies in the northern Great Lakes have demonstrated that non-native species like reed, reed
canary grass, and purple loosestrife have established throughout the Great Lakes, but that the
abundance of these species is low, often restricted to only local disturbances such as docks and
boat channels. It appears that undisturbed marshes are not easily colonized by these species.
However, as these species become locally established, seeds or fragments of plant may be able to
establish when water level changes create appropriate sediment conditions.
Pressures
There are several pressures that lead to degradation of coastal wetlands.
Agriculture: Agriculture degrades wetlands in several ways, including nutrient enrichment from
fertilizers, increased sediments from erosion, increased rapid runoff from drainage ditches,
introduction of agricultural non-native species (reed canary grass), destruction of inland wet
meadow zone by plowing and diking, and addition of herbicides. In the southern lakes, Saginaw
Bay, and Green Bay, agricultural sediments have resulted in highly turbid waters which support
few or no submergent plants.
Urban development: Urban development degrades wetlands by hardening shoreline, filling
wetland, adding a broad diversity of chemical pollutants, increasing stream runoff, adding
sediments, and increased nutrient loading from sewage treatment plants. In most urban settings
almost complete wetland loss has occurred along the shoreline.
Residential shoreline development: Along many coastal wetlands, residential development has
altered wetlands by nutrient enrichment from fertilizers and septic systems, shoreline alterations
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
for docks and boat slips, filling, and shoreline hardening. While less intensive than either
agriculture or urban development, local physical alteration often results in introduction of non-
native species. Shoreline hardening can completely eliminate wetland vegetation.
Mechanical alteration of shoreline: Mechanical alteration takes a diversity of forms, including
diking, ditching, dredging, filling, and shoreline hardening. With all of these alterations non-
native species are introduced by construction equipment or in introduced sediments. Changes in
shoreline gradients and sediment conditions are often adequate to allow non-native species to
become established.
Introduction of non-native species: Non-native species are introduced in many ways. Some were
purposefully introduced as agricultural crops or ornamentals, later colonizing in native
landscapes. Others came in as weeds in agricultural seed. Increased sediment and nutrient
enrichment allows many of our worst aquatic weeds to out-compete native species. Most of our
worst non-native species are either prolific seed producers or reproduce from fragments of root or
rhizome. Non-native animals have also been responsible for increased degradation of coastal
wetlands. One of the worst invasive species has been Asian carp, who's mating and feeding result
in loss of submergent vegetation in shallow marsh waters.
Management Implications
While plants are currently being evaluated as indicators of specific types of degradation, there are
limited examples of the effects of changing management on plant composition. Restoration
efforts at Coots Paradise, Oshawa Second, and Metzgers marsh have recently evaluated a number
of restoration approaches to restore submergent and emergent marsh vegetation, including carp
elimination, hydrologic restoration, sediment control, and plant introduction. The effect of
agriculture and urban sediments may be reduced by incorporating buffer strips along streams and
drains. Nutrient enrichment could be reduced by more effective fertilizer application, reducing
algal blooms. However, even slight levels of nutrient enrichment cause dramatic increases in
submergent plant coverage. For most urban areas it may prove impossible to reduce nutrient loads
adequately to restore native aquatic vegetation. Mechanical disturbance of coastal sediments
appears to be one of the primary vectors for introduction of non-native species. Thorough
cleaning of equipment to eliminate seed source and monitoring following disturbances might
reduce new introductions of non-native plants.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Dennis Albert, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University
Extension.
Contributors: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Data Sources
Albert, D.A., and Mine, L.D. 2001. Abiotic and floristic characterization of Laurentian Great
Lakes' coastal wetlands. Stuttgart, Germany. Verh. Internal. Verein. Limnol. 27:3413-3419.
Albert, D.A., Wilcox, D.A., Ingram, J.W., and Thompson, T.A. 2006. Hydrogeomorphic
Classification for Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
**t,TT
Environment Canada and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. 2004. Durham Region
Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project: Year 2 Technical Report. Environment Canada,
Downsview, ON: ECB-OR.
Herdendorf, C.E. 1988. Classification of geological features in Great Lakes nearshore and coastal
areas. Protecting Great Lakes Nearshore and Coastal Diversity Project. International Joint
Commission and The Nature Conservancy, Windsor, ON.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hakanson, L., Jude, D.J., and Sly, P.O. 1992. A review of the physical and
chemical components of the Great Lakes: a basis for classification and inventory of aquatic
habitats. In The development of an aquatic habitat classification system for lakes., eds. W.-D. N.
Busch and P. G. Sly, pp. 109-160. Ann Arbor, MI: CRC Press.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981a. Fish and wildlife resources of
the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States, Vol. 1: Overview. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS- 81/02-vl.
Jaworski, E., Raphael, C.N., Mansfield, P.J., and Williamson, B.B. 1979. Impact of Great Lakes
water level fluctuations on coastal wetlands. U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Water
Resources and Technology, Contract Report 14-0001-7163, from Institute of Water Research,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 351pp.
Keough J.R., Thompson, T.A., Guntenspergen, G.R., and Wilcox, D.A. 1999. Hydrogeomorphic
factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 19:821-834.
Mine, L.D. 1997. Great Lakes coastal wetlands: An overview of abiotic factors affecting their
distribution, form, and species composition. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Mine, L.D., and Albert, D.A. 1998. Great Lakes coastal wetlands: abiotic and floristic
characterization. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by
Protocol signed November 18, 1987. Ottawa and Washington.
http://www.ijc.org/rel/agree/quality.html, last accessed March 15, 2005.
Wilcox, D.A., and Whillans, T.H. 1999. Techniques for restoration of disturbed coastal wetlands
of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 19:835-857.
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Indicator # 4863
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Fully Assessed
Undetermined
The status and trends are currently under investigation and proposed for
additional investigation for the full basin (see Data Sources). Although
other results exist for Canada (see Data Sources), "Land Cover Adjacent to
Coastal Wetlands" results are currently unavailable for Canada.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Fully Assessed
Undetermined
The status and trends are currently under investigation and proposed for
additional investigation in the Lake Superior Basin (see Data Sources)
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Fully Assessed
Undetermined
The status and trends are currently under investigation and proposed for
additional investigation in the Lake Michigan Basin (see Data Sources)
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Fully Assessed
Undetermined
The status and trends are currently under investigation and proposed for
additional investigation in the Lake Huron Basin (see Data Sources)
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Fully Assessed
Undetermined
The status and trends are currently under investigation and proposed for
additional investigation in the Lake Erie Basin (see Data Sources)
Not Fully Assessed
Undetermined
The status and trends are currently under investigation and proposed for
additional investigation in the Lake Ontario Basin (see Data Sources)
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
I
L!~ * " ffi, '
Purpose
Assess the basin-wide presence, location, and/or spatial extent of land cover in close proximity to
coastal wetlands. Infer the condition of coastal wetlands as a function of adjacent land cover.
Relevant coastal areas in the Great Lakes Basin have been mapped to assess the presence and
proximity of general land cover in the vicinity of wetlands using satellite remote-sensing data and
geographic information systems (GIS), providing a broad scale measure of land cover in the
context of habitat suitability and habitat vulnerability for a variety of plant and animal species.
For example, upland grassland and/or upland forest areas adjacent to wetlands may be important
areas for forage, cover, or reproduction for organisms. Depending upon the particular
physiological and sociobiological requirements of the different organisms, the wetland-adjacent
land cover extent (e.g., the width or total area of the upland area around the wetland) may be used
to describe the potential for suitable habitat, or the vulnerability of these areas of habitat to loss or
degradation. Although other SOLEC Indicators are described for Canada (see Data Sources) at a
broad scale, basin-wide "Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands" results are currently
unavailable for Canada.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the ecological (i.e., hydrologic and biogeochemical) functions of Great
Lakes coastal wetlands. Presence, wetland-proximity, and/or spatial extent of land cover should
be such that the hydrologic and biogeochemical functions of wetlands continue.
State of the Ecosystem
The state of the Great Lakes Ecosystem (i.e., the sum of ecological functions for the full Great
Lakes Basin) is currently under investigation and proposed for additional investigation (see Data
Sources). Differences in the regional status of "Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands" can be
determined using the existing data (see Pressures), but the results are preliminary and
observations are not conclusive. Nor can the regional trends be extrapolated to determine the
state of the ecosystem as a whole.
Percent forest adjacent to wetlands
The amount of forest land cover on the periphery of wetlands may indicate the amount of upland
wooded habitat for organisms that may travel relatively short distances to and from nearby
forested areas and wetland areas for breeding, water, forage, or shelter. Also, the affects of runoff
on wetlands from nearby areas (e.g., nearby agricultural land) may be ameliorated by
biogeochemical processes that occur in the forests on the periphery of the wetland. For example,
forest vegetation may contribute to the uptake, accumulation, and transformation of chemical
constituents in runoff. Broad-scale approaches to assessing percentage of forest directly adjacent
to wetlands may be calculated by summing the total area of forest land cover directly adjacent to
wetland regions in a reporting unit (e.g., an Ecoregion, a watershed, or a state) and dividing by
wetland total area in the reporting unit. This calculation ignores those upland areas of forest
outside of the adjacent "buffer zone" for wetlands within each reporting unit. Other buffer
distances may be appropriate for other habitat analyses, depending on the type of organism; for
runoff analyses the chemical constituent(s), flow dynamics, soil conditions, position of wetland in
the landscape, and other landscape characteristics should be carefully considered. Coastal wetland
areas may be generally assessed by calculating forest wetland-adjacency in specifically targeted
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
coastal wetlands of interest, by targeting narrow coastal areas such as areas within 1 km of the
lake shoreline (Figure 1), or by targeting all wetlands in a specific inland and coastal region of the
historical lake plain (Figure 2).
Percent grassland adjacent to wetlands
The amount of grassland on the periphery of wetlands may indicate the amount of upland
herbaceous plant habitat for organisms that might travel relatively short distances to and from
nearby upland grassland and wetland areas for breeding, water, forage, or shelter. As with
forested areas, the affect of runoff on wetlands from areas nearby (e.g., agricultural) land may be
ameliorated by biogeochemical processes that occur in herbaceous areas that are on the periphery
of the wetland. For example, herbaceous vegetation stabilizes soils and may reduce erosional soil
loss to nearby wetlands and other surface water bodies. As with forest calculations, broad-scale
approaches to assessing percentage of grassland directly adjacent to wetlands may be calculated
by summing the total area of grassland directly adjacent to wetland regions in a reporting unit.
Other buffer distances may be more appropriate for habitat analyses, depending on the type of
organism; for runoff analyses the chemical constituent(s), flow dynamics, soil conditions,
position of wetland in the landscape, and other landscape characteristics should be carefully
considered. Coastal wetland areas may be generally assessed by calculating grassland wetland-
adjacency in specifically targeted coastal wetlands of interest; by targeting narrow coastal areas
such as areas within 1 km of the lake shoreline (Figure 3), or by targeting all wetlands in a
specific inland and coastal region of the historical lake plain (Figure 4).
Standard Deviation
Classes describe the distribution of percentage of forest or percentage of grassland adjacent to
wetlands (among reporting units) relative to the mean value for the metric distribution. Class
breaks are generated by successively described by standard deviations from the mean value for
the metric. A two-color ramp (red to blue) emphasizes values (above to below) the mean value
for a metric, and is a useful method for visualizing spatial variability of a metric.
Pressures
Although several causal relationships have been postulated for changes in "Land Cover Adjacent
to Coastal Wetlands" for the Great Lakes Basin (see Data Sources), it is undetermined as to the
relative contribution of the various factors. However, some preliminary regional trends exist.
For example, in the 1 km coastal region of southern Lake Superior there is a relatively high
percent of forest adjacent to coastal wetlands, and in the 1 km coastal region of western Lake
Michigan there is a relatively low percent of forest adjacent to coastal wetlands. Differences in
percent forest between these two coastal zones generally track with respect to percent of
agricultural land cover or urban land cover, as measured with similar techniques (see Data
Sources). These results are preliminary and observations are not conclusive. Similar phenomena
are currently under investigation and proposed for additional regional and full-basin investigation.
Management Implications
Because critical forest and grassland habitat areas on the periphery of coastal wetlands may
influence the presence and fitness of localized and migratory organisms in the Great Lakes,
natural resource managers may use these data to determine the ranking of their areas of interest,
such as areas where they are responsible for coastal wetland resources, among other areas in the
Great Lakes. It is important for managers to understand that results for their areas of interest are
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
reported among a distribution for the entire Great Lakes Basin (USA) and that caution should be
used when interpreting the results at finer scales.
Comments from the author(s)
To conduct such measures at a broad scale, the relationships between wetland-adjacent land cover
and the functions of coastal wetlands need to be verified. This measure will need to be validated
fully with thorough field sampling data and sufficient a priori knowledge of such endpoints and
the mechanisms of impact. The development of indicators (e.g., a regression model using
adjacent vegetation characteristics and wetland hydroperiod) is an important goal, and requires
uniform measurement of field parameters across a vast geographic region to determine accurate
information to calibrate such models.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ricardo D. Lopez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research
Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, Landscape Ecology Branch, Las Vegas, Nevada,
USA
Data Sources
Lopez, R.D., D.T. Heggem, J.P. Schneider, R. Van Remortel, E. Evanson, L.A. Bice, D.W. Ebert,
J.G. Lyon, and R.W. Maichle. 2005. The Great Lakes Basin Landscape Ecology Metric Browser
(v2.0). EPA/600/C-05/011. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. Compact Disk and Online at http://www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/land-
sci/glb browser/GLB Landscape Ecology Metric Browser.htm.
Citation/Source
Lopez, R.D., D.T. Heggem, J.P. Schneider, R. Van Remortel, E. Evanson, L.A. Bice,
D.W. Ebert, J.G. Lyon, and R.W. Maichle. 2005. The Great Lakes Basin Landscape
Ecology Metric Browser (v2.0). EPA/600/C-05/011. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Compact Disk and Online at
http ://www.epa. gov/nerlesd 1 /land-
sci/glb browser/GLB Landscape Ecology Metric Browser.htm
List of Figures
Figure 1. Percent forest adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUCs), measured within 1 km of shoreline; data are reported as standard deviations from the
mean.
Source: Lopez et al, 2006
Figure 2. Percent forest adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUCs), measured within 5 km of shoreline; data are reported as standard deviations from the
mean.
Source: Lopez et al., 2006
Figure 3. Percent grassland adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUCs), measured within 1 km of shoreline; data are reported as standard deviations from the
mean.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Source: Lopez et al, 2006
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
|-2 - -1 Std. Dev.
1-1-0 Std. Dev.
Mean
JO- 1 Std. Dev.
|l - 2 Std, Dev.
\2 - 3 Std, Dev.
|> 3 Std. Dev.
Not Available
GLB Landscape Metrics
1 km of Shoreline
Standard Deviation
Percent forest
adjacent to wetlands
0 100 200
Kilometers
Figure 1. Percent forest adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUCs), measured within 1 km of shoreline; data are reported as standard deviations from the
mean.
Source: Lopez et al., 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
|-2--lStd. Dev.
1-1-0 Std. Dev.
Mean
0- IStd. Dev.
11 - 2 Std. Dav.
2-3 Std. Dev.
| > 3 Std. Dev.
Not Available
GIB Landscape Metrics
5 km of Shoreline
Standard Deviation
Percent forest
adjacent to wetlands
0 100 ZOO
Kilometers
Figure 2. Percent forest adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUCs), measured within 5 km of shoreline; data are reported as standard deviations from the
mean.
Source: Lopez et al, 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
I -2 - -1 Std. Dev.
-1 - 0 Std. Dev,
Mean
D - 1 Std. Dev.
il - 2 Std. Dev,
1 - 3 Std. Dev.
> 3 Std. Dev.
Not Available
GLB Landscape Metrics
1 km of Shoreline
Standard Deviation
Percent grassland
adjacent to wetlands
0 100 204
Kilcnre:erE
Figure 3. Percent grassland adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUCs), measured within 1 km of shoreline; data are reported as standard deviations from the
mean
Source: Lopez et al, 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
| -2 - -1 Std. Dev.
1-1-0 Std. Dev.
Mean
]O- IStd. Dev.
11 - 2 Std, Dav.
2-3 Std. Dev.
[ > 3 Std. Dew.
Not Available
GLB Landscape Metrics
5km of Shoreline
Standard Deviation
Percent grassland
adjacent to wetlands
100 200
Miles
0 100 ZOO
Kilometers
Figure 4. Percent grassland adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUCs), measured within 5 km of shoreline; data are reported as standard deviations from the
mean (Lopez et al, 2006).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Urban Density
Indicator #7000
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed/ Trend Not Assessed
Trend: Improving, Unchanging, Deteriorating or Undetermined
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake by Lake Assessment
Trends on a lake-to-lake basis are unavailable due to insufficient data.
Purpose
To assess the urban human population density in the Great Lakes basin, and to infer the degree of
land use efficiency for urban communities in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Socio-economic viability and sustainable development are the generally acceptable goals for
urban growth in the Great Lakes basin. Socio-economic viability indicates that development
should be sufficiently profitable and social benefits are maintained over the long term.
Sustainable development requires that we plan our cities to grow in a way so that they will be
environmentally sensitive, and not compromise the environment for future generations. Thus, by
increasing the densities in urban areas while maintaining low densities in rural and fringe areas,
the amount of land consumed by urban sprawl will be reduced.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Urban density is defined as the number of people per square kilometer of land for urban use in a
municipal or township boundary. Low urban density indicates urban sprawl that is low-density
development beyond the edge of service and employment, which separates residential areas from
commercial, educational, and recreational areas - thus requiring automobiles for transportation
(TCRP, 1998; TCRP, 2003; Neill et al. 2003). Urban sprawl has many detrimental effects on the
environment. This process consumes large quantities of land, multiplies the required
infrastructure, and increases the use of personal vehicles as the feasibility of alternate
transportation declines. When there is an increased dependency on personal vehicles,
consequentially, there is an increased demand for roads and highways, which in turn, produce
segregated land uses, large parking lots, and urban sprawl. These implications result in the
increased consumption of many non-renewable resources, the creation of impervious surfaces and
damaged natural habitats, and the production of many harmful emissions. Segregated land use
also lowers the quality of life as the average time spent traveling increases and the sense of
community diminishes. For this assessment, the population data used was derived from 1990-
2000 U.S. census and 1996 - 2001 Canadian census.
This indicator offers information on the presence, location, and predominance of human-built
land cover and implies the intensity of human activity in the urban area. It may provide
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
information about how such land cover types affect the ecological characteristics and functions of
ecosystems, as demonstrated by the use of remote-sensing data and field observations.
Status of Urban Density
Within the Great Lakes basin there are 10 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) in Ontario and 24
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the United States. In Canada, a CMA is defined as an
area consisting of one or more adjacent municipalities situated around a major urban core with a
population of at least 100,000. In the United States, an MSA must have at least one urbanized
area of 50,000 or more inhabitants and at least one urban cluster of at least a population of 10,000
but less than 50,000. The urban population growth in the Great Lakes basin show consistent
patterns in both the United States and Canada. The population in both countries has been
increasing over the past five to ten years. According to the 2001 Statistics Canada report, between
1996 and 2001, the population of the Great Lakes basin CMAs grew from 7,041,985 to
7,597,260, an increase of 555,275 or 7.9% in five years. The 2000 U.S. census reports that from
1990 to 2000 the population contained in the MSAs of the Great Lakes basin grew from
26,069,654 to 28,048,813, an increase of 1,979,159 or 7.6% in 10 years.
In the Great Lakes basin, as there has been an increase in population, there has also been an
increase in the average population densities of the CMAs and MSAs. However, using the CMA
or MSA as urban delineation has two major limitations. First, CMA and MSA contain substantial
land areas that is rural and by themselves result in over-estimation of the land area occupied by a
city or town. Second, these area delineations are based on a population density threshold and
hence provide information on residential distribution and not necessarily on other urban land
categories such as commercial land, recreational land. If within the CMAs and MSAs the amount
of land being developed is escalating at a greater rate than the population growth rate, the average
amount of developed land per person is increasing. For example, "In the GTA (Greater Toronto
Area) during the 1960s, the average amount of developed land per person was a modest 0.019
hectares. By 2001 that amount tripled to 0.058 hectares per person" (Gilbert et al. 2001).
Population densities illustrate the development patterns of an area. If an urban area has a low
population density this indicates that the city has taken on a pattern of urban sprawl and
segregated land uses. This conclusion can be made as there is a greater amount of land per
person; however, it is important to not only look at the overall urban density of an area, but also
the urban dispersion. For example, a CMA or MSA with a relatively low density could have
different dispersion characteristics than another CMA or MSA with the same density. One CMA
or MSA could have the distribution of people centred around an urban core, while another could
have a generally consistent sparse dispersion across the entire area and both would have the same
average density. Therefore, to properly evaluate the growth pattern of an area, it is necessary to
examine not only at the urban density but also at the urban dispersion.
While density is a readily understandable measure, it is challenging to quantify because of the
difficulty in estimating true urban extent in a consistent and unbiased way. The geographic
extents of MSAs and CMAs give approximate indications of relative city size, however, they tend
to contain substantial areas of rural land use. Recently satellite remote sensing data has been used
to map landuse of Canadian cities as part of a program to develop an integrated urban database,
the Canadian Urban Land Use Survey (CUrLUS). In southern Ontario a total of 11 cities have
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
been mapped using Landsat data acquired in the 1999-2002 timeframe and densities estimated
using population statistics from the 2001 Canadian census (Figure 1). Population density is
related with the city size. Bigger cities with higher population pressure have higher population
density and more efficient land use. Comparing the population densities of 11 cities (or CMAs) in
southern Ontario, derived from remote sensing mapping and 2001 census (Zhang and Guindon,
2005), the Great Toronto Area (GTA) has a higher population density (2848 km") than other
smaller cities.
The growth characteristics of 5 large Canadian cities have also been studied for the period 1986-
2000. Preliminary analyses (Figure 2) indicate that the areal extents of these communities have
grown at a faster rate than their populations and thus that sprawl continues to be a major problem.
A comparison of the ten CMAs and MSAs with the highest densities to the ten CMAs and MSAs
with the lowest densities in the Great Lakes basin shows there is a large range between the higher
densities and lower densities. Three of the ten lowest density areas have experienced a population
decline while the others have experienced very little population growth over the time period
examined. The areas with population declines and areas of little growth are generally occurring in
northern parts of Ontario and eastern New York State. Both of these areas have had relatively
high unemployment rates (between 8% and 12%) which could be linked to the slow growth and
decreasing populations.
Overall, the growing urban areas in the Great Lakes basin seem to be increasing their
geographical area at a faster rate than their population. This trend has many detrimental effects as
outlined previously, namely urban sprawl and its implications. Such trends may continue to
threaten the Great Lakes basin ecosystem unless this pattern is reversed. However, there is a need
for a solid definitive information about relying on relatively fine-scale urban delineation data as it
pertains to broad-scale trends for the Great Lakes region.
Pressures
Under the pressure of rapid population growth in the Great Lakes region, mostly in the
metropolitan cities, the urban development has been undergoing unprecedented growth. For
instance, the urban built-up area of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) has been doubled since
1960s. Sprawl is increasingly becoming a problem in rural and urban fringe areas of the Great
Lakes basin, placing a strain on infrastructure and consuming habitat in areas that tend to have
healthier environments than those that remain in urban areas. This trend is expected to continue,
which will exacerbate other problems, such as increased consumption of fossil fuels, longer
commute times from residential to work areas, and fragmentation of habitat. For example, at
current rates in Ontario, residential building projects will consume some 1,000 square kilometres
of the province's countryside, an area double the size of Metro Toronto, by 2031. Also, gridlock
could add 45% to commuting times, and air quality could suffer due to a 40% increase in vehicle
emissions (Loten 2004). The pressure urban sprawl exerts on the ecosystem has not yet been fully
understood. It may be years before all of the implications have been realized.
Management Implications
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
~<~™~™ ™™"'"'"'°°™"'" I «'"™'»»»»»»»»i™.»»»»»»»»»»»»»»™™™™™™™™™.»»»»»»»»'"""'»-'»"""""'«»'»»»»»»»»»»»»».«mw™.t [
"3£^*m,t«i^^^«<*« * -^ * ~- -Sc^// -^^V'j-^s
>rT; /..-"' "„ . , j
Urban density impacts can be more thoroughly explored and explained if they are linked to the
functions of ecosystems (e.g., as it relates to surface water quality). For this reason, interpretation
of this indicator is correlated with many other Great Lakes indicators and their patterns across the
Great Lakes. Urban density impacts on ecosystem functions should be linked to the ecological
endpoint of interest, and this interpretation may vary as a result of the specificity of land cover
type and the contemporaneous nature of the data. Thus, more detailed land cover specificity is
required.
To conduct such measures at a broad scale, the relationships between land cover and ecosystem
functions need to be verified. This measure will need to be validated fully with thorough field-
sampling data and sufficient a priori knowledge of such endpoints and the mechanisms of impact
(if applicable). The development of indicators (e.g., a regression model) is an important goal, and
requires uniform measurement of field parameters across a vast geographic region to determine
accurate information to calibrate such models.
The governments of the United States and Canada have both been making efforts to ease the
strain caused by pressures of urban sprawl by proposing policies and creating strategies. Although
this is the starting point in implementing a feasible plan to deal with the environmental and social
pressures of urban sprawl, it does not suffice. Policies are not effective until they are put into
practice and in the meantime our cities continue to grow at unsustainable rates. In order to
mitigate the pressures of urban sprawl, a complete set of policies, zoning bylaws and
redevelopment incentives must be developed, reviewed and implemented. As noted in the Urban
Density indicator report from 2000, policies that encourage infill and brownfields redevelopment
within urbanized areas will reduce sprawl. Compact development could save 20% in
infrastructure costs (Loten 2004). Comprehensive land use planning that incorporates "green"
features, such as cluster development and greenway areas, will help to alleviate the pressure from
development.
For urban sustainable development, we should understand fully the potential negative impacts of
urban high density development. High urban density indicates intensified human activity in the
urban area, which would be potential threads to the urban environment quality. Therefore, the
urbanization strategies should be based on the concept of sustainable development on the balance
the costs and benefits.
Comments from the author(s)
A thorough field-sampling protocol, properly validated geographic information, and other
remote-sensing-based data could lead to successful development of urban density as an indicator
of ecosystem function and ecological vulnerability in the Great Lakes basin. This indicator could
be applied to select sites, but would be most effective if used at a regional or basin-wide scale.
Displaying U.S. and Canadian census population density on a GIS map will allow increasing
sprawl to be documented over time in the Great Lakes basin on a variety of scales. For example,
the maps included with the 2003 Urban Density report show the entire Lake Superior basin and a
closer view of the southwestern part of the basin.
To best quantify the indicator for the whole Great Lakes watershed, a watershed-wide consistent
urban built-up database is needed.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Bert Guindon, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON;
Ric Lopez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV
Lindsay Silk, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview, ON; and
Ying Zhang, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Data Sources
Bradof, K. GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan Technological
University, MI, and James G. Cantrill, Communication and Performance Studies, Northern
Michigan University, MI.
GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach. 2000. Baseline Sustainability Data for the
Lake Superior Basin: Final Report to the Developing Sustainability Committee, Lake Superior
Binational Program, November 2000. Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI.
http://emmap.mtu.edu/gem/community/planning/lsb.html.
Gilbert, R., Bourne, L.S., and Gertler, M.S. 2001. The State of GTA in 2000. A report for the
Greater Toronto Services Board. Metropole Consultants, Toronto, ON.
Loten, A. 2004. Sprawl plan our 'last chance:' Caplan. Toronto Star, July 29, 2004.
Neill, K.E., Bonser, S.P., and Pelley, J. 2003. Sprawl Hurts Us All! A guide to the costs of sprawl
development and how to create livable communities in Ontario. Sierra Club of Canada, Toronto,
ON.
Statistics Canada. 2001. Community Profiles and 1996 census subdivision area profiles.
http://wwwl2.statcan.ca/english/profil01/PlaceSearchForml.cfm.
TCRP, 1989: The cost of Sprawl-Revisited, Transportation Research Board, TCRP report 39,
p40.
TCRP, 2002: Cost of Sprawl-2000. Transportation Research Board, TCRP report 74, p84.
U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent
Data, Detailed Tables.
http://factfmder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByRelationshipServlet?_ts=l 09848346281.
Y. Zhang and B. Guindon, 2005: Using satellite remote sensing to survey transportation-related
urban Sustainability. Part I: Methodology for indicator quantification. Accepted by Applied Earth
Observation and Geoinformation.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Population densities of cities with population more than 100,000 in southern Ontario of
the Great Lakes watershed for 2001.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Figure 2. Growth characterization of 5 urban areas in the period of 1986-2001.
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
3000
CM
J
>,
^_j
'co
c
CD
Q
g
Q.
o
0.
c
CO
_Q
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
I
J .
h
1600
1400
105
b
g d
106
Urban Population
a Toronto (GTA)
|3 Hamilton
London
CJ Kitchener
Q St. Catharines-Niagara
f Windsor
O Oshawa
|^ Barrie
j Kingston
j Guelph
| Peterborough
107
Figure 1. Population densities of cities with population more than 100,000 in southern Ontario of
the Great Lakes watershed for 2001. Source: 'Y. Zhang and B. Guindon, private communication'
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
150
140
o 130
CD
Q.
m
c
CO
.0
St.Catharines
Hamilton
London
Toronto (GTA)
110
100
Urban Growth 1986-2000
100 110 120 130 140
Urban Population Growth (%)
150
Figure 2. Growth characterization of 5 urban areas in the period of 1986-2001. Source: 'Y. Zhang
and B. Guindon, private communication'
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Land Cover/Land Conversion
Indicator #7002
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Undetermined
Low-intensity development increased 33.5%, road area increased
7.5%, and forest decreased 2.3% from 1992 and 2001. Agriculture
lost 210,000 ha of land to development. Approximately 50% of
forest losses were due to management and 50% to development.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Good
Undetermined
Lowest conversion rate of non-developed land to development and highest
conversion rate of non-forest to forest. Of the 4.2 million ha watershed area
on the U.S. side, 1,676 ha of wetland, 2,641 ha of agricultural land, and
14,300 ha of forest land were developed between 1992 and 2001.
Mixed
Undetermined
Intermediate to high rate of land conversions to development. Of the 1.2
million ha watershed, 9,724 ha of wetland, 78,537 ha of agricultural land,
and 57,529 ha of forest land were developed between 1992 and 2001.
Fair
Undetermined
Second lowest rate of conversion of land to development. Of the 4.1
million ha watershed area on the U.S. side, 4,314 ha of wetland, 17,881 ha
of agricultural land, and 17,730 ha of forest land were developed between
1992 and 2001.
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Poor
Undetermined
Highest conversion rate of non-developed to development LULC. Of the
5.0 million ha watershed area on the U.S. side, 3,352 ha of wetland, 52,502
ha of agricultural land, and 27,869 ha of forest land were developed
between 1992 and 2001.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Intermediate to high conversion rate of non-developed to development
LULC coupled with the lowest rates of wetland development. Of the 3.4
million ha watershed area on the U.S. side, 458 ha of wetland, 24,883 ha of
agricultural land, and 20,670 ha of forest land were developed between
1992 and 2001.
Purpose
•To document the proportion of land in the Great Lakes basin under major land use classes, and
assess the changes in land use over time; and
•To infer the potential impact of existing land cover and land conversion patterns on basin
ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted land use goal. This indicator supports Annex 13
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Binational land use data from the early 1990s was developed by Guindon (Natural Resources
Canada). Imagery data from the North American Landscape Characterization and the Canada
Centre for Remote Sensing archive were combined and processed into land cover using
Composite Land Processing System software. This data set divides the basin into four major land
use classes - water, forest, urban, and agriculture and grasses.
Later, finer-resolution satellite imagery allowed analysis to be conducted in greater detail, with a
larger number of land use categories. For instance, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has
compiled Landsat TM (Thematic Mapper) data, classifying the Canadian Great Lakes basin into
28 land use classes.
On the U.S. side of the basin, the Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) of the University
of Minnesota - Duluth has developed a 25-category classification scheme (Table 1) based on
1992 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) from the U.S. Geological Survey supplemented by 1992
WISCLAND, 1992 GAP, 1996 C-CAP and raw Landsat TM data to increase resolution in
wetland classes (Wolter et al. 2006). The 1992 Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding
and Reference (TIGER) data were also used to add roads on to the map. Within the U.S. basin,
the NRRI found the following:
Between two nominal time periods (1992 and 2001), the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes
watershed has undergone substantial change in many key LULC categories (Fig. 1). Of the total
change that occurred (798,755 ha, 2.5 % of watershed area), salient transition categories included
a 33.5 % increase in area of low-intensity development, a 7.5% increase in road area, and a
decrease of forest area by over 2.3 % - the largest LULC category and area of change within the
watershed. More than half of the forest losses involved transitions into early successional
vegetation (ESV), and hence, will likely remain in forest production of some sort. However,
nearly as much forest area was, for all practical purposes, permanently converted to developed
land. Likewise, agriculture lost over 50,000 more hectares of land to development than
forestland, much of which involved transitions into urban/suburban sprawl (See: Fig. 2).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Approximately 210,068 ha (81 %) of agricultural lands were converted to development, and 16.3
% of that occurred within 10 km of the Great Lakes shoreline.
Land use/land cover transitions between 1992 and 2001 within near-shore zones of the Great
Lakes (0-1, 1-5, 5-10 km) largely parallel those of the overall watershed. While the same
transition categories dominated, their proportions varied by buffered distance from the lakes.
Within the 0-1 km zone from the Great Lakes shoreline, conversions of forest to both ESV (9,087
ha, 5.0 % of total category change (TCC)) and developed land (8,657 ha, 5.6 % of TCC) were
the largest transitions, followed by conversion of 3,935 ha (1.9 % of TCC) of agricultural land to
developed. For the 1-5 km zone inland from the shore, forest to developed conversion was the
largest of the three transitions (17,049 ha, 11.0 % of TCC), followed by agricultural to developed
(14,279 ha, 6.8 % of TCC) and forest to ESV (13,116 ha, 7.3 % of TCC). Within the 5-10 km
zone from shoreline, transition category dominance was most similar to the trend for the whole
watershed, with 16,113 ha (7.7 % of TCC) of agriculture converted to developed, 14,516 ha (8.0
% of TCC) of forest converted to ESV, and 14,390 ha (9.3 % of TCC) of forestland being
developed by 2001. When all buffers form shoreline out to 10 km are combined, the forest to
developed transition category was the largest (40,099 ha, 25.9 % of TCC), followed by forest to
ESV (36,726 ha, 20.3 % of TCC), and agricultural to developed (34,328 ha, 16.3 % of TCC).
Contrary to previous decadal estimates showing an increasing forest area trend from the early
1980s to the early 1990s, due to agricultural abandonment and transitions of forest land away
from active management, we observed an overall decrease (~2.3 %) in forest area between 1992
and 2001. Explanation of this trend is largely unclear; however, both increased forest harvesting
practices in parts of the region coupled with forest clearing for new developments may be
overshadowing gains from the agricultural sources observed in previous decades.
When analyzed on a lake-by-lake basis (Fig. 3, Table 2), Michigan's watershed naturally has
experienced the greatest area of change from 1992 to 2001 (286587 ha, ~2.5 %), as its watershed
is entirely within the U.S., and hence, the largest analyzed. Michigan's watershed leads in all
LULC transition categories but two: 1) misc. veg. to flooded and 2) ESV to forest (Fig. 3).
When normalized by area, however, Michigan's proportion of LULC change is intermediate
when compared to the other Great Lakes watersheds on the U.S. side of the boarder. Although
not a Great Lake, and largely metropolitan (See: Fig 2), Lake St. Clair's watershed shows the
highest rates of change into development from wetland, ESV, agriculture, and forest sources (Fig.
4).
Of the Great Lakes, Erie's watershed shows the greatest proportion of land conversion to
development (87,077 ha, 1.74 %), while Superior's watershed had the lowest proportion (20,351,
0.48 %) (Table 2). For example, Erie had the highest proportion of agricultural land conversion
to development. However, Ontario's watershed showed the greatest proportion of forest
conversion to development (Fig. 4). Superior's watershed reflects a high proportion of lands
under forest management in that it has both the highest proportion of forest conversion to ESV
and visa-versa. Lastly, Huron's watershed had the highest proportion of wetlands being
converted to development, followed closely by Michigan and Erie (Fig. 4).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
,* *~,/« rt~? 5-«™?5 M< frT *\ ~-*y~^'9'«ann(
^
-------
Source: Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., and Neimi, GJ. 2006. Land use land cover change in the
U.S. Great Lakes basin 1992 to 2001. J. Great Lakes Res. 32: 607-628.
Figure 4. Lake-by-lake LULC transitions for the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin as a
percent of respective watershed area.
Source: Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., and Neimi, GJ. 2006. Land use land cover change in the
U.S. Great Lakes basin 1992 to 2001. J. Great Lakes Res. 32: 607-628.
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
1 Developed
2 Agriculture
3 Early Successional Vegetation
4 Forest
5 Wetland
6 Miscellaneous Vegetation
(1) Low Intensity Residential
(1) High Intensity Residential
(1) Commercial/Industrial
(1) Roads (Tiger 1992)
(3) Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
(1) Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
(6) Urban/Recreational Grasses
(2) Pasture/Hay
(2) Row Crops
(2) Small Grains
(3,6) Grasslands/Herbaceous
(2,6) Orchards/Vineyards/Other
(4) Deciduous Forest
(4) Evergreen Forest
(4) Mixed Forest
(3,6) Transitional
(3,6) Shrubland
(5) Open Water
(5) Unconsolidated Shore
(5) Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
(5) Lowland Grasses
(5) Lowland Scrub/Shrub
(5) Lowland Conifers
(5) Lowland Mixed Forest
(5) Lowland Hardwoods
Table 1. Classification scheme used to analyze LULC change in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Original 25 classes are listed in the left column, while aggregated LULC categories are listed in the right
column. Numbers in parentheses indicate aggregated class membership. Miscellaneous vegetation class
was generated (code 6) to represent land that was vegetated, but not mature forest or annual row crop.
Source: Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., and Neimi, GJ. 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
**fei /cur™' '
Erie Huron Michigan Ontario Superior Stdair Erie/St Clair
Total watershed area 4994413 4114697 11702442 3428229 4226924 564825 5559238
Non-dev. to
developed 87077 42857 155936 46507 20351 16112 103189
% of watershed 1.74 1.04 1.33 1.36 0.48 2.85 1.86
Table 2. Total area (ha) and proportion of watershed converted from non-developed to developed
LULC from 1992 to 2001 for each of the Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair.
Source: Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., and Neimi, GJ. 2006
200 -i
n
I-,
u
C
V
f> i*
t» * r
n
"U
> > Q US >- CD |2
.
f
J3
t
*-*
n
uu
lZXQ;IQ;^•:'(DCQ5«tDmzxQ
i°s g ;;S! 3 y3l
LULC Types
Figure 1. LULC type changes for the U.S. Great Lake basin by area and percent change
since 1992 (numbers above and below bars).
Source: Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., and Neimi, GJ. 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Figure 2. LULC change in the lower Green Bay basin of Lake Michigan (A) and the area
surrounding Detroit, MI (B).
Source: Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., andNeimi, GJ. 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Great Lakes LULC Transitions 1992-2001
I
y
Misc. veg. to Wetland to ESVto Agriculture Forest to Developed ESVto Agriculture Forest to Forest to
Flooded Developed Developed to Developed to Misc. Forest to Forest ESV Agriculture
Developed Veg.
LULC Transition Category
Figure 3. Lake-by-lake LULC transitions for the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., andNeimi, G.J. 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
1.6
1.4
g 1.0
s
I 0.8
o
£ 0.6
o
0.0
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
LULC Transitions as Percent of Respective Watershed Area
D Superior
• Michigan
D Huron
D St. Clair
• Erie
D Ontario
Misc. veg.to Wetland to Early Succ. Agriculture Forest to Developed Early Succ. Agriculture Forest to Forest to
Flooded Developed Veg.to to Developed to Misc. Veg. Veg.to to Forest Early Succ. Agriculture
Developed Developed Forest Veg.
LULC Transition Category
Figure 4. Lake-by-lake LULC transitions for the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin as a
percent of respective watershed area.
Source: Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., and Neimi, GJ. 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Brownfields Redevelopment
Indicator #7006
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Improving
Data from multiple sources are not consistent. Inventories of existing
brownfields are not available in Ontario so it is difficult to determine a trend
for the redevelopment of brownfields. Since more sites are being
redeveloped and/or are being planned, there is some trend of an
improvement in the Great Lakes basin, but it is not based on a quantitative
assessment. Funding and liability issues are obstacles for brownfields
redevelopment and can hinder progress.
Purpose
• To assess the area of redeveloped brownfields; and
• To evaluate over time the rate at which society remediates and reuses former developed
sites that have been degraded or abandoned.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal of brownfields redevelopment is to remove threats of contamination associated with
these properties and to bring them back into productive use. Remediation and redevelopment of
brownfields results in two types of ecosystem improvements:
1. reduction or elimination of environmental risks from contamination associated with these
properties; and
2. reduction in pressure for open space conversion as previously developed properties are reused.
State of the Ecosystem
Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where
expansion, redevelopment or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination. In 1999, 21,178 brownfields sites were identified in the United States which was
equivalent to approximately 33,010 hectares (81,568 acres) of land (The United States
Conference of Mayors). Although similar research does not exist for Canada and no inventory
exists for either contaminated or brownfields sites in Ontario, it is estimated that approximately
50,000 to 100,000 brownfields sites may exist in Canada (Globe 2006).
All eight Great Lakes states, Ontario and Quebec have programs to promote remediation or clean-
up and redevelopment of brownfields sites. Several of the brownfields clean-up programs have
been in place since the mid-to-late 1980s, but establishment of more comprehensive brownfields
programs that focus on remediation and redevelopment has occurred during the 1990s. Today,
each of the Great Lakes states has a voluntary clean-up or environmental response program and
there are over 5,000 municipalities with some type of brownfields program in the U.S. (Globe
2006). These clean-up programs offer a range of risk-based, site-specific background and health
clean-up standards that are applied based on the specifics of the contaminated property and its
intended reuse.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
In Quebec, the Revi-Sols program was established in 1998 and is aimed at assessing and cleaning
urban contaminated sites for the purpose of reuse. Through this program, it was possible to
collect some data on the number of contaminated sites in Quebec as it was compulsory for the
land owner to report this information to complete the application for financing. Based on this
program, more than 7,000 sites are included in this inventory.
To encourage redevelopment, Ontario's environmental legislation provides general protection
from environmental orders for historic contamination to municipalities, creditors and others.
Ontario Regulation 153/04, which came into effect on October 1, 2004, details the requirements
that property owners must meet in order to file a record of site condition. Two technical
documents are referenced by this regulation, one providing applicable site condition standards,
the other providing laboratory analytical protocols for the analysis of soil, sediment and ground
water. A Brownfields Environmental Site Registry offers property owners the opportunity to
complete an online record of site condition with this information then being publicly accessible.
This registry is currently voluntary. As of October 2005, property owners are required to file a
record of site condition before a property or commercial use to a more sensitive area, such as
residential. A record of site condition ensures that a property meets regulated site-assessment and
clean-up standards that are appropriate for the new use (Ontario Legislation Promotes Stronger
Healthier Community).
The 2003 enactment of the New York State Brownfield Law has resulted in increased interest by
private developers and municipalities in the redevelopment of contaminated properties.
Efforts to track brownfields redevelopment are uneven among Great Lakes states and provinces.
Not all jurisdictions track brownfields activities and methods vary where tracking does take place.
States, provinces and municipalities track the amount of funding assistance provided as well as
the number of sites that have been redeveloped. They also track the number of applications that
have been received for brownfields redevelopment funding. These are indicators of the level of
brownfields redevelopment activity in general, but they do not necessarily reflect land renewal
efforts (i.e., area of land redeveloped), the desired measure for this indicator. Compiling state and
provincial data to report a brownfields figure that represents the collective eight states and two
provinces is challenging. Several issues are prominent. First, state and provincial clean-up data
reflect different types of clean-ups, not all of which are "brownfields" (e.g. some include leaking
underground storage tanks and others do not). Second, some jurisdictions have more than one
program, and not necessarily all relevant programs engage in such tracking. Third, program
figures do not include clean-ups that have not been part of a state or provincial clean-up program
(e.g. local or private clean-ups). That said, several states and provinces do track acres of
brownfields remediated, although no Great Lakes state or province tracks acres of brownfields
redeveloped.
Information on area of brownfields remediated from Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Quebec and Ontario indicate that, as of August, 2002, a total of 13,413 hectares
(33,143 acres) have been remediated. Available data from eight Great Lakes states, Quebec and
Ontario indicate that almost 27,000 brownfields sites have participated in brownfields clean-up
programs since the mid-1990s, although the degree of remediation varies considerably. In
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Ontario, brownfields redevelopment is planned for 108 hectares (267 acres) of land between 2006
and 2008 for the municipalities that participated in this assessment.
Remediation is a necessary precursor to redevelopment. Remediation is often used
interchangeably with "clean-up," though brownfields remediation does not always involve
removing or treating contaminants. Many remediation strategies utilize either engineering or
institutional controls (also known as exposure controls) or adaptive reuse techniques that are
designed to limit the spread of, or human exposure to, contaminants left in place. In many cases,
the cost of treatment or removal of contaminants would prohibit reuse of land. All Great Lakes
states and provinces allow some contaminants to remain on site as long as the risks of being
exposed to those contaminants are eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels. Capping a site with
clean soil or restricting the use of groundwater are examples of these "exposure controls" and
their use has been a major factor in advancing brownfields redevelopment. Several jurisdictions
keep track of the number and location of sites with exposure controls, but monitoring the
effectiveness of such controls occurs in only three out of the ten jurisdictions.
Redevelopment is a criterion for eligibility under many state brownfields clean-up programs.
Though there is inconsistent and inadequate data on area of brownfields remediated and/or
redeveloped, available data indicate that both brownfields clean-up and redevelopment efforts
have risen dramatically in the mid-1990s and steadily since 2000. The increase is due to risk-
based clean-up standards and the widespread use of state liability relief mechanisms that allow
private parties to redevelop, buy or sell properties without being liable for contamination they did
not cause. Canadian law does not provide liability exemptions for new owners such as those in
the U.S. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Globe 2006).
Environmental liability is a major barrier to successful brownfields redevelopment in Canada.
Current owners do not want to sell brownfields sites for fear of liability issues in the future,
purchasers of land do not want to buy sites without some level of protection and municipalities
assume liability when they become site owners (Brownfields Redevelopment versus Greenfield
Development). The Ontario Ministry of Finance has proposed changes under Bill 130 (Municipal
Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006) which would allow brownfields to be advertised as "free" of
any provincial crown liens if a municipality assumes ownership of a property with a failed tax
sale. Also, under certain circumstances, this new policy will allow for the removal of crown liens
on brownfields properties at tax sale. If passed, this change in legislation would reduce some of
the issues related to civil and regulatory liabilities. One recommendation is that once a property
owner has met regulatory standards in the cleanup phase that they are not forced to meet stricter
standards in the future.
In 2005, the Government of Canada allocated $150 million for brownfields remediation. Other
initiatives include the Sustainable Technologies Canada Funding, and the Federal Contaminated
Sites Action Plan. Also, more financial tools for brownfields redevelopment are available though
a Community Improvement Plan (CIP), which allows municipalities to encourage brownfields
redevelopment by offering financial incentives. Other grants and loans can be provided to
supplement the CIP including an exemption or a reduction in the cost of fees associated with
permits, parkland dedications and zoning amendments. Tax incentives can also be provided by
municipalities to encourage the cleanup of contaminated sites (Financial Tools for Brownfields
Redevelopment).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
,
•.- .tx:ii=,.,,«,,ifa, .1. ,i ==, :a,,.i, i,,,,,,,i, i,=£,.»i,
Data also indicate that the majority of clean-ups in the Great Lakes states and provinces are
occurring in older urbanized areas, many of which are located on the shoreline of the Great Lakes
and in the basin. Based on the available information, the state of brownfields redevelopment is
mixed and improving.
Pressures
Laws and policies that encourage new development to occur on undeveloped land instead of on
urban brownfields, are significant and on-going pressures that can be expected to continue.
Programs to monitor, verify and enforce effectiveness of exposure controls are in their infancy,
and the potential for human exposure to contaminants may inhibit the redevelopment of
brownfields. Several Great Lakes states allow brownfields redevelopment to proceed without
cleaning up contaminated groundwater as long as no one is going to use or come into contact with
that water. However, where migrating groundwater plumes ultimately interface with surface
waters, some surface water quality may continue to be at risk from brownfields contamination
even where brownfields have been remediated.
Management Implications
Programs to monitor and enforce exposure controls need to be fully developed and implemented.
More research is needed to determine the relationship between groundwater supplies and
Great Lakes surface waters and their tributaries. Because brownfields redevelopment results in
both reduction or elimination of environmental risks from past contamination and reduction in
pressure for open space land conversion, data should be collected that will enable an evaluation of
each of these activities. For every hectare (2.5 acres) developed in a brownfields project, it can
save an estimated minimum of 4.5 hectares (11 acres) of land from being developed in an
outlying area (Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future).
Ontario is expected to add 3.7 million more people to its population in the next 25 years with
most of the growth occurring in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (western end of Lake Ontario)
(Places to Grow: Better Choices, Brighter Future). Brownfields redevelopment needs to be a part
of the planning and development reform in order to address the issue of urban sprawl.
Comments from the author(s)
Great Lakes states and provinces have begun to track brownfields remediation and or
redevelopment, but the data is generally inconsistent or not available in ways that are helpful to
assess progress toward meeting the terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Though
some jurisdictions have begun to implement web-based searchable applications for users to query
the status of brownfields sites, the data gathered are not necessary consistent, which presents
challenges for assessing progress in the entire basin. States and provinces should develop
common tracking methods and work with local jurisdictions incorporating local data to online
databases that can be searched by: 1) area remediated; 2) mass of contamination removed or
treated (i.e., not requiring an exposure control); 3) type of treatment; 4) geographic location; 5)
level of urbanization; and 6) type of reuse (i.e., commercial, residential, open, none, etc). A recent
development in the province of Ontario is the designation of a Provincial Brownfields
Coordinator who will coordinate provincial brownfields activities and provide a single point of
access on brownfields in Ontario.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Acknowledgments
Authors: Victoria Pebbles, Senior Project Manager, Transportation and Sustainable Development,
Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, vpebbles@glc.org, www.glc.org.
Updated by: Stacey Cherwaty-Pergentile, A/Science Liaison Officer, Environment Canada,
Burlington, ON, Stacey.Cherwaty@ec.gc.ca, and Elizabeth Hinchey Malloy, Great Lakes
Ecosystem Extension Specialist, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, Chicago, IL,
Hinchev.Elizabeth@epa.gov. www.iisgcp.org.
Contributors
Personal communication with Great Lakes State Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program
Managers:
David E. Hess, Director, Land Recycling Program, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Andrew Savagian, Outreach Specialist ,Remediation and Redevelopment (RR) Program
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Ron Smedley, Brownfield Redevelopment Coordinator, Michigan DEQ Remediation and
Redevelopment
Gerald Stahnke, Project Leader, Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Unit, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Susan Tynes Harrington, Indiana Brownfields Program, Indiana Finance Authority
Amy Yersavich, Manager, Voluntary Action Program, Ohio EPA
Personal communication with Provincial as well as Canadian municipalities within the Great
Lakes basin including:
City of Barrie, Nancy Farrer, Policy Planner
City of Cornwall, Ken Bedford, Senior Planner
City of Hamilton, Carolynn Reid, Brownfields Coordinator
City of Mississauga, Jeff Smylie, Environmental Engineer
City of Kingston, Joseph Davis, Manager, Brownfields and Initiatives
City of Kitchener, Terry Boutilier, Brownfields Coordinator
City of London, Terry Grawey, Planning Division
City of Thunder Bay, Katherine Dugmore, Manager of Planning Division
City of Toronto, Glenn Walker, Economic Development Officer
City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO)
Province of Quebec, Michel Beaulieu
Data Sources
Selected Annual Reports of state cleanup programs.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Report on Brownfields Redevelopment - What has been
Achieved, What Remains to be done, May 2006.
http://www.amo. on.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Eventsl&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm
&ContentID=65396. last accessed October 11, 2006.
Brownfields Redevelopment versus Greenfield Development, City of Hamilton Planning and
Development Department, http://www.vision2020.hamilton.ca/downloads/POINTS-TO-
PONDER-Brownfields-vs-Greenfield-
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Development.pdf#search=%22Brownfields%20Redevelopment%20versus%20Greenfield%20De
velopment%2C%20Citv%20oP/o20Hamilton%20Planning%20and%20Development%20Departm
ent%22. last accessed October 11, 2006.
Brownfields Redevelopment in Small Urban and Rural Municipalities, Summer 2006. Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing. Government of Ontario, ISBN 1-4249-1635-6.
www.brownfields.ontario.ca.
Brownfields Ontario website www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts 1 3305_l.html, last
accessed October 11, 2006.
Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future. A National Brownfields Redevelopment Strategy for
Canada. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 2003, ISBN 1-894737-05-9,
http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/Publications/HTML/SOD_Brownfields-Strategy_E.htm. last accessed
October 11,2006.
Delcan, Golder Associates Ltd., and McCarthy - Tetrault. Urban Brownfields: Case Studies for
Sustainable Economic Development. The Canadian Example. Canada Mortgage and Housing,
p. 1.
Financial Tools for Brownfields Redevelopment, Summer 2006. Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing. Government of Ontario, ISBN 104249-1956-8. www.brownfields.Ontario.ca.
Globe 2006, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp 254 - 259, ISSN 0149-8738, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.,
Washington, D.C., 2006.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Remarks from Honourable John Gerretsen,
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Annual Conference, August 15, 2006.
www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts 1 276111 .html, last accessed October 11, 2006.
Ontario's Brownfields Legislation Promotes Stronger, Healthier Communities - June 2006, News
Release, Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/2005/062201.htm. last accessed October 11, 2006.
Places to Grow: Better Choices, Bright Futures - A Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe, November 2005, Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Renewal, ISBN 0-7794-9089-4.
Stakeholders Urge Government to Limit Brownfields Liability,
http://www.willmsshier.com/newsletters.asp?id=30, last accessed October 11, 2006.
The United States Conference of Mayors. A National Report in Brownfields Redevelopment -
Volume 3. Feb. 2000, p. 12.
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of acres remediated and number of sites remediated in the Great Lakes basin,
1990-2006.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
$*"*^
' ^i^3|i^t&il.ia*M^
Source: Various state, municipal and provincial brownfields coordinators and city planners
List of Figures
Figure 1. Redeveloped brownfields site, Spencer Creek, Hamilton, Ontario.
Source: City of Hamilton
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
State/Province
WI
PA
OH
MI
IN
MN
IL
NY
ON
QC
Total
Acres remediated
1,220
13,229
4,204
not tracked
not tracked
7,047
6,412
55
92
741
33,143
Hectares remediated
494
5354
1701
not tracked
not tracked
2852
2595
22
37
300
13,413
Time frame
2004-2006
2000- 2006
1994-2006
1998-2002
1990-2001
2000-2002
2002-2005
1998-2002
Sites remediated
18,000
1,097
156
5,539f
382
462
899
16
13
309
26,873
Time frame
1994-2005
1996-2002
1996-2002
1995-2002
1997-2002
1998-2002
1990-2001
2000-2002
2002-2005
1998-2005
Table 1. Summary of acres remediated and number of sites remediated in the Great Lakes basin,
1990-2006.
Source: Various state, municipal and provincial brownfields coordinators and city planners
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Figure 1. Redeveloped brownfields site, Spencer Creek, Hamilton, Ontario.
Source: City of Hamilton
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Indicator #7028
Assessment: Not Assessed
Purpose
To assess the number of environmental and conservation farm
plans and environmentally friendly practices in place such as:
integrated pest management to reduce the potential adverse
impacts of pesticides; conservation tillage and other soil preser-
vation practices to reduce energy consumption and sustain natu-
ral resources and to prevent ground and surface water contami-
nation.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal is to create a healthy and productive land base that sus-
tains food and fiber, maintains functioning watersheds and natu-
ral systems, enhances the environment and improves the rural
landscape. The sound use and management of soil, water, air,
plant, and animal resources is needed to prevent degradation of
agricultural resources. The process integrates natural resource,
economic, and social considerations to meet private and public
needs. This indicator supports Annex 2, 3, 12 and 13 of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Agriculture accounts for approxi-
mately 35% of the land area of
the Great Lakes basin and domi-
nates the southern portion of the
basin. In years past, excessive
tillage and intensive crop rota-
tions led to soil erosion and the
resulting sedimentation of major
tributaries. Inadequate land man-
agement practices contributed to
approximately 57 metric tons of
soil eroded annually by the
1980s. Ontario estimated its costs
of soil erosion and nutrient/pesti-
cide losses at $68 million (CA)
annually. In the United States,
agriculture is a major user of pes-
ticides, with an annual use of
24,000 metric tons. These prac-
tices lead to a decline of soil
organic matter. Since the late
1980s, there has been increasing
participation by Great Lakes
basin farmers in various soil and
water quality management pro-
grams. Today's conservation systems have reduced the rates of
U.S. soil erosion by 38% in the last few decades. The adoption
of more environmentally responsible practices has helped to
replenish carbon in the soils back to 60% of turn-of-the-century
levels.
Both the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) provide conservation planning
advice, technical assistance and incentives to farm clients and
rural landowners. Clients develop and implement conservation
plans to protect, conserve, and enhance natural resources that
harmonize productivity, business objectives and the environ-
ment. Successful implementation of conservation planning
depends largely upon the voluntary participation of clients.
Figure 1 shows the number of acres of cropland in the U.S. por-
tion of the Great Lakes basin that are covered under a conserva-
tion plan.
The Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) encourages farm-
ers to develop action plans and adopt environmentally responsi-
ble management practices and technologies. Since 1993, the
Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC), OMAF, and the
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) have
cooperated to deliver EFP workshops. The Canadian federal
government, through various programs over the years, has pro-
Total Atres Planned
CHO-5,OCO Acres
b.UIJC Ib-X'jAtri-a
I I 15,000 -25.000 Acres
•I 25,000 - 50.000 Acres
Figure 1. Acres of cropland in U.S portion of the basin covered under a conservation plan, 2003.
Source: Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
211
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
vided funding for EFP. As can be seen from Figure 2 the number
of EFP incentive claims rose dramatically from 1997 through
2004, particularly for the categories of soil management, water
wells, and storage of agricultural wastes. As part of Ontario's
Clean Water Strategy, the Nutrient Management Act (June 2002)
is setting province-wide standards to address the effects of agri-
cultural practices on the environment, particularly as they relate
to land-applied materials containing nutrients.
3000
2500
2000
in
| 1500
O
1000
500
0
_.-»
^••*" 2763
- .^*
.^^^^^2488
^^^2338
4^2097 m
.' *f~ 2021
/ ^»'''~
y ^^^^1680
y ^^^^ 1506 1191
f° VH252
X"" S' "
*' "L ' 1029 802
^<..'^°^^''-^
<02^"»37 ^ 'ZT~
I33 IjdteS*.1*-'-""- m 295 311 «1
^33 18°
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Yeur
-•— Soil Management -»— Stream Ditich/Floodplain
Management
-•-Water Wells -"-Storage of Petroleum
Products
— *~Storage of Agricultural —•—Pesticide Storage/Handling
Wastes
Figure 2. EFP: Cumulative Number of Incentive Claims by
Worksheet (Issues). Six of 23 worksheets/issues are represented
here - these six worksheets represent 70% of all EFP incentive
claims. Three worksheets (Soil, Water and Storage of Agricultural
Wastes) represent significant environmental actions taken by
farmers.
Source: Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association
USDA's voluntary Environmental Quality Incentives Program
provides technical, educational, and financial assistance to
landowners that install conservation systems. The Conservation
Reserve Program allows landowners to convert environmentally
sensitive acreage to vegetative cover. States may add funds to
target critical areas under the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program. The Wetlands Reserve Program is a vol-
untary program to restore wetlands.
Pressures
The trend towards increasing farm size and concentration of
212
livestock will change the face of agriculture in the basin.
Development pressure from the urban areas may increase the
conflict between rural and urban landowners. This can include
pressures of higher taxes, traffic congestion, flooding, nuisance
complaints (odours) and pollution. By urbanizing farmland, we
may limit future options to deal with social, economic, food
security and environmental problems.
Management Implications
In June of 2002, the Canadian government announced a multi-
billion dollar Agricultural Policy Framework (APF). It is a
national plan to strengthen Canada's agricultural sector, with a
goal for Canada to be a world leader in food safety and quality.
and in environmentally responsible production and innovation.
while improving business risk management and fostering renew-
al. As part of the APF, the Canadian government is making a
$100 million commitment over a 5-year period to help Canadian
farmers increase implementation of EFPs. The estimated com-
mitment to Ontario for the environment is $67.66 million while
the province is committing $42.72 million. These funds are
available to Ontario's farmers since the federal government has
signed a contribution agreement with the OFEC in the spring of
2005. This is expected in the fall of 2004. Currently Ontario's
Environmental Farm Plan workbook has been revised for new
APF farm planning initiatives launched in the spring of 2005.
Ontario Farm Plan workshops are being delivered starting in the
spring of 2005 under the new APF initiative.
In the spring of 2004, OMAF released the Best Management
Practices (BMP) book Buffer Strips. This book assists farmers to
establish healthy riparian zones and address livestock grazing
systems near water - two important areas for improvements in
water quality and fish habitat. Pesticide use surveys, conducted
every 5 years since 1983, were conducted in 2003. Results were
released in June 2004.
The U.S. Clean Water Action Plan of 1998 calls for USDA and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to cooper-
ate further on soil erosion control, wetland restoration, and
reduction of pollution from farm animal operations. National
goals are to install 2 million miles of buffers along riparian cor-
ridors by 2002 and increase wetlands by 100,000 acres annually
by 2005. Under the 1999 USEPA/USDA Unified National
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operation (AFO), all AFOs will
have comprehensive nutrient management plans implemented by
2009. The Conservation Security Program was launched in 2004.
and it provides financial incentives and rewards for producers
who meet the highest standards of conservation and environmen-
tal management on their operations.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Peter Roberts, Water Management Specialist, Ontario
-------
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), Guelph, Ontario
Canada, peter.roberts@omaf.gov.on.ca;
Ruth Shaffer, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS),
ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov; and
Roger Nanney, United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
roger.nanney@in.usda.gov.
Sources
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. 2004.
Environmental Farm Plan Database.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
213
-------
Economic Prosperity
Indicator #7043
Assessment: Mixed (for Lake Superior Basin), Trend Not
Assessed
Data are not system-wide.
Purpose
To assess the unemployment rates within the Great Lakes
basin; and
To infer the capacity for society in the Great Lakes region to
make decisions that will benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem
(when used in association with other Great Lakes indicators).
Ecosystem Objective
Human economic prosperity is a goal of all governments. Full
employment (i.e. unemployment below 5% in western societies)
is a goal for all economies.
State of the Ecosystem
This information is presented to supplement the report on
Economic Prosperity in SOLEC 2000 Implementing Indicators
(Draft for Review, November 2000). In 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990,
1995 and 2000 the civilian unemployment rate in the 16 U.S.
Lake Superior basin counties averaged about 2.0 points above
the U.S. average, and above the averages for their respective
states, except occasionally Michigan (Figure 1). For example.
the unemployment rate in the four Lake Superior basin counties
1975
1980
1985 1990
Year
1995
2000
• United States DMichigan
• Minnesota nWisconsin
]U.S. Lake Superior Counties nOntario L. Superior Basin 1996
Figure 1. Unemployment rate in the U.S. (national), Michigan.
Wisconsin, and the U.S. portion and Ontario portion of the Lake
Superior basin, 1975-2000.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada
in Minnesota was consistently higher than for Minnesota overall.
2.7 points on average but nearly double the Minnesota rate of
6.0% in 1985. Unemployment rates in individual counties
ranged considerably, from 8.6% to 26.8% in 1985, for example.
In the 29 Ontario census subdivisions mostly within the Lake
Superior watershed, the 1996 unemployment rate for the popula-
tion 15 years and over was 11.5%. For the population 25 years
and older, the unemployment rate was 9.1%. By location the
rates ranged from 0% to 100%; the extremes, which occur in
adjacent First Nations communities, appear to be the result of
small populations and the 20% census sample. The most popu-
lated areas, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, had unemploy-
ment rates for persons 25 years and older of 9.4% and 8.6%.
respectively. Of areas with population greater than 200 in the
labour force, the range was from 2.3% in Terrace Bay Township
to 31.0% in Beardmore Township. Clearly, the goal of full
employment (less than 5% unemployment) was not met in either
the Canadian or the U.S. portions of the Lake Superior basin
during the years examined.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and
16.0
ft
Individuals Individuals Individuals Families
1979 1989 1999 1996
Year
• USA • Minnesota D U.S. L. Superior Basin
D Michigan • Wisconsin • Ontario L. Superior Basin
Figure 2. Individuals below poverty level in the U.S. (national).
Michigan, Wisconsin, and the U.S. Great Lakes basin counties.
1979-1999, and families below poverty level in Ontario Great
Lakes basin subdivisions, 1996.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada
Environmental Outreach, Michigan Technological University.
MI; and
James G. Cantrill, Communication and Performance Studies.
Northern Michigan University, MI.
214
-------
1999
• USA
D Michigan
I Minnesota
I Wisconsin
D Lake Superior Basin
Figure 3. Children under age 18 below the poverty level, 1979-
1999, U.S. (national), Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and U.S.
portion of the Lake Superior basin.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Sources
GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach. 2000.
Baseline Sustainability Data for the Lake Superior Basin: Final
Report to the Developing Sustainability Committee, Lake
Superior Binational Program, November 2000. Unpublished
report, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI.
htto://emmap.mtu.edu/gem/communitv/Dlanning/lsb.html.
for the overall population, children under age 18, families, and
persons age 65 and older. Two examples of trends in those meas-
ures are shown in Figures 2 and 3. For persons of all ages within
the U.S. Lake Superior basin for whom poverty status was estab-
lished, 10.4% were below the poverty level in 1979. That figure
had risen to 14.5% in 1989, a rate of increase higher than the
states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and the U.S. over-
all over the same period. Poverty rates for individuals and chil-
dren in the U.S. Lake Superior basin in 1979, 1989, and 1999
ranged from 10.4% to 17.1%, while 12.8% of families in the
Ontario Lake Superior basin had incomes below the poverty
level in 1996. Poverty rates in all areas were lower in 1999, but
the U.S. Lake Superior basin (and Ontario portion of the basin in
1996) was higher than any of the three states. The 1979 poverty
rate for counties within the Lake Superior basin ranged from a
low of 4.4% in Lake County, Minnesota, to a high of 17.0% in
Houghton County, Michigan. In 1989 and 1999, those same
counties again were the extremes. Similarly, among children
under age 18, poverty rates in the Great Lakes basin portions of
the three states in 1979, 1989, and 1999 exceeded the rates of
Minnesota and Wisconsin as a whole, though they remained
below the U.S. rate. In a region where one-tenth to one-sixth of
the population lives in poverty, environmental Sustainability is
likely to be perceived by many as less important than economic
development.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2003
Statistics Canada. 1996. Beyond 20/20 Census Subdivision Area
Profiles for the Ontario Lake Superior Basin.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Population by poverty status in 1999
for counties: 2000.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/2000census/poppvstatOO.ht
ml.
U.S. Census Bureau. State & County Quick Facts 2000. Table
DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics.
http://censtats.census.gov/data/MI/ O4026.pdf#page=3.
U.S. Census Bureau. USA Counties 1998 CD-ROM (includes
unemployment data from Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Authors' Commentary
As noted in the State of the Great Lakes 2001 report for this
indicator, unemployment may not be sufficient as a sole meas-
ure. Other information that is readily available from the U.S.
Census Bureau and Statistics Canada includes poverty statistics
215
-------
40000 -i
38000 -
36000 -
03
TS 34000 -
0
g, 32000 -
£ 30000 -
.0
1 28000 -
26000 -
24000 -
19
1 \ »
/ ¥ \
\ I
\ - f\
t \ V-\
w
/ ^
/
/
50 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
— •— USGS — •— GLC
Figure 3. U.S. basin water withdrawals, 1950-2000.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1950-2000. Great Lakes
Commission (GLC).
30000 -
^ 25000 -
03
§ 20000 -
03
D5
"5 15000 -
c
o
g 10000 -
5000 -
0 -
19
"*\,
^^*^\.
^* ^«
»/ \
/
/
70 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
— *— Gaia — • — GLC
Figure 4. Canadian basin water withdrawals, 1972-2000.
Source: Gaia Economic Research Associates, 1999 (based on data
from Environment Canada and Statistics Canada). Great Lakes
Commission (GLC).
incorporation into manufactured products. This quantity, referred
to as "consumptive use," represents the volume of water that is
depleted due to human activity. It is argued that consumptive
use, rather than total water withdrawals, provides a more suitable
indicator on the sustainability of human water use in the region.
Basin-wide consumptive use was estimated at 3,166 MGD in
2000. Although there is no consensus on an optimal rate of con-
sumptive use, a loss of this magnitude does not appear to be
placing significant pressure on water resources. The long-term
Net Basin Supply of water (sum of precipitation and run-off,
minus natural evapotranspiration), which represents the maxi-
mum volume that can be consumed without permanently reduc-
ing the availability of water, and equals the volume of water dis-
charged from Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence River, is esti-
mated to be 132,277 MGD (estimate is for 1990-1999 period,
Environment Canada 2004). It should be noted, however, that
focusing on these basin-wide figures can obscure pressures at
the local watershed level.
Moreover, calculating consumptive use is a major challenge
because of the difficulty in tracking the movement of water
through the hydrologic cycle. Consumptive use is currently
inferred by multiplying withdrawals against various coefficients,
depending on use type. For instance, it is assumed that thermo-
electric users consume as little as 1% of withdrawals, compared
to a loss rate of 70-90% for irrigation (GLC 2003). There are
inconsistencies in the coefficients used by the various states and
provinces. Estimating techniques were even more rudimentary in
the past, making it problematic to discuss historical consumptive
use trends. Due to these data quality concerns, it may not yet be
appropriate to consider consumptive use as a water use indicator.
Water removals from diversions, by contrast, are monitored
more closely, a result of the political attention that prompted the
region's governors and premiers to sign the Great Lakes Charter
in 1985. The Charter and its Annexes require basin-wide notifi-
cation and consultation for water exports, while advocating that
new diversions be offset by a commensurate return of water to
the basin. The two outbound diversions approved since 1985
have accommodated this goal by diverting water in from exter-
nal basins. The outbound diversions already in operation by
1985, most notably the Chicago diversion, were not directly
affected by the Charter, but these losses are more than offset by
inbound diversions located in northwestern Ontario. Thus, there
is currently no net loss of water due to diversions.
There is growing concern over the depletion of groundwater
resources, which cannot be replenished following withdrawal
with the same ease as surface water bodies. Groundwater was
withdrawn at a rate of 1,541 MGD in 2000, making up 3% of
total water withdrawals (GLC 2004). This rate may not have a
major effect on the basin as a whole, but high-volume with-
drawals have outstripped natural recharge rates in some loca-
tions. Rapid groundwater withdrawals in the Chicago-
219
-------
Milwaukee region during the late 1970s produced cones of
depression in that local aquifer (Visocky 1997). However, the
difficulty in mapping the boundaries of groundwater supplies
makes unclear whether the current groundwater withdrawal rate
is sustainable.
Pressures
The Great Lakes Charter, and its domestic legal corollaries in the
U.S. and Canada, was instituted in response to concerns over
large-scale water exports to markets such as the arid southwest-
ern U.S. There does not appear to be significant momentum for
such long distance shipments due to legal and regulatory barri-
ers, as well as technical difficulties and prohibitive costs. In the
immediate future, the greatest pressure will come from commu-
nities bordering the basin, where existing water supplies are
scarce or of poor quality. These localities might look to the Great
Lakes as a source of water. Two border-basin diversions have
been approved under the Charter and have not resulted in net
losses of water to the basin. This outcome, however, was
achieved through negotiation and was not proscribed by treaty or
law.
As for withdrawals within the basin, there is no clear trend in
forecasting regional water use. Reducing withdrawals, or at least
mitigating further increases, will be the key to lessening con-
sumptive use. Public water systems currently account for the
bulk of consumptive use, comprising one-third of the total, and
withdrawals in this category have been increasing in recent years
despite the decline in total withdrawals. Higher water prices
have been widely advocated in order to reduce water demand.
Observers have noted that European per-capita water use is only
half the North American level, while prices in the former are
twice as high. However, economists have found that both resi-
dential and industrial water demand in the U.S. and Canada are
relatively insensitive to price changes (Renzetti 1999, Burke et
al. 2001)3. The over-consumption of water in North America
may be more a product of lifestyle and lax attitudes. Higher
prices may still be crucial for providing public water systems
with capital for repairs; this can prevent water losses by fixing
system leaks, for example. But reducing the underlying demand
may require other strategies in addition to price increases, such
as public education on resource conservation and promotion of
water-saving technologies.
Assessing the availability of water in the basin will be compli-
cated by factors outside local or human control. Variations in cli-
mate and precipitation have produced long-term fluctuations in
surface water levels in the past. Global climate change could
cause similar impacts; research suggests that water levels may be
permanently lower in the future as a result. Differential move-
ment of the Earth's crust, a phenomenon known as isostatic
rebound, may exacerbate these effects at a local level. The crust
220
•i' s: 2007
is rising at a faster rate in the northern and eastern portions of
the basin, shifting water to the south and west. These crustal
movements will not change the total volume of water in the
basin, but may affect the availability of water in certain areas.
Acknowledgments
Author: Mervyn Han, Environmental Careers Organization, on
appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office.
Rebecca Lameka (Great Lakes Commission), Thomas Crane
(Great Lakes Commission), Wendy Leger (Environment
Canada), and Fabien Lengelle (International Joint Commission)
assisted in obtaining data for this report. Steven Renzetti (Brock
University) and Michel Villeneuve (Environment Canada) assist-
ed in explaining water consumption economics.
Site-specific water withdrawal data courtesy of James Casey
(Illinois Department of Natural Resources), Sean Hunt
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources), Paul Spahr (Ohio
Department of Natural Resources) and Ralph Spaeth (Indiana
Department of Natural Resources). Ontario water permit map
courtesy of Danielle Dumoulin (Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources).
Sources
Burke, D., Leigh, L., and Sexton, V. 2001. Municipal water pric-
ing, 1991-1999. Environment Canada, Environmental
Economics Branch.
Environment Canada. 2004. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Regulation Office.
Gaia Economic Research Associates. 1999. Water demands in
the Canadian section of the Great Lakes basin 1972-2021.
Great Lakes Commission (GLC). 2004. Great Lakes regional
water use database.
http://www.glc.org/wateruse/database/search.html.
Great Lakes Commission (GLC). 2003. Toward a water
resources management decision support system for the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin: status of data and information
on water resources, water use, and related ecological impacts.
Chapter.3, pp.58-62.
http://www.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss/finalreport.html.
Harris, J., and Tate, D. 1999. Water demands in the Canadian
section of the Great Lakes basin, 1972-2021. Gaia Economic
Research Associates (GERA) Report, Ottawa, ON.
Mills, E.L., Leach, J.H., Carlton, J.T., and Secor, C.L. 1993.
-------
Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a history of biotic crises and
anthropogenic introductions./. Great Lakes Res. 19(1): 1-54.
Renzetti, S. 1999. Municipal water supply and sewage treatment:
costs, prices and distortions. The Canadian Journal of
Economics. 32(3):688-704.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1950-2000. Estimated Water
Use in the United States: circulars published at 5-year intervals
since 1950. http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1985. Estimated use of water
in the United States in 1985. 68pp.
Visocky, A.P. 1997. Water-level trends and pumpage in the deep
bedrock aquifers in the Chicago region, 1991-1995. Illinois State
Water Survey Circular 182. Cited in International Joint
Commission. 2000. Protection of the waters of the Great Lakes:
final report to the governments of Canada and the United States.
Chapter.6, pp 20-26. http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/
html/finalreport.html.
Endnotes
1 USGS estimates show water withdrawals in the U.S. Great
Lakes watershed increasing from 25,279 MGD in 1955 to a peak
in the 36-39,000 MGD range during the 1970-80 period, but
dropping to the 31-32,000 MGD range for 1985-1995. GLC
reported U.S. water withdrawals in the 32-34,000 range for
1989-1993, and around 30,000 MGD since 1998, with 30,977
MGD in 2000.
2 Historical Canadian data from Gaia Economic Research
Associates (GERA) report, and are based on data from Statistics
Canada and Environment Canada. GERA reported that Canadian
water withdrawals increased from 8,136 MGD in 1972 to 21,316
MGD in 1996. GLC reported Canadian withdrawals of 21-
24,000 MGD in 1989-1993, around 17,000 MGD for 1998 and
1999, and 15,070 MGD in 2000.
3 Econometric studies of both residential and industrial water
demand consistently display relatively small price elasticities.
Literature review on water pricing economics can be found in
Renzetti (1999). However, the relationship between water
demand and price structure is complex. The introduction of vol-
umetric pricing (metering), as opposed to flat block pricing
(unlimited use), is indeed associated with lower water use, per-
haps because households become more aware of their water
withdrawal rate (Burke et al. 2001).
Authors' Commentary
Water withdrawal data is already being compiled on a systemic
basis. However, improvements can be made in collecting more
accurate numbers. Reporting agencies in many jurisdictions do
not have, or do not exercise, the statutory authority to collect
data directly from water users, relying instead on voluntary
reporting, estimates, and models. Progress is also necessary in
establishing uniform and defensible measures of consumptive
use, which is the component of water withdrawals that most
clearly signals the sustainability of current water demand.
Mapping the point sources of water withdrawals could help
identify local watersheds that may be facing significant pres-
sures. In many jurisdictions, water permit or registration pro-
grams can provide suitable geographic data. However, only in a
few states (Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio) are withdraw-
al data available per registered facility. Permit or registration
data, moreover, has limited utility in locating users that are not
required to register or obtain permits, such as the rural sector, or
facilities with a withdrawal capacity below the statutory thresh-
old (100,000 gallons per day in most jurisdictions.) Refer to
Figures 5 and 6.
Further research into the ecological impact of water withdrawals
should also be a priority. There is evidence that discharge from
industrial and thermoelectric plants, while returning water to the
basin, alters the thermal and chemical integrity of the lakes. The
release of water at a higher than normal temperature has been
cited as facilitating the establishment of non-native species
(Mills et al. 1993). The changes to the flow regime of water,
through hydroelectric dams, internal diversions and canals, and
•••,.: '
• Withdrawal Capacities exceeding 100 Million Litres per Day
• Water Withdrawal locations
Figure 5. Permitted water withdrawal capacities in the Ontario
portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
221
-------
Wat.r Withdrawal! ptr Rtgiiurtd Facility
Million of «.illoiit |>ei D.
-------
Energy Consumption
Indicator #7057
Assessment: Mixed, Trend Not Assessed
Purpose
To assesses the energy consumed in the Great Lakes basin
per capita; and
To infer the demand for resource use, the creation of waste
and pollution, and stress on the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal in the
Great Lakes basin. Resource conservation minimizing the
unnecessary use of resources is an endpoint for ecosystem
integrity and sustainable development. This indicator supports
Annex 15 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Energy use per capita and total consumption by the commercial.
residential, transportaion, industrial, and electricity sectors in
the Great Lakes basin can be calculated using data extracted
from the Comprehensive Energy Use Database (Natural
Resources Canada), and the State Energy Data 2000
Consumption tables (U.S. EIA2000). Table 1 lists populations
and total consumption in the Ontario and U.S. basins, with the
U.S. basin broken down by states. For this report, the U.S. side
of the basin is defined as the portions of the eight Great Lakes
states within the basin boundary (which totals 214 counties
either completely or partially within the basin boundary). The
Ontario basin is defined by eight sub-basin watersheds. The
most recent data available are from 2002 for Ontario and 2000
for the U.S. The largest change between 2000 and 2002 energy
consumption by sector in Ontario was a 4.4% increase in the
commercial sector (all other sectors changed by less than 2% in
either direction).
In Ontario, the per capita energy consumption increased by 2%
between 1999 and 2000. In the U.S. basin, per capita consump-
tion decreased by an average of 0.875% from 1999 to 2000.
Five states showed decreases in per capita energy consumption.
while three states had increases (Figure 1). Electrical energy
consumption per capita was fairly similar on both sides of the
basin in 2000 (Figure 2). Over the last four decades, consump-
tion trends in the U.S. basin have been fairly steady, although
per capita consumption increased in each state from 1990 to
2000 (Figure 3). Interestingly, New York and Ohio consumed
less per capita in 2000 than in 1970. Looking at the trends in
Ontario from 1970 to 2000, the per capita energy consumption
has stayed relatively consistent, with the exception of an
increase seen in 1980. The per capita energy consumption fig-
ures for Ontario do not include the electricity generation sector
due to an absence of data for this sector up until 1978. It is
important to note that the quality of data processing and valida-
tion has improved over the last four decades and therefore the
data quality may be questionable for the 1970s.
Total secondary energy consumption by the five sectors on the
160
140
120
100
1
State/Province
Figure 1. Total energy consumption per capita 1999-2000. 1 MWh :
lOOOkWh.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural
Resources Canada (2000)
State/Province
Figure 2. Electric energy consumption per capita 2000. 1 MWh =
lOOOkWh.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural
Resources Canada (2000)
223
-------
160 -,
140 -
120 -
§ 100 -
£
rfl
State/Province
11970 n1980 • 1990 • 2000
Figure 3. Total per capita energy consumption 1970-2000.1 MWh =
1000 kWh. Other energy sources include geothermal, wind, photo-
voltaic and solar energy. The Ontario data do not include the elec-
tricity generation sector due to an absence of data for this sector
until 1978.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural
Resources Canada (2000)
E
•£ 200
State/Province
• Residential n Industrial • Electricity
• Commercial • Transportation Generation
Figure 4. Secondary energy consumption within the Great Lakes
basin by sector. Note: all data are from 2000, although 2002 data
from Ontario are discussed in the report.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural
Resources Canada (2000)
Canadian side of the basin in 2002 was 930,400,000 Megawatts-
hours (MWh) (Table 1). Secondary energy is the energy used by
the final consumer. It includes energy used to heat and cool
homes and workplaces, and to operate appliances, vehicles and
State/Province
Ontario (2002 data)
U.S. Basin Total (2000 data)
Illinois (IL)
Indiana (IN)
Michigan (Ml)
Minnesota (MN)
New York (NY)
Ohio (OH)
Pennsylvania (PA)
Wisconsin (Wl)
Total energy consumption by
State/Province within the Great
Lakes basin (MWh)
930,400,000
3,364,000,000
669,400,000
304,900,000
998,500,000
36,600,000
309,600,000
614,000,000
43,700,000
387,300,000
Population within the
Great Lakes basin*
9,912,707
31,912,867
6,025,752
1,845,344
9,955,795
334,444
4,506,223
5,325,696
389,210
3,530,403
* The U.S. side of the basin is defined as the portions of the 8 Great Lakes states within the basin boundary
(which totals 214 counties either completely or partially within the basin boundary).
Table 1 : Energy consumption and population within the Great Lakes basin, by state
for the year 2000 (U.S.) and 2002 (Ontario). The U.S. basin population was calcu-
lated from population estimates by counties (either completely or partially within
the basin) from the 2000 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Ontario basin
populations were determined using sub-basin populations provided by Statistics
Canada.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration and Natural Resources Canada
factories. It does not include intermediate uses of energy for
transporting energy to market or transforming one energy form
to another, this is primary energy. Accounting for 33% of the
total secondary energy consumed in the Canadian basin, electric-
ity generation was the largest end user of all the sectors. The
other four sectors account for the remaining energy consumption
as follows: industrial, 22%; transportation 20%;
residential, 15%; and commercial, 12% (Table 2).
Note that due to rounding, these figures do not
add up to 100. There was a 0.5% increase in total
energy consumption by all sectors in Ontario
between 2000 and 2002.
Total secondary energy consumption by the five
sectors on the U.S. side of the basin in 2000 was
3,364,000,000 MWh (Table 1). As in the
Canadian basin, electricity generation was the
largest consuming sector in the U.S. basin, using
28% of the total secondary energy in the U.S.
side of basin. The U.S. industrial sector con-
sumed only slightly less energy, 27% of the total.
The remaining three U.S. sectors account for
44% of the total, as follows: transportation, 21%;
residential, 14%; and commercial, 9% (Table 2).
Note that due to rounding, these percentages do
not add up to 100. Figure 4 shows the total ener-
gy consumption by sector for both the Ontario
and U.S. sides of the Great Lakes basin in 2000.
224
-------
Sector
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
Electricity Generation
U.S. Basin Total Energy
Consumption - 2000*
478,200,000
314,300,000
903,900,000
714,000,000
953,600,000
Canadian Basin Total Energy
Consumption - 2002
127,410,000
107,800,000
206,410,000
184,950,000
303,830,000
* Note: 2000 is the most recent data available on a consistent basis for the U.S. More recent data is
available for some energy sources from the EIA, but survey and data compilation methods may
vary.
Table 2: Total Secondary Energy Consumption in the Great Lakes basin, in
Megawatts -hours (MWh).
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration and Natural Resources
Canada
State/Province
n Electricity • Petroleum
Figure 5. Commercial sector energy consumption by source, 2000.
Wood and coal were minor sources in this sector.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural
Resources Canada (2000)
The commercial sector includes all activities related to trade.
finance, real estate services, public administration, education.
commercial services (including tourism), government and insti-
tutional living and is the smallest energy consumer of all the sec-
tors in both Canada and the U.S. (Table 2). Of the total second-
ary energy use by this sector in the Ontario basin, 57% of the
energy consumed was supplied by fossil fuel (natural gas, 50%;
and petroleum, 7%) and 43% was supplied by electricity. In
Ontario, this sector had the largest increase in total energy con-
sumption, 4.4%, between 2000 and 2002. By source, on the U.S.
side of the basin, 61% was supplied by fossil fuel (natural
gas, 53%; and petroleum, 8%) and 39% was supplied by
electricity. On both sides of the basin, the commercial
sector had the highest proportion of electricity use of any
sector. Figure 5 shows energy consumption by source for
the commercial sector for the Canadian and the U.S.
basins in 2000.
The residential sector includes four major types of
dwellings: single detached homes, single attached homes.
apartments and mobile homes, and excludes all institu-
tional living facilities. Fossil fuels (natural gas, petroleum.
and coal) are the dominant energy source for residential
energy requirements in the Great Lakes basin. Of the total
secondary energy use by the residential sector in the Ontario
basin in 2002 (Table 2), the source for 67% of the energy con-
sumed was supplied by fossil fuel (natural gas, 61%; and petro-
leum, 6%), 30% by electricity and 3% by wood (Figure 6).
State/Province
• Wood D Electricity • Petroleum D Natural Gas
Figure 6. Residential sector energy consumption by source,
2000. Coal, geothermal, and solar energy were minor sources in
this sector.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural
Resources Canada (2000)
There was a 0.3% increase in total energy consumption by the
Ontario residential sector between 2000 and 2002. On the U.S.
side of the basin, fossil fuels are the leading source of energy
accounting for 75% of the total residential sector consumption.
Natural gas and petroleum are both consumed by this sector, but
it is important to note that this sector has the highest natural gas
consumption of all five sectors. The remaining energy sources
were electricity, 22% and wood, 3% (Figure 6).
225
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
millions)
:D
Consumption (MWh in
D O O
N
n n
M
p!__|iQiy
' X X / / ' / / X
-------
State/Province
D Hydroelectric Power n Nuclear Power • Coal • Petroleum • Natural Gas
Figure 9. Electricity generation sector energy consumption by
source, 2000. Wood and wood waste were very minor energy
sources in this sector.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural
Resources Canada (2000)
petroleum), and 7% was supplied by hydroelectric energy. There
was an increase in total energy use of 1.9% between 2000 and
2002 in Ontario. It is important to note that the Great Lakes
basin contains the majority of Canada's nuclear capacity. Of the
total secondary energy use by this sector in the U.S. basin (Table
2), 70% was supplied by the following types of fossil fuel: coal
(66%), natural gas (2%), and petroleum (2%). The other two
major sources, nuclear and hydroelectric energy, provided 27%
and 3% respectively. This sector consumed 75% of the coal used
in the entire U.S. basin. Figure 9 shows energy consumption by
source for the electricity generation sector for the Canadian and
U.S. sides of the basin in 2000.
The overall trends in energy consumption by sector were quite
similar on both sides of the basin. Ranked from highest to lowest
energy consumption, the pattern for the sectors was the same for
the U.S. and Canadian basins (Table 2). Analyses of the sources
of energy within each sector and trends in resources consump-
tion also indicate very similar trends.
Pressures
In 2001, Canada was ranked as the fifth largest energy producer
and the eighth largest energy consuming nation in the world.
Comparatively, the United States is ranked as "the world's
largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer" (U.S.
EIA 2004). The factors responsible for the high energy con-
sumption rates in Canada and the U.S. can also be attributed
to the Great Lakes basin. These include a high standard of liv-
ing, a cold climate, long travel distances, and a large industrial
sector. The combustion of fossil fuels, the dominant source of
energy for most sectors in the basin, releases greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide into the air contribut-
ing to smog, climate change, and acid rain.
Canada's Energy Outlook 1996-2020
fhttp://nrnl.nrcan.gc.ca:80/es/ceo/toc-96E.html) notes that "a
significant amount of excess generating capacity exists in all
regions of Canada" because demand has not reached the level
predicted when new power plants were built in the 1970s and
1980s. Demand is projected to grow at an average annual rate
of 1.3 percent in Ontario and 1.0 percent in Canada overall
between 1995 and 2020. From 2010-2020, Ontario will add
3,650 megawatts of new gas-fired and 3,300 megawatts of
clean coal-fired capacity. Several hydroelectric plants will be
redeveloped. Renewable resources are projected to quadruple
between 1995 and 2020, but will contribute only 3 percent of
total power generation.
The pressures the U.S. currently faces will continue into the
future, as the U.S. works to renew its aging energy infrastruc-
ture and develop renewable energy sources. Over the next two
decades, U.S. oil consumption is estimated to grow by 33%.
and natural gas consumption will increase by more than 50%.
Electricity demand is forecast to increase by 45% nationwide
(National Energy Policy 2001). Natural gas demand currently
outstrips domestic production in the U.S. with imports (largely
from Canada) filling the gap. 40% of the total U.S. nuclear out-
put is generated within five states, including three within the
Great Lakes basin (Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York) (U.S.
EIA 2004). Innovation and creative problem solving will be
needed to work towards balancing economic growth and energy
consumption in the Great Lakes basin in the future.
Management Implications
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency has
implemented several programs that focus on energy efficiency
and conservation within the residential, commercial, industrial.
and transportation sectors. Many of these programs work to pro-
vide consumers and businesses with useful and practical infor-
mation regarding energy saving methods for buildings, automo-
biles, and homes. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy recently launched an
educational website (http://www. eere.energy, gov/consumerinfo/l.
which provides homes and businesses with ways to improve effi-
ciency, tap into renewable and green energy supplies, and reduce
227
-------
2007
energy costs. In July 2004, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin were awarded $46.99 million to weatherize low-
income homes, which is expected to save energy and cost
(EERE 2004). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Star program, a government/industry partnership initiat-
ed in 1992, also promotes energy efficiency through product cer-
tification. In 2002, Americans saved more than $7 billion in
energy costs through Energy Star, while consuming less power
and preventing greenhouse gas emissions (USEPA 2003).
In addition to these programs, the Climate Change Plan for
Canada challenges all Canadians to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions by one tonne, approximately 20% of the per capita
production on average each year. The One-Tonne Challenge
offers a number of ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions
that contribute to climate change and in doing so will also
reduce total energy consumption.
Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are
available in Canada, but constitute only a fraction of the total
energy consumed. Research continues to develop these as alter-
nate sources of energy, as well as developing more efficient
ways of burning energy. In the United States, according to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 6% of the total 2002
energy consumption came from renewable energy sources (bio-
mass, 47%; hydroelectric, 45%; geothermal, 5%; wind, 2%; and
solar, 1%). The U.S. has invested almost a billion dollars, over
three years, for renewable energy technologies (Garman 2004).
Wind energy, cited as one of the fastest growing renewable
sources worldwide, is a promising source for the Great Lakes
region. The U.S. Department of Energy, its laboratories, and
state programs are working to advance research and develop-
ment of renewable energy technologies.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Susan Arndt, Environment Canada, Ontario Region,
Burlington, ON;
Christine McConaghy, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and
Education, on appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL; and
Leena Gawri, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, on
appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Canada and U.S. Country Analysis Briefs. 2005. Energy
Information Administration.
http://www. eia.doe. gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html, last accessed
October 4, 2005.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Network
News. 2004. DOE Awards $94.8 Million to Weatherize Homes in
228
20 States. U.S. Department of Energy.
http://www.eere. energy. gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=743
S, last accessed October 4, 2005.
Environment Canada. 2003. Environmental Signals, Canada's
National Environmental Indicator Series 2003, Energy
Consumption, pp 56-59. http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree.
Garman, D.K. 2004. Administration s views on the role that
renewable energy technologies can play in sustainable electricity
generation. United States Senate, Testimony before the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
http://www.eere.energy. gov/office_eere/congressional_test_0427
04.html.
National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). 2001.
Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group.
http://energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=AD_AP.
Natural Resources Canada. 2002. Energy Efficiency Trends in
Canada 1990-2000. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/neud/dpa/home.cfm.
Natural Resources Canada. Comprehensive Energy Use
Database.
http ://oee.mean. gc.ca/neud/dpa/comprehensive_tables/.
Statistics Canada. 2000. Human Activity and the Environment
2000. [CDRom].
U.S. Census Bureau and Texas State Data Center. 2000. U.S.
2000 decennial census data. Department of Rural Sociology,
Texas A&M University, http ://www.census. gov/dmd/www/resap-
port/states/indiana.pdf and
http://www.txsdc.tamu.edu/txdata/apport/hist_a.php.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2004. State ener-
gy data 2000 consumption tables, http://www.eia.doe.gov.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. ENER-
GY STAR - The power to protect the environment through energy
efficiency.
http ://www. energystar. gov/ia/partners/downloads/energy_star_re
port aug 2003.pdf.
Authors' Commentary
Ontario data are available through Natural Resources Canada,
Office of Energy Efficiency. Databases include the total energy
consumption for the residential, commercial, industrial, trans-
portation, agriculture and electricity generation sectors by energy
source and end use. Population numbers for the Great Lakes
basin, provided by Statistics Canada, were used to calculate the
-------
energy consumption numbers within the Ontario side of the Last Updated
basin. This approach for the residential sector should provide a gtate Oft^e Qreat Lakes 2005
reasonable measure of household consumption. For the commer-
cial, transportation and especially industrial sectors, it may be a
variable estimation of the total consumption in the basin. The
data are provided on nation-wide, or province-wide basis.
Therefore it provides a great challenge to disaggregate it by any
other methods to provide a more precise representation of the
Great Lakes basin total energy consumption.
Energy consumption, price, and expenditure data are available
for the United States (1960-2000) through the Energy
Information Administration (EIA). The EIAis updating the State
Energy Data 2000 series to 2001 by August 2004. There may be
minor discrepancies in how the sectors were defined in the U.S.
and Canada, which may need further investigation (such as
tourism in the U.S. commercial sector, and upstream oil and gas
in the U.S. industrial sector). Actual differences in consumption
rates may be difficult to distinguish from minor differences
between the U.S. and Canada in how data were collected and
aggregated. Hydroelectric energy was not included in the indus-
trial sector analysis, but might be considered in future analyses.
In New York State, almost as much energy came from hydro-
electric energy as from wood. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania also
had small amounts of hydropower consumption.
In the U.S. the current analysis of the total basin consumption is
based on statewide per capita energy consumption, multiplied by
the basin population. The ideal estimate of this indicator would
be to calculate the per capita consumption within the basin, and
would require energy consumption data at the county level or by
local utility reporting areas. Such data may be quite difficult to
obtain, especially when electricity consumption per person is
reported by utility service area. The statewide per capita con-
sumption may be different than the actual per capita consump-
tion within the basin, especially for the states with only small
areas within the basin (Minnesota and Pennsylvania). The pro-
portion of urban to rural/agricultural land in the basin is likely to
influence per capita consumption within the basin. Census data
are available at the county and even the block level, and may in
the future be combined with the U.S. basin boundary using GIS
to refine the basin population estimate.
Additionally, the per capita consumption data for the U.S. in
Figures 1, 2, and 3 are based on slightly different energy con-
sumption totals than the data in Tables 1 and 2. The next update
of this indicator should examine whether it is worthwhile to
include the minor sources in the sector analysis on both sides of
the basin or to exclude them from the per capita figures.
229
-------
Solid Waste Disposal
Indicator #7060
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Trend Not Assessed
Undetermined
This year the indicator report focuses only on disposal data in the U.S.
instead of generation or recycling data. Disposal data was the most
consistently collected by the counties/states in the U.S. Generation and
recycling data were available for Ontario, Canada. Over time, a
change in disposal tonnages can be used as an indicator for solid waste
in the Great Lakes, however more consistent and comparable data
would improve this indicator.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Due to insufficient data, a lake-by-lake assessment is not available for this indicator.
Purpose
•To assess the amount of solid waste disposed in the Great Lakes basin; and
•To infer inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e. wasted resources) and the potential
adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Solid waste provides a measure of the inefficiency of human land based activities and the degree
to which resources are wasted. In order to promote sustainable development, the amount of solid
waste disposed of in the basin needs to be assessed and ultimately reduced. Because a portion of
the waste disposed of in the basin is generated outside of basin counties, efforts to reduce waste
generation or increase recycling need to occur regionally. Reducing volumes of solid waste via
source reduction or recycling is indicative of a more efficient industrial ecology and a more
conserving society. This indicator supports Annex 12 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Canada and the United States are working towards improvements in waste management by
developing strategies to prevent waste generation and reuse and recycle more of the generated
waste. The data available to support this indicator are limited in some areas of the basin and not
consistent from area to area. For example, while most of the U.S. states in the basin track amount
of waste disposed in a landfill or incinerator located in a county, they may define the wastes
differently. Some track all non-hazardous waste disposed and some only track municipal solid
waste. Because the wastes disposed of in each county in the basin were not necessarily generated
by the county residents, per capita estimates are not meaningful. Not all of the U.S. counties
provide generation and recycling rates information. Canada provides estimates of waste
generation rate for each of its Provinces for residential, industrial/commercial, and construction
and demolition sources. The summary statistics report also provided disposal data, however the
disposal data included wastes that were disposed of outside the Province, some of which is
captured in the U.S. county disposal data within the basin. For this reason, generation and
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
diversion estimates were used only for Ontario, Canada; disposal data were used for the U.S.
counties. Types of waste included in the disposal data are identified below.
Statistics for the generation of waste in Ontario were gathered from the Annual Statistics 2005
report. More than 11 million tonnes of wastes were generated in Ontario in 2000 and slightly
more than 12 million tonnes were generated in 2002. These figures include residential wastes,
commercial/industrial wastes, and construction and demolition wastes. Diversion information
was also provided in the report and can be seen in Figure 1. In 2000, 20.8% of the residential
waste generated was diverted to recycling and in 2002 that figure increased to 21.6%. The
industrial/commercial recycling rate was 22.7% in 2000 and 20.2% in 2002. Finally, the C&D
recycling rate was 11.6% in 2000 and 12.5% in 2002. Ontario has a goal to divert 60% of its
waste by 2008.
Minnesota Great Lakes basin counties provided data on the amounts of waste disposed of in the
county as well as an estimate of the amount of waste buried by residents (on their own property).
Data are provided in Figure 2. In 2003, 124,931 tons of waste were disposed of or buried in the 7
basin counties in MN. In 2004, there was a 5% increase to 132,128 tons disposed or buried.
Each county showed an increase in waste disposed. These figures only include municipal solid
waste (not construction and demolition debris or other industrial wastes).
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management's data regarding amounts disposed of at
permitted facilities were used to determine the total amount disposed in each Indiana Great Lakes
Basin county. The data are provided in Figure 3. The disposal in 2004 was approximately 9%
greater than in 2003. The 15 basin counties disposed of 2,468,913 tons of waste in 2004 and
2,224,581 tons in 2005. About 15% was generated outside of the counties in 2004. The data
include municipal solid waste, construction and demolition wastes, and some industrial byproduct
waste.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land, reported the amounts disposed of
in permitted landfills in the 2 Great Lakes basin counties. Data were compiled for 2004 and 2003
and are shown in Figure 4. There was less than a 2% change in total materials. In 2004
1,814,529 tons were disposed and in 2003 slightly less waste (1,784,452 tons) was disposed.
The data include municipal solid waste, construction and demolition waste, and some industrial
waste.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality reports on total waste disposed in Michigan
landfills in cubic yards. General conversion factors (to translate cubic yards to tons) could not be
used because the waste totals include a variety of waste sources (municipal solid waste,
construction and demolition debris, and some industrial byproducts). Data for the 83 Great Lakes
basin counties were compiled and are presented in Figure 5. There was less than a 1% difference
between the total cubic yards disposed in 2004 and 2005 in these counties. The total for 2005
was slightly smaller. For both years, approximately 64 million cubic yards were disposed of in
the 83 counties in the Great Lakes Basin.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation provided municipal solid waste
disposal data for facilities located in the 32 Great Lakes basin counties for the years 2004 and
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
2002. The data are presented in Figure 6. There was an approximate 5% increase in waste
disposed. The total waste disposed was 7,853,087 tons in 2004 and 7,333,685 tons in 2002. This
data includes municipal solid waste only. More than 65% of the states waste is managed in the
basin counties.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection provided disposal data for the three
Great Lakes basin counties. Municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris are
combined in these annual totals which are presented in Figure 7. For 2004, 282,004 tons were
disposed in the three basin counties. There was a 25% decrease in waste disposed in the counties
in 2005 to 209,229 tons.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources collects data on the amount disposed of in each
facility located in the Great Lakes basin counties. Data were compiled for the 26 basin counties
and are presented in Figure 8. In 2005, 7,663,187 tons of wastes were disposed, within 1% of the
total disposed in 2004. Totals include a wide variety of wastes such as municipal solid waste,
sludges, and foundry sand.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency collects data for waste disposed of in landfills and
incinerators. The data for the 36 Great Lakes basin counties was compiled for 2003 and 2004 and
are presented in Figure 9. There was an approximate 5% increase in waste disposed. More than
60% of these waste disposed in the counties came from outside the counties. The data includes
municipal solid waste, some industrial wastes, and tires. Construction and demolition debris is
not included. In 2004, the 36 basin counties disposed of 8,791,802 tons and in 2003 8,334,865
tons were disposed.
Pressures
The generation and management of solid waste raise important environmental, economic and
social issues for North Americans. Waste disposal costs billions of dollars and the entire waste
management process uses energy and contributes to land, water, and air pollution. The U.S. EPA
has developed tools and information linking waste management practices to climate change
impacts. Waste prevention and recycling reduce greenhouse gases associated with these activities
by reducing methane emissions, saving energy, and increasing forest carbon sequestration. Waste
prevention and recycling save energy when compared to disposal of materials.
The state of the economy has a strong impact on consumption and waste generation. Municipal
solid waste generation in the U.S. continued to increase through the 1990s and has remained
steady since 2000 (USEPA 2003). Generation of other wastes, such as construction and
demolition debris and industrial wastes is also strongly linked to the economy. The U.S. EPA is
developing a methodology to better estimate the generation, disposal, and recycling of
construction and demolition debris in the U.S.
Because waste disposed of in the Great Lakes Basin may be generated outside of the Basin or
moved around within the Basin, efforts to reduce waste generation and increase recycling need to
focus on a broad area, not just the Basin. Continued collaboration of state, local, and federal
efforts is important for long term success.
Management Implications
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006 3
-------
The U.S. EPA supports a bi-annual study that characterizes the municipal solid waste stream and
estimates the national recycling rate. The latest study (2003) estimates a 30.6% national
recycling rate. The U.S. EPA has established a goal of reaching a 35% recycling rate by 2008.
The 2003 study indicated that paper, yard and food waste, and packaging represent large portions
of the waste stream. The U.S. EPA's is concentrating its efforts on these materials; working with
stakeholders to determine activities that may support increased recovery of those materials. The
federal government is also working to promote strategies that support recycling programs in
general, including Pay-As-You-Throw (generators pay per unit of waste rather than a flat fee);
innovative contracting mechanisms such as resource management (includes incentives for
increased recycling), and supporting demonstration projects and research on various end markets
and collection strategies for waste materials. The States are also working to increase recycling
rates and provide support for local jurisdictions. Each state with counties in the Great Lakes
basin provides financial and technical support for local recycling programs. Many provide
significant market development support as well.
Canada and the U.S. both support integrated solutions to the waste issue and look for innovative
approaches that involve the public and private sectors. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR),
also known as Product Stewardship is one approach that involves manufacturers of products.
EPR efforts have focused on many products including electronics, carpets, paints, thermostats,
etc.
Ontario's Waste Diversion Act was passed in 2002 and created Waste Diversion Ontario, a
permanent, non-government corporation. The Act gave WDO the mandate to develop,
implement and operate waste diversion programs-to reduce, reuse or recycle waste.
The City of Toronto has set ambitious waste diversion goals and reported a 40% diversion rate in
2005. The development of a green bin system (allowing residents to separate out the organic
fraction of the waste stream from traditional recyclables) is credited for the high diversion rate
achieved.
Improved and consistent data collection would help to better inform decisionmakers regarding
effectiveness of programs as well as determining where to target efforts.
Comments from the author(s)
During the process of collecting data for this indicator, it was found that U.S. states and Ontario
compile and report on solid waste information in different formats. Future work to organize a
standardized method of collecting, reporting and accessing data for both the Canadian and U.S.
portions of the Great Lakes basin will aid in the future reporting of this indicator and in the
interpretation of the data and trends. More consistent data may also support strategic planning.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Susan Mooney, Julie Gevrenov, and Christopher Newman U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Waste, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region 5, Chicago, IL.
Data Sources
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
The United States data regarding national recycling rate and municipal solid waste characteristics
was collected from Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2003 facts and figures; available
on the U.S. EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.
Solid waste data for Ontario was collected from Human Activity and the Environment. Annual
Statistics 2005, Featured Article: Solid Waste in Canada, Catalogue number 16-201XIE, Statistics
Canada.
Illinois waste disposal data for the 2 basin counties was compiled from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Bureau of Land's 2004 Landfill Capacity report found on their web site at:
http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-capacity/2004/index.html. The 2 Great Lakes Basin
counties are located in Illinois EPA's Region 2.
Indiana waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management's permitted solid waste facility reports found at
http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/land/sw/index.html.
Michigan waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality's Annual Report on Solid Waste Landfills. Data from the
2005 and 2004 studies were compiled. The author accessed the data via the Border Center's
WasteWatcher web site (http://www.bordercenter.org/wastewatcher/mi-waste.cfm ) to more
easily search for the appropriate county - level data.
Minnesota municipal solid waste disposal data for the basin counties was compiled from the 2004
and 2003 SCORE data available on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's web site at:
http://www.moea.state.mn.us/lc/score04.cfm The SCORE report is a report to the Legislature,
the main components of this report are to identify and target source reduction, recycling, waste
management and waste generation collected from all 87 counties in Minnesota.
New York municipal solid waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation's capacity data for landfills and waste to
energy facilities available on their website at:
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/sldwaste/newsw2.htm.
Ohio waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency's 2003 and 2004 facility data reports which are available on their web site at
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsiwm/pages/general.html.
Pennsylvania waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management's
disposal data located on their web site at:
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/cwp/view.asp?a=1238&Q=464453&landrecwasteNa
v=.
Wisconsin municipal solid waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Waste Management's Landfill Tonnage
Report found on their website at:, http://www.dnr.state.wi.us.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by
Protocol signed November 18, 1987. Ottawa and Washington.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Ontario Waste Diversion Rates.
Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue number 16-201XIE, Human Activity and the Environment.
Annual Statistics 2005, Featured Article: Solid Waste in Canada.
Figure 2. Minnesota Basin County Disposal.
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Score Report, 2003 and 2004.
Figure 3. Indiana Basin County Disposal.
Source: Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Permitted Solid Waste Facility
Report.
Figure 4. Illinois Basin County Disposal.
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2004 Landfill Capacity Report.
Figure 5. Michigan Basin County Disposal.
Source: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005 and 2004 Annual Report on Solid
Waste Landfills.
Figure 6. New York Basin County Disposal.
Source: New York State Department of Conservation Capacity data for Landfills and Waste to
Energy Facilities.
Figure 7. Pennsylvania Basin County Disposal.
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Landfill Disposal Data.
Figure 8 Wisconsin Basin County Disposal
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Landfill Tonnage Report.
Figure 9. Ohio Basin County Disposal.
Source: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2003 and 2004 Facility Data Reports.
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Figure 1: Ontario Waste Diversion Rates
25
o
o
o
year
2002
R(
year
2000
asident
a!
year
2002
industr
year
2000
al, corns
nercial
year year
2002 2000
C&D
Figure 1. Ontario Waste Diversion Rates.
Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue number 16-201XIE, Human Activity and the Environment.
Annual Statistics 2005, Featured Article: Solid Waste in Canada.
Figure 2 : Minnesota Basin County
Disposal
1 Rnnnn -,
| OUUUU
... -| nnnnn
W I UUUUU
c
o
Hcnnnn
OUUUU ~
0_
n
i— i r~\ n I I n I ! i— i
Basin County
n 2004 totals
Figure 2. Minnesota Basin County Disposal.
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Score Report, 2003 and 2004.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
TJ
O
(fl
O
Q.
O
1-
900,000 -!
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Figure 3: Indiana Basin County Disposal
County
Figure 3. Indiana Basin County Disposal.
Source: Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Permitted Solid Waste Facility
Report.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Figure 4: Illinois Basin County
Disposal
§ 1000000
Cook La
-------
v» T "* C-G-3 CO* •
4 £(p £Q~ .
Figure 5: Michigan Basin County Disposal
• 203- cat
a
A_J1
ft «fln,li-_
rt
Ik [fmffl
radrikl
n 11 1 It
111 „ „ 1
i_llni IIL[fl,..JI ftldll
—
Basin County
Figure 5. Michigan Basin County Disposal.
Source: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005 and 2004 Annual Report on Solid
Waste Landfills.
1C)
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
9,000,000 -I
Q nnn nnn -
7 nnn nnn -
10 ft nnn nnn °
to
o ^ nnn nnn .
a/> ' *
To 4 000 000 -
c
o
H- Q nnn nnn -
i nnn nnn .
Figure 6: NY Basin County Disposal
il
ti * _ n BI 111
11
1 B2002
. D 2004
-------
Figure 7: Pennsylvania Basin
County Disposal
300000 i
250000
w 200000
§ 150000
County
Figure 7. Pennsylvania Basin County Disposal.
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Landfill Disposal Data.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Stafo-of
2,500,CDO -1
o nnn run -
1 Cflfl fflft _
t, 1 .DUU.UUU
0
1 nnn non -
^nn nnn -
0 **<
Figure 8: Wisconsin Basin County Disposal
FL
ll 1 1
In § 1
-1,1-1.-
i
a 2005 tons
• 2004 tons
flL
"/?//////*/
County
Figure 8 Wisconsin Basin County Disposal
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Landfill Tonnage Report.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
13
-------
•*»*• -j_ • '«i,.M;
10.000,000 •
TJ
to
O
CL
w
O
Figure 9: Ohio Basin County Disposal
fr „«_
L n rl j
_ ..lira
t
oa»3
• 2004
'
County
Figure 9. Ohio Basin County Disposal.
Source: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2003 and 2004 Facility Data Reports.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Nutrient Management Plans
Indicator #7061
Assessment: Not Assessed
Purpose
To determine the number of Nutrient Management Plans; and
To infer environmentally friendly practices that help to pre-
vent ground and surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The objective is sound use and
management of soil, water, air, plants and animal resources to
prevent degradation of the environment. Nutrient Management
Planning guides the amount, form, placement and timing of
applications of nutrients for uptake by crops as part of an envi-
ronmental farm plan.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem,
it is important to track changes in agricultural practices that can
lead to protection of water quality, the sustainable future of agri-
culture and rural development, and better ecological integrity in
the basin. The indicator identifies the degree to which agricul-
ture is becoming more sustainable and has less potential to
adversely impact the Great Lakes ecosystem.
As more farmers embrace environmental plan-
ning over time, agriculture will become more
sustainable through nonpolluting, energy effi-
cient technology and best management prac-
tices for efficient and high quality food pro-
duction.
Status of Nutrient Management Plans
The Ontario Environmental Farm Plans (EFP)
identify the need for best nutrient management
practices. Over the past 5 years farmers,
municipalities and governments and their
agencies have made significant progress.
Ontario Nutrient Management Planning soft-
ware (NMAN) is available to farmers and con-
sultants wishing to develop or assist with the
development of nutrient management plans.
In 2002 Ontario passed the Nutrient
Management Act (NM Act) to establish
province-wide standards to ensure that all
land-applied materials will be managed in a
sustainable manner resulting in environmental
and water quality protection. The NM Act
requires standardization, reporting and updating of nutrient man-
agement plans through a nutrient management plan registry. To
promote a greater degree of consistency in by-law development,
Ontario developed a model nutrient management by-law for
municipalities. Prior to the NM Act, municipalities enforced
each nutrient management by-law by inspections performed by
employees of the municipality or others under authority of the
municipality.
In the United States, the two types of plans dealing with agricul-
ture nutrient management are the Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plans (CNMPs) and the proposed Permit Nutrient
Plans (PNP) under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements. Individual States also have addi-
tional nutrient management programs. An agreement between
USEPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the
Clean Water Action plan called for a Unified National Strategy
for Animal Feeding Operations. Under this strategy, USDA-
Natural Resources Conservation Service has leadership for the
development of technical standards for CNMPs. Funds from the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program can be used to devel-
op CNMPs.
The total number of nutrient management plans developed annu-
ally for the U.S. portion of the basin is shown in Figure 1. This
includes nutrient management plans for both livestock and non-
livestock producing farms. The CNMPs are tracked on an annual
Nutrient Management Applied
1 0- 1,500 Acres
J 1,500-5,000 Acres
. 5,000-10,000 Acres
I 10,000-25,000 Acres
Figure 1. Annual U.S. Nutrient Management Systems total number of nutrient manage-
ment plans developed annually for the U.S. portion of the basin, 2003.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), Performance and Results Measurement System
235
-------
basis due to the rapid changes in farming opera-
tions. This does not allow for an estimate of the
total number of CNMPs. USEPA will be tracking
PNP as part of the Status's NPDES program.
Figure 2 shows the number of Nutrient
Management Plans by Ontario County for the years
1998-2002, and Figure 3 shows cumulative acreage
of Nutrient Management Plans for the Ontario por-
tion of the basin. The Ontario Nutrient
Management Act is moving farmers toward the
legal requirement of having a nutrient management
plan in place. Prior to 2002 the need for a plan was
voluntary and governed by municipal by-laws. The
introduction of the Act presently requires new.
expanding, and existing large farms to have a nutri-
ent management plan. This has brought the expec-
tation, which is reflected in Figure 2, that there will
be on-going needs to have nutrient management
plans in place.
Having completed a NMP provides assurance farm-
ers are considering the environmental implications
of their management decisions. The more plans in place the bet-
ter. In the future there may be a way to grade plans by impacts
on the ecosystem. The first year in which this information is col-
lected will serve as the base line year
Counties
n Bruce
• Elgin
• Huron
n Lambton
• Middlesex
n Oxford
• Perth
n Dundas
• Lennox & Addington
• Niagara
n Northumberland
n Peterborough
• Prescott
Figure 3. Cumulative acreage of Nutrient Management Plans for selected
Ontario Counties in the basin. Over 75% NMP acreages found in Huron, Perth.
Oxford and Middlesex Counties.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
-Cur
nulative Acrea
e by Year
Figure 2. Nutrient Management Plans by Ontario County, 1998-
2002.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Pressures
As livestock operations consolidate in number and increase in
size in the basin, planning efforts will need to keep pace with
236
changes in water and air quality standards and technology.
Consultations regarding the provincial and U.S. standards and
regulations will continue into the near future.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Peter Roberts, Water Management Specialist, Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Guelph, Ontario Canada.
peter.roberts@omaf. gov. on. ca;
Ruth Shaffer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov; and
Roger Nanney, Resource Conservationist, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Authors' Commentary
The new Nutrient Management Act authorizes the establishment
and phasing in of province-wide standards for the management
of materials containing nutrients and sets out requirements and
responsibilities for farmers, municipalities and others in the busi-
ness of managing nutrients. It is anticipated that the regulations
under this act will establish a computerized NMP registry; a tool
that will track nutrient management plans put into place. This
tool could form a part of the future "evaluation tool box" for
nutrient management plans in place in Ontario. The phasing in
requirements of province-wide standards for nutrient manage-
ment planning in Ontario and the eventual adoption over time of
more sustainable farm practices should allow for ecosystem
recovery with time.
The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service has
-------
formed a team to revise its Nutrient Management Policy. The
final policy was issued in the Federal Register in 1999. In
December 2000, USDA published its Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Planning Technical Guidance (CNMP Guidance) to
identify management activities and conservation practices that
will minimize the adverse impacts of animal feeding operations
on water quality. The CNMP Guidance is a technical guidance
document and does not establish regulatory requirements for
local, tribal, State, or Federal programs. PNPs are complementa-
ry to and leverage the technical expertise of USDA with its
CNMP Guidance. USEPA is proposing that Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations, covered by the effluent guideline, develop
and implement a PNP. There is an increased availability of tech-
nical assistance for U.S. farmers via Technical Service Providers,
who can provide assistance directly to producers and receive
payment from them with funds from the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
237
-------
2007
Integrated Pest Management
Indicator # 7062
Assessment: Not Assessed
Purpose
To assess the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
practices and the effects IPM has had toward preventing surface
and groundwater contamination in the Great Lakes basin by
measuring the acres of agricultural pest management applied to
agricultural crops to reduce adverse impacts on plant growth,
crop production and environmental resources.
Ecosystem Objective
A goal for agriculture is to become more sustainable through the
adoption of more non-polluting, energy efficient technologies
and best management practices for efficient and high quality
food production. The sound use and management of soil, water,
air, plant, and animal resources is needed to prevent degradation
of agricultural resources. The process integrates natural resource,
economic, and social considerations to meet private and public
needs. This indicator supports Article VI (e) - Pollution from
Agriculture, as well as Annex 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Pest Management is controlling organisms that cause damage or
annoyance. Integrated pest management is utilizing environmen-
tally sensitive prevention, avoidance, monitoring and suppres-
sion strategies to manage weeds, insects, diseases, animals and
other organisms (including invasive and non-invasive species)
that directly or indirectly cause damage or annoyance.
Environmental risks of pest management must be evaluated for
all resource concerns identified in the conservation planning
process, including the negative impacts of pesticides in ground
and surface water, on humans, and non-target plants and ani-
mals. The pest management component of an environmental
conservation farm plan must be designed to minimize negative
impacts of pest control on all identified resource concerns.
Agriculture accounts for approximately 35% of the land area of
the Great Lakes basin and dominates the southern portion of the
basin. Although field crops such as corn and soybeans comprise
the most crop acreage, the basin also supports a wide diversity
of specialty crops. The mild climate created by the Great Lakes
allows for production of a variety of vegetable and fruit crops.
These include tomatoes (for both the fresh and canning markets),
cucumbers, onions and pumpkins. Orchard and tender fruit crops
such as cherries, peaches and apples are economically important
commodities in the region, along with grape production for juice
or wine. The farmers growing these agricultural commodities are
major users of pesticides.
Research has found that reliance on pesticides in agriculture is
significant and that it would be impossible to abandon their use
in the short term. Most consumers want to be able to purchase
inexpensive yet wholesome food. Currently, other than organic
production, there is no replacement system readily available at a
reasonable price for consumers, and at a lesser cost to farmers,
that can be brought to market without pesticides. Other research
has shown that pesticide use continues to decline as measured by
total active ingredient, with broad-spectrum pest control prod-
ucts being replaced by more target specific technology, and with
lowered amounts of active ingredient used per acre. Reasons for
these declines are cited as changing acreages of crops, adoption
of integrated pest management (IPM) and alternative pest con-
trol strategies such as border sprays for migratory pests, mating
disruption, alternative row spraying and pest monitoring.
With continued application of pesticides in the Great Lakes
basin, non-point source pollution of nearshore wetlands and the
effects on fish and wildlife still remains a concern. Unlike point
sources of contamination, such as at the outlet of an effluent
pipe, nonpoint sources are more difficult to define. An estimated
21 million kg of pesticides are used annually on agricultural
crops in the Canadian and American Great Lakes watershed
(GAO 1993). Herbicides account for about 75% of this usage.
These pesticides are frequently transported via sediment, ground
or surface water flow from agricultural land into the aquatic
ecosystem. With mounting concerns and evidence of the effects
of certain pesticides on wildlife and human health, it is crucial
that we determine the occurrence and fate of agricultural pesti-
cides in sediments, and in aquatic and terrestrial life found in the
Great Lakes basin. Atrazine and metolachlor were measured in
precipitation at nine sites in the Canadian Great Lakes basin in
1995 (OMOE 1995). Both were detected regularly at all nine
sites monitored. The detection of some pesticides at sites where
they were not used provides evidence of atmospheric transport
of pesticides.
Cultural controls (such as crop rotation and sanitation of infested
crop residues), biological controls, and plant selection and
breeding for resistant crop cultivars have always been an integral
part of agricultural IPM. Such practices were very important and
widely used prior to the advent of synthetic organic pesticides.
Indeed, many of these practices are still used today as compo-
nents of pest management programs. However, the great success
of modern pesticides has resulted in their use as the dominant
pest control practice for the past several decades, especially
since the 1950s. Newer pesticides are generally more water solu-
ble, less strongly adsorbed to particulate matter, and less persist-
238
-------
ent in both the terrestrial and aquatic environments than the
older contaminants, but they have still been found in precipita-
tion at many sites.
Status of Integrated Pest Management
The Ontario Pesticides Education Program (OPEP) provides
farmers with training and certification through a pesticide safety
course. Figure 1 shows survey results for 5800 farmers who took
pesticide certification courses over a three-year period (2001-
2004). Three sustainable practices (alter spray practices/manage
drift from spray, mix/load equipment in order to protect surface
and/or groundwater, and follow label precautions) and the farm-
ers' responses are shown. Results suggest that in 2004 more
farmers "do or plan to do now" these three practices after being
educated about their respective benefits. These practices have
significant value for reducing the likelihood of impairing rural
surface and groundwater quality. Figure 2 shows the acres of
pest management practice applied to cropland in the U.S. Great
Lakes basin for 2003.
Pressures
Pest management practices may be compromised by changing
land use and development pressures (including higher taxes);
flooding or seasonal drought; and lack of long-term financial
incentives for adoption of environmentally friendly practices. In
order for integrated pest management to be successful, pest man-
agers must shift from practices focusing on purchased inputs
(using commercial sources of soil nutrients (i.e. fertilizers) rather
than manure) and broad-spectrum pesticides to those using tar-
geted pesticides and knowledge about ecological processes.
Future pest management will be more knowledge intensive and
focus on more than the use of pesticides. Federal, provincial and
state agencies, university Cooperative Extension programs, and
grower organizations are important sources for pest management
information and dissemination. Although governmental agencies
are more likely to conduct the underlying research, there is sig-
nificant need for private independent pest management consult-
ants to provide technical assistance to the farmer.
Management Implications
All phases of agricultural pest management, from research to
field implementation, are evolving from their current product-
based orientation to one that is based on ecological principles
and processes. Such pest management practices will rely more
on an understanding of the biological interactions that occur
within every crop environment and the knowledge of how to
manage the cropping systems to the detriment of pests. The opti-
mum results would include fewer purchased inputs (and there-
fore a more sustainable agriculture), as well as fewer of the
human and environmental hazards posed by the broad-spectrum
pesticides so widely used today. Although pesticides will contin-
ue to be a component of pest management, the following are sig-
Follow Label Precaution/Safety
Percentage of participants
D 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
I do this now/would do
anyway
I plan to do this now
Don't plan to do
this/No comment
Alter Spray Practices Manage Drift
Percentage of participants
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
I do this now/would do
anyway
I plan to do this now
Don't plan to do
this/No comment
Mix/Load Equipment Protect Surface/Ground Water
Percentage of participants
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
I do this now/would do
anyway
Don't plan to do
this/No comment
Figure 1. Ontario selected grower pesticide safety training
course evaluation results from 2001-2004.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) and the University of
Guelph
239
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
nificant obstacles to the continued use of broad-spectrum pesti-
cides: pest resistance to pesticides; fewer new pesticides; pesti-
cide-induced pest problems; lack of effective pesticides; and
human and environmental health concerns.
Based upon these issues facing pesticide use, it is necessary to
start planning now in order to be less reliant on broad-spectrum
pesticides in the future. Society is requiring that agriculture
become more environmentally responsible through such things
as the adoption of Integrated Pest Management. This will require
effective evaluations of existing policies and implementing pro-
grams for areas such as Integrated Pest Management. To reflect
these demands there is a need to further develop this indicator.
The following types of future activities could assist with this
process:
Indicate and track future adoption trends of IPM best
management practices;
Analyze rural water quality data for levels of pesticide
residues;
Evaluate the success of the Ontario Pesticide Training
Course, such as adding and evaluating survey questions
regarding IPM principles and practices to course evaluation
materials; and
Evaluate the number of farmers and vendors who attend-
ed, were certified, or who failed the Ontario Pesticides
Education Program.
Note: Grower pesticide certification is mandatory in Ontario and
in all Great Lakes States, and it applies to individual farmers as
well as custom applicators.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Peter Roberts, Water Quality Management Specialist,
Resources Management, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and
Food, Guelph, peter.roberts@omaf.gov.on.ca;
Ruth Shaffer United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov; and
Roger Nanney, Resource Conservationist, United States
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Sources
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1993. Pesticides -
Issues concerning pesticides used in the Great Lakes watershed.
GAO/RCED-93-128. Washington, DC. 44pp.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 1995. Water
monitoring 1995. Environmental Monitoring and Reporting
Branch.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
Pesticide Management Applied
ID 0-1,500 Acres
^J 1,500-5,000 Acres
5,000 - 10,000 Acres
• 10,000-17,500 Acres
Figure 2. Annual U.S. Pesticide Management Systems Planned for 2003.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), Performance and Results Measurement System
240
-------
Vehicle Use
Indicator # 7064
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Poor
Deteriorating
Population growth and urban sprawl in the Great Lakes Basin has led
to an increase in the number of vehicles on roads, fuel consumption,
and kilometers spent on the road by residents. Vehicle use is a driver of
fossil fuel consumption, deteriorating road safety, and ecological
impacts such as climate change and pollution.
Purpose
To assess the amount and trends in vehicle use in the Great Lakes Basin (GLB) and to infer the
societal response to the ecosystem stressed caused by vehicle use.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 15 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. An alternative
objective is to reduce stress on the environmental integrity of the Great Lakes region caused by
vehicle use.
State of the Ecosystem
A suite of indicators monitoring vehicle use, the number of registered vehicles licensed, and fuel
consumption is measured by governments in Canada and the United States to capture trends
linked to fossil fuel consumption, deteriorating road safety, and ecological impacts such as
climate change and pollution. Figure 1 shows the estimated total distance travelled by vehicles on
roads in Ontario during 1993-2003 and the number of licensed vehicles registered in Ontario for
the same period. The number of registered vehicles in Ontario rose 21% from over 6.3 million in
1990 to 7.6 million in 2004. More significant, however, is the estimated 122 million vehicle
kilometers travelled (VKT) in Ontario, up 62% from 75 million in 1993. The greatest increase in
VKT occurred between 1999 and 2000 (an increase of 39%). From this data, it is evident that
Canadians in the Great Lakes Basin are increasingly spending more time on the road.
Looking to the U.S., Figure 2 shows the estimated trends in registered vehicles, licensed drivers,
and vehicle kilometers travelled in the Great Lakes States from 1994 to 2004. The number of
registered vehicles increased approximately 11 % during this time period, while the number of
licensed drivers only increased 8%. These increasing trends are somewhat lower than national
averages in the U.S., showing increases of 20% and 13%, respectively. Just as in Ontario, VKT
increased at a greater rate than the number of registered vehicles or licensed drivers. VKT
increased in the Great Lakes States approximately 20% from 1994 to 2004, as compared to a 24%
national U.S. increase. In 2004, U.S. residents in the Great Lakes States gained 7% more
kilometres per vehicle than were driven in 1994.
A snapshot of the total registered vehicles in Ontario points abundantly to a societal dependence
on private vehicles. Of the total registered vehicles in Ontario, passenger vehicles continually
dominate road traffic, accounting for 74% of the total registered vehicles in 2004. As anyone who
has driven on basin highways might guess, commercial freight traffic was the runner-up,
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
accounting for 14% of road traffic in the same year. Notably, trucking flows of inter-provincial
trade through Quebec and Ontario (both directions) also accounted for $41 billion worth of
commodities or 30 per cent of total inter-provincial trade in Canada.
The movement of people is undoubtedly a driving force behind the economic profitability of the
GLB. However, the tradeoffs of unsustainable modes of transport are evident. In Canada, road
transportation, including private vehicles, represented 77% of total transportation in terms of
energy use in 2004. As a result, energy-related GHGs rose by 25%, from 135.0 megatonnes to
168.8 megatonnes. In that same time period, the number of vehicles rose 8% faster than the
number of people (Canada, 2005). In Ontario, sale of motor gasoline increased by 22% between
1989 and 2004 (Figure 3), on par with the national average. Gasoline sales rose from more than
12 billion litres to more than 15 billion litres between 1990 and 2003, with diesel fuel sales in
Ontario alone doubling during the same period, from more than 12 million to almost 15 million
litres. In the Great Lakes States, fuel (gasoline and gasohol) consumption for vehicles increased
by 17% from 1994 to 2004, as compared to a 24% increase nationally in the U.S. It is noteworthy
to point out that use of ethanol blended fuels (gasohol) in the Great Lakes States increased 160%
over this time period. Gasohol now comprised approximately 39% of fuel consumption in the
Great Lakes States. The increased demand for fuel in both countries is driven by a rise in number
of vehicles on highways, increased power of automobile engines, and the growing popularity of
sports utility vehicles and large-engine cars (Menard, 2006)
Over the last decade, consumers have also shown a strong preference for high-performance
vehicles. Since 1999, the production of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) has dominated the
automotive industry, surpassing the output of both minivans and pickup trucks nation wide. For
the period of January to September 2004, SUVs accounted for 18% of total light-duty vehicle
manufacturing, which assembles passenger cars, vans, minivans, pickup trucks and SUVs in
Canada (Magnusson, 2005). In the Great Lakes States, the registrations of private and
commercially owned trucks, which include personal passenger vans, passenger minivans, and
sport-utility vehicles, have increased approximately 50% from 1994 to 2004. Private and
commercially owned trucks now comprise about 37% of all registered vehicles in the Great Lakes
States. Although the fuel economy of the average new car has improved more than 76% since
1975, the automotive industry has traded off fuel consumption improvements in new vehicles for
more powerful engines. This improved performance reduced the fuel economy that otherwise
could have been achieved, meaning, cars collectively get worse gas mileage today than they did
in the mid-1980's (NRC, 1992)—the effects of which are experienced with diminished air quality
locally.
Pressures
Suburban development has become the predominant form of growth in the Great Lakes Basin.
The mixed assessment in the GLB urban air quality can be directly linked to the increase in traffic
congestion. Presently, transportation GHG emissions are increasing at a slower rate than activity
because of the more efficient travel of people and goods. However, all modes of transport are still
greatly dependent on GHG-intensive hydrocarbons to provide them with energy. As a major
driver of ecological stress, vehicles are the single largest domestic source of the smog-causing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These emissions include nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) as well as carbon monoxide (CO), all which contribute contaminants
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
to air and water systems (MOE, 2005). Such pollutants have been connected with respiratory
problems and premature death. There is strong evidence that atmospheric deposition is a source
of pollutants in storm water runoff, and that this runoff reaches streams, rivers and other aquatic
resources (UC, 2004). Congestion caused by automobiles and vehicle-related development also
degrades the liveability of urban environments by contributing noise, pollution, and fatalities.
Positive trends in road use may also lead to further fragmentation of natural areas in the basin.
Management Implications
There is a need to reduce the volume and congestion of traffic in the GLB. While progress has
been made through less polluting fuels and emission reduction technologies, and economic tools
such as the tax incentives that encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles (e.g. Tax for Fuel
Conservation), issues of urban sprawl must also be managed. Recent studies by the U.S. EPA
found that infill development and re-development of older suburbs could reduce VKT per capita
by 39% to 52% (depending on the metropolitan area studied) (Chiotti, 2004). The success of
current strategies will assist managers and municipalities protect natural areas, conserve valuable
resources (such as agriculture and fossil fuels), ensure the stability of ecosystem services, and
prevent pollution. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada is committed to reducing its GHG emissions
by 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2010, even though the government may consider new
targets.
Over the next 30 years, the number of people living in Ontario is expected to grow by
approximately four million, the majority of which are expected to reside in the GLB. In the
Golden Horseshoe Area alone, 2031 forecasts predict that the population of this area is to grow
by an additional 3.7 million (from 2001) to 11.5 million. The McGuinty government has invested
in the several initiatives (including, Bill 26, the Strong Communities Act, 2004) in order to
manage regional growth and development, and municipalities and regions within the GLB are
developing their own plans within the common mandate.
Improving public transit is the first investment priority, however there is an acknowledgment that
improving population growth forecasts, intensifying land use, revitalizing urban spaces,
diversifying employment opportunities, curbing sprawl, protecting rural areas, and improving
infrastructure are all part of the solution. Urban development strategies must be supported by
positive policy and financial frameworks that allow municipalities to remain profitable, while
creating affordable housing and encouraging higher density growth in the right locations. Further
research, investment and action are needed to explore multi-modal corridors and modes for
transporting goods in the basin.
Comments from the author(s)
It should be noted that Canadian Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKM) data is based on a
voluntary vehicle-based survey conducted by Transport Canada. The measure of vehicle-
kilometres travelled does not take into account occupancy rates, which affect the sustainability of
travel.
It also should be noted that U.S. motor fuel data come from the records of State agencies that
administer the State taxes on motor fuel are the underlying source for most of the data presented
in these tables. Over the last several years, there have been numerous changes in State fuel tax
laws and procedures that have resulted in improved fuel tax compliance, especially for diesel fuel.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006 3
-------
,* *~,/« rt~? 5-«™?5 M< frT *\ ~-*y~^'9'«ann(
^
-------
Menard, M. Canada, a Big Energy Consumer: A Regional Perspective, Manufacturing,
Construction and Energy Division. Statistics Canada. Manufacturing, Construction and Energy
Division. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/l 1-621-MIE/l l-621-MIE2005023.htm, last
viewed 28 August 2006.
Ministry of the Environment. Drive Clean Reduced Harmful Emissions. 2005.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/2005/111801fs.htm. last viewed 28 August 2006.
Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Ontario. Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe
Area. 2006. http://www.pir.gov.on.ca. last viewed 28 August 2006.
Natural Resources Canada. Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada, 1990 to 2003. June 2005.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data e/trends05/index.cfm?attr=0, last viewed
28 August 2006.
Statistics Canada, Canadian Vehicle Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 53-223-XIE, 2000
to 2003.
Statistics Canada, Road motor vehicles, fuel sales, CANSIM Table 405-0002.
http://www40.statcan.ca/101 /cstO 1 /trade37a.htm, last viewed 28 August 2006.
Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada's Energy Statistics Handbook. 2006.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/57-601-XIE/57-601-XIE2006001.pdf
Transport Canada. Integration Technologies for Sustainable Urban Goods Movement. 2004.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/Report/UrbanGoods/Report.htm, last viewed 28 August 2006.
Transport Canada. The Full Cost Investigation of Transportation in Canada. 2005.
http://www.transport-canada.org/pol/en/aca/fci/menu.htm. Last viewed 5 October 2006.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Highway Policy
Information. Highway Statistics Publications.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.htm
List of Tables
Table 1: Primary energy consumption of Motor Gasoline and Diesel Fuel, Canada, 1990 and
2003.
Source: Report on energy supply-demand in Canada, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 57-003-
XIB, 1990 and 2003; population estimates, CANSIM Table 051-0001; Real GDP, CANSIM
Table 384-0013.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Licensed Vehicles and Vehicle Kilometres Travelled in Ontario.
Data Source: Statistics Canada Canadian Vehicle Survey.
Figure 2. Number of Registered Vehicles, Licensed Drivers and Vehicle Kilometres Travelled in
Great Lakes States.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Data Source: U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Office of
Highway Policy Information. Highway Statistics Publications.
Figure 3. Petroleum Consumption in Ontario.
Data source: Statistics Canada's Energy Statistics Handbook. 2006
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Variable
Level
1990
2003
Variation from
1990 to 2003
value
%
% share of
energy
consumed
1990
2003
%
contribution
to change
Primary energy consumption in terajoules
Motor gasoline
Diesel fuel
432,446
169,466
539,230
248,437
106,784
78,971
25
47
15
6
16
8
22
16
Table 1. Primary energy consumption of Motor Gasoline and Diesel Fuel, Canada, 1990 and
2003.
Source: Report on energy supply-demand in Canada, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 57-003-
XIB, 1990 and 2003; population estimates, CANSIM Table 051-0001; Real GDP, CANSIM
Table 384-0013.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
t« $TJ ":;
-xs--r
9,000,000 T
8,000,000 --
7,000,000 --
o
$
6,000,000 --
^ 5,000,000 --
•o
2
« 4,000,000
5)
0)
o:
•s
£ 3,000,000
.Q
3
z
2,000,000 --
1,000,000 --
T 140,000
-- 120,000
-- 100,000
_c
T3
_2
-- 80,000 2
2
ffl
-------
~ 40,000,000
•5, 30,000,000
£ 20,000,000
1999
Year
gistered Vehicles 4- Licensed drivers + VMT
1,000,000 °
Figure 2. Number of Registered Vehicles, Licensed Drivers and Vehicle Kilometres Travelled in
Great Lakes States.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Highway
Policy Information. Highway Statistics Publications.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
?:;2«a
18,000
„ 16,000
(A
0
•s
." 14,000
•o 12,000
- 10,000
8,000
o 6,000
4,000
2,000
1988 1990
1992
1994
1996 1998
Year
2000 2002 2004 2006
Figure 3. Petroleum Consumption in Ontario.
Data source: Statistics Canada's Energy Statistics Handbook. 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
Indicator # 7065
Note: This is a progress report towards implementation of this indicator.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Data to support this indicator have not been summarized according to
Determining quality control standards. Compilation of a comprehensive report on
Status and Trend wastewater treatment and pollution in the Great Lakes will require a
substantial amount of additional time and effort.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
A lake-by-lake assessment is not available at this time as data summarization is incomplete and
not available for analysis on a lake-by-lake basis.
Purpose (proposed)
• To measure the proportion of the population served by municipal sewage treatment
facilities
• To evaluate the level of municipal treatment provided
• To measure the percent of collected wastewater that is treated; and
• To assess the loadings of metals, phosphorus, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and
organic chemicals released by wastewater treatment plants into the water courses of the
Great Lakes basin.
Ecosystem Objective
The purpose of this indicator is to assess (1) the reduction of pressures induced on the ecosystem
by insufficient wastewater treatment networks and procedures and (2) to further the progression
of wastewater treatment towards sustainable development.
This indicator is also intended to (3) assess the scope of municipal sewage treatment and the
commitment to protecting freshwater quality in the Great Lakes basin. The quality of wastewater
treatment determines the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health as a result of
the loadings of pollutants discharged into the Great Lakes basin.
State of the Ecosystem
Background Information
Wastewater refers to the contents of sewage systems drawing liquid wastes from a variety of
sources, including municipal, institutional and industrial, and stormwater discharges. After
treatment, wastewater is released into the environment from a treatment plant as effluent into
receiving waters such as lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and estuaries.
Wastewater contains a large number of potentially harmful pollutants, including some that are the
result of biological activity as well as others that are part of the over 200 identified chemicals
from industries, institutions, households, and other sources. Wastewater systems are designed to
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
collect and treat these wastes using various levels of treatment to remove pollutants prior to
discharge, ranging from no treatment to very sophisticated and thorough treatments. Despite
treatment, effluents released from wastewater systems can still contain pollutants of concern,
since even advanced treatment systems do not necessarily remove all pollutants and chemicals.
The following constituents, mostly associated with human waste, are present in all sewage
effluent to some degree:
• biodegradable oxygen-consuming organic matter (measured as biochemical oxygen
demand or BOD);
• suspended solids (measured as total suspended solids or TSS);
• nutrients, such as phosphorus (usually measured as total phosphorus) and nitrogen-based
compounds (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and ammonium, which are measured either
separately or in combination as total nitrogen);
• microorganisms (which are usually measured in terms of the quantity of representative
groups of bacteria, such as fecal coliforms or fecal streptococci, found in human wastes);
• sulphides;
• assorted heavy metals; and
• trace amounts of other toxins and emerging chemicals of concern that have yet to be
consistently monitored for in wastewater effluents.
Municipal Wastewater Effluent (MWWE) is one of the largest sources of pollution, by volume,
discharged to surface water bodies in Canada (CCME, 2006). Reducing the discharge of pollution
through MWWE requires a number of interventions ranging from source control to end of pipe
measures.
Levels of Treatment in the U.S. and Canada
The concentration and type of effluent released into the receiving body of water depends heavily
on the type of sewage treatment used. As a result, information regarding the level of treatment
that was used on wastewater is integral in assessments of potential impacts on water quality. In
both the United States and Canada, the main levels of wastewater treatment used include primary,
secondary, and advanced or tertiary.
In primary wastewater treatment, solids are removed from raw sewage primarily through
processes involving sedimentation. This process typically removes roughly 25-35% of solids and
related organic matter (U.S. EPA 2000).
In the U.S., pretreatment may also occur preliminary to primary treatment, in which contaminants
are reduced and large debris is removed from industrial wastewater before it is discharged to
municipal treatment systems to undergo regular treatment. U.S. federal regulations require that
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Pretreatment Programs include the development of
local pretreatment limits in situations where industrial pollutants could potentially interfere with
municipal treatment facility operations or contaminate sewage sludge. The U.S. EPA can
authorize the states to implement their own Pretreatment Programs as well. Of the eight states
that are part of the Great Lakes basin, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin currently hold
an approved State Pretreatment Program, (U.S. EPA, NPDES 2006).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Secondary wastewater treatment includes an additional biological component in which oxygen-
demanding organic materials are removed through bacterial synthesis enhanced with oxygen
injections. About 85% of organic matter in sewage is removed through this process, after which
the excess bacteria are removed, (U.S. EPA 1998). Effluent can then be disinfected with chlorine
prior to discharge in an effort to kill potentially harmful bacteria. Subsequent dechlorination is
also often required to remove excess chlorine that may be harmful to aquatic life.
Secondary treatment effluent standards are established by the EPA and have technology-based
requirements for all direct discharging facilities. These standards are expressed as a minimum
level of effluent quality in terms of biochemical oxygen demand measurements over a five-day
interval (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS) and pH. Secondary treatment of municipal
wastewater is the minimum acceptable level of treatment according to U.S. federal law unless
special considerations dictate otherwise (U.S. EPA 2000).
Advanced, or tertiary, levels of treatment often occur as well and are capable of producing high-
quality water. Tertiary treatment can include the removal of nutrients such as phosphorus and
nitrogen and essentially all suspended and organic matter from wastewater through combinations
of physical and chemical processes. Additional pollutants can also be removed when processes
are tailored for those purposes.
Data on the level of treatment utilized in the United States are available from the Clean Water
Needs Survey (CWNS). This cooperative effort between the U.S. EPA and the states resulted in
the creation and maintenance of a database with technical and cost information on the 16,000
publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities in the nation. According to the results of the 2000
CWNS, the total population served by POTWs in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin was
17,400,897 in 2000. Of this number, 0.7% received treatment from facilities that do not
discharge directly into Great Lakes waterways and dispose of wastes by other means, 14.1%
received secondary treatment, and 85.3% received treatment that was greater than secondary,
making advanced treatment the type used most extensively. Please see Figure 1 for the complete
distribution of population served according to level of treatment by major lake and river basins
within the U.S. Great Lakes watershed. These values do not include a possible additional 12,730
people who were reportedly served by facilities in New York for which watershed locations are
unknown within the CWNS database. Although the facilities are in counties at least partially
within the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes region, their location within Great Lakes watersheds
can not be easily verified.
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WTPs) in Ontario also use primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment types. The processes are very similar, if not the same to those used in the U.S.
(described above), but Canadian regulatory emphasis is placed on individual effluent quality
guidelines as opposed to mandating that a specific treatment type be utilized across the province.
A complete distribution of population served according to level of treatment is not available in
the Great Lakes basin for Ontario at this time. However, for a general understanding, a
distribution of the population served by each treatment type for all of Canada is available in
Figure 2.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Tertiary or advanced treatment is the most common type of sewage treatment across the basin,
which can be inferred from the combined trends demonstrated in both Figures 1 and 2. This
indicates the potential for high effluent water quality, which can only be verified through analysis
of regulatory and monitoring programs.
Condition of Wastewater Effluent in Canada and the United States:
Regulation. Monitoring, and Reporting
Canada does not regulate effluent conditions through treatment level requirements, but instead
sets specific limits for each individual WTP, no matter which type of treatment is used. In the
U.S., effluent limits are standardized by the Federal Government, but the states have the power to
make alterations as long as minimum guidelines are met.
Each federally managed wastewater treatment plant (WTP) in Canada must also follow guidelines
given by the Federal Government. Effluent guidelines for wastewater from Federal facilities are
to be equal to or more stringent than the established standards or requirements of any Federal or
Provincial regulatory agency (Environment Canada, 2004). The guidelines indicate the degree of
treatment and the effluent quality applicable to the wastewater discharged from the specific WTP.
Use of the Federal guidelines is intended to promote a consistent wastewater approach towards
the cleanup and prevention of water pollution and ensure that the best practicable control
technologies are used (Environment Canada, 2004).
Table 1 lists the pollutant effluent limits specified for all federally approved WTPs in Ontario.
The effluents discharged to the receiving water should receive treatment such that an effluent of
minimum quality is achieved. In general, compliance with the numerical limits should be based
on 24 hour composite samples (Environment Canada, 2004).
In Ontario, wastewater treatment and effluents are monitored through a Municipal Water Use
Database (MUD) through Environment Canada. This database uses a survey for all municipalities
to report on wastewater treatment techniques. Unfortunately, the last complete survey is from
1999 and this data are not sufficient to use for this report. The most up to date municipal water
use survey will be released within the next few months and would useful to examine the treatment
results within Canada. Unfortunately, the survey is not yet available, and other methods have
been chosen to examine wastewater treatment in Ontario, which are explained in the Attempted
Eperimental Protocols section of this progress report.
The U.S. regulates and monitors wastewater treatment systems and effluents through a variety of
national programs. The U.S. EPA's Office of Wastewater Management promotes compliance
with the Clean Water Act through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit Program. These permits regulate wastewater discharges from POTWs by setting effluent
limits, monitoring and reporting requirements, and they can lead to enforcement actions when
excessive violations occur. The U.S. EPA can authorize the states to implement all or part of the
NPDES program, and all US states in the Great Lakes region are currently approved to do so
provided they meet minimum federal requirements, (U.S. EPA, NPDES 2006). This distribution
of implementation power can create difficulties when specific assessments are attempted across
regions spanning several states.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Large scale national assessments of wastewater treatment have been completed in the past by
using BOD and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels as indicators of water quality. Since DO levels
have been proved to be related to BOD output from wastewater discharges (increased BOD
loadings lead to greater depletion of oxygen and lower DO levels in the water), historical DO
records can be a useful indicator of water quality responses to wastewater loadings. According to
a national assessment of wastewater treatment completed in 2000, the U.S. Great Lakes basin had
a statistically significant improvement in worst-case DO levels after the Clean Water act (U.S.
EPA 2000). The study's design estimates also showed that the national discharge of BOD5 in
POTW effluent decreased by about 45%, despite a significant increase of 35% in the population
served and the influent loadings. This improving general trend supported assumptions made in the
1996 CWNS Report to Congress that the efficiency of BOD removal would increase due to the
growing proportion of POTWs using advanced treatment processes across the nation.
Although specific case studies do exist, unfortunately comprehensive studies such as the
examples listed above have not been conducted for pollutants other than BODs, and have not
been completed to an in-depth level for the Great Lakes region.
An extensive investigation of the Permit Compliance System (PCS) database is one way such a
goal can be accomplished. This national information management system tracks NPDES data
including permit issuance, limits, self-monitoring, and compliance. The PCS database can
provide the information necessary to calculate the loadings of specific chemicals present in
wastewater effluent from certain POTWs in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin, providing
the relevant permits exist.
Attempted Experimental Protocol for Calculating Pollutant Loadings from Wastewater Treatment
Plants to the Great Lakes
This calculation was attempted for the U.S. and Canadian portion of the G.L. basin during the
compilation of this report, and although an extensive amount of data are available and have been
retrieved, their summarization to an appropriate level of quality control is substantially difficult
and is not complete at this time. The protocol followed thus far is outlined below.
The initial procedure for mining the U.S. data from the PCS database began with the compilation
of a list of all the municipal wastewater treatment facilities located within the Great Lakes basin.
The determination of which pollutants were most consistently permitted for across the basin
followed, and the effluent loadings data for all facilities that monitored for those parameters were
obtained for 2000 and 2005. These pollutant parameters were often referred to by various
common names in the database, which additionally complicated extraction of concise data. The
resulting mass of data was extremely large and could not be feasibly summarized due to internal
inconsistencies such as difference in units of measurement, monitoring time frames, extreme
outliers, and apparent data entry mistakes.
In an effort to decrease the amount of U.S. data requiring analysis at a more precise level, (as a
result of the problems mentioned above,) several specific facilities throughout the basin were
chosen to hopefully serve as representative case studies off which total loadings estimates could
be calculated. These facilities were chosen by two sets of criteria. The first was according to
location within the basin, to ensure that all states and each Great Lake were represented. The
second criteria was the greatest average level of effluent flow, as the selected facilities could
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
potentially have the greatest impact due to sheer volume of effluent, and these values could also
be used to calculate loadings in cases where pollutant measurements were gathered as a
concentration as opposed to by quantity (as was often the case). Fifteen facilities were eventually
selected for further analysis, and corresponding effluent measurements for basic pollutants were
extracted from the PCS database. Calculation of percent change in pollutant loadings and the
number of violations from 2000 to 2005 was attempted for these data, but results are not available
yet due to the data quality issues described earlier.
With total effluent loadings being so difficult to calculate independently from database records,
government generated historical records of effluent limit violations can provide some insight into
the performance of U.S. Great Lakes wastewater treatment facilities. The Enforcement and
Compliance History Online (ECHO) is a publicly accessible data system funded by the EPA that
was used to obtain violation information by quarter over a three year time span for the group of
15 U.S. facilities previously selected for loadings calculations.
The resulting compliance data are presented in Figure 3 according to each pollutant for which
violations of permitted effluent levels occurred during the 12 possible quarters under
investigation from 2003-2006. This information is further separated out into quarters that
demonstrated basic violations of effluent limits and those that had a significant level of non-
compliance with permitted effluent limits. Chloride, fecal coliform, and solids violations were
the most common, with copper, cyanide, and mercury having higher numbers of violations as
well. Chloride, copper, mercury, and solids violations showed the most significant non-
compliance with permitted levels.
In Ontario, wastewater treatment plants must report on the operation of the system and the quality
of the wastewater treatment procedures on an annual basis to satisfy the requirements of the
Ontario Ministry of Environment and the Certificate of Approval. Each report fulfills the
reporting requirements established in section 10(6) of the Certificate of Approval made under the
Ontario Water Resources Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40). As a result of these requirements, effluent
limit violations for BOD, phosphorus, and suspended solids should be available for future
analysis. Data are too extensive to summarize at this time to a sufficient level of quality control.
Since results from the Municipal Water Use Database were not available at this time, the data
used for the Canadian component of this report were provided by 10 municipalities in the Great
Lakes basin. Municipalities were randomly chosen based on their proximity to the great lakes
and their population of over 10,000. Most of the chosen municipalities had about one to three
wastewater treatment plants, which compiled to 24 treatment plants being examined in total for
this indicator report. Data from 2005 annual reports for each wastewater treatment plant were
used to analyze wastewater treatment procedures and associated effluent quality for this indicator,
with special focus on four specific pollutant parameters. These include BOD, phosphorus and
suspended solids, all of which are indicators of potential health hazards.
These parameters are regulated by most wastewater treatment plants, which when exceeded, have
the potential to have serious effects on human health. Current targets exist to minimize
environmental and health impacts. For example, Ontario WTPs have a target of 50% for the
removal of BOD and limits must not exceed 20mg/L in a 5 day span. The target for the removal
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
of suspended solids is 70%, with a limit of 25 mg/L in a 24 hour sample period. And although
some nutrients are essential for plant production in all aquatic ecosystems, an oversupply of
nutrients, particularly from municipal wastewater effluents, can lead to the growth of large algal
blooms and extensive weed beds (Environment Canada 2001). Resulting wastewater effluent
limits for phosphorus in Ontario have been set at l.Omg/L accordingly. Completed results
corresponding to the exceedences of these limits are not available for Ontario at this time.
Pressures
There are numerous challenges to providing adequate levels of wastewater treatment in the Great
Lakes basin. These include: facility aging, disrepair and outdatedness; population growth that
stresses the capabilities of existing plants and requires the need for more facilities; new and
emerging contaminants that are more complex and prolific than in the past; and new development
that is located away from urban areas and served by decentralized systems (such as septic
systems) that are much harder to regulate and monitor. The escalating costs associated with
addressing these challenges continue to be a problem for both U.S. and Canadian municipalities,
(U.S. EPA, 2004 and Government of Canada, 2002).
Management Implications
Despite demonstrated significant progress with wastewater treatment across the basin, substantial
problems remain with regards to nutrient enrichment, sediment contamination, heavy metals, and
toxic organic chemicals that still pose threats to the environment and human health. It is
therefore important to continually invest in wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements, so
any current achievements in water pollution control are not overwhelmed by the demands of
future urban population growth and so other remaining concerns can be addressed such as
polluted urban runoff and untreated municipal stormwater. These sources have emerged as prime
contributors to local water quality problems throughout the basin (Environment Canada, 2004).
WTPs are having difficulties keeping up with demands created by urban development which
cause an increasing amount of bypass into the Great Lakes. The governments of Canada and
Ontario and municipal authorities, working under the auspices of the Canada-Ontario Agreement
Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), have been developing and evaluating new
stormwater control technologies and sewage treatment techniques to resolve water quality
problems (Environment Canada, 2004). Under the new COA, Canada and Ontario will continue
to build on this work, implementing efficient and cost effective projects to reduce the
environmental damage of a rapidly expanding urban population (Environment Canada, 2004).
Municipal wastewater effluent (MWWE) is currently managed through a variety of policies, by-
laws and legislation at the federal, provincial/territorial and municipal levels (CCME, 2006). This
current variety of policies unfortunately creates confusion and complex situations for regulators,
system owners and operators. As a result, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME) has established a Development Committee to develop a Canada-wide Strategy for the
management of MWWE by November 2006. An integral part of the strategy's development will
be to consult with a wide variety of stakeholders to ensure that management strategies for
MWWE incorporate their interests, expertise and vision. The strategy will address a number of
governance and technical issues, resulting in a harmonized management approach (CCME, 2006).
The presence of emerging chemicals of concern in wastewater effluent is another developing
issue that requires attention. Current U.S. State and municipality permit requirements are based
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
,
•.- .tx:ii=,.,,«,,ifa, .1. ,i ==, :a,,.i, i,,,,,,,i, i,=£,.»i,
on state water quality laws that are developed according to pollutants anticipated to exist in the
community. This is also true for the WTP in Ontario. This means the existence of new
potentially toxic substances can be overlooked. So even in areas with a high degree of municipal
wastewater treatment, pollutants such as endocrine-disrupting substances can inadvertently pass
through wastewater treatment systems and into the environment. These substances are known to
disrupt or mimic naturally occurring hormones and may have an impact on the growth,
reproduction, and development of many species of wildlife. Additional monitoring for these
pollutants and corresponding protection and regulation measures need to be investigated and
implemented.
The methodologies used in the U.S. national assessments of wastewater treatment could
potentially be reproduced and used to detect loadings trends and performance measures for
additional pollutants in the Great Lakes. The QA/QC safeguards included in such methods could
lead to very useful analyses of watershed-based point source controls. Sufficient resources in
terms of time and funding need to be allocated in order to accomplish this task.
Comments from the author(s)
The actual proportion of the entire population receiving treatment can not be calculated until a
definite population for the Great Lakes basin can be obtained for the same time period. Several
different population estimates exist for the region, but they were compiled according to county in
the U.S., and therefore represent a skewed total for the population that actually resides within the
boundaries of the Great Lakes watershed. GIS analysis of census data needs to be completed in
order to obtain a more accurate value for the Great Lakes population.
In Canada, only one year was assessed due to lack of available data. In future years, data from
the Environment Canada MWWS survey would be useful to use, but the survey is currently only
updated to 1999, which unfotunately would not be useful for this report. The newest survey will
be out within the next year and it should be examined in future assessments for this indicator.
Several problems exist in the calculation of effluent loadings. For example, actual flow through
effluent is not consistently monitored for in the U.S. Although influent levels are obtainable for
every facility, there is no way to ensure that the effluent is comparable, since a substantial volume
may be removed during treatment processes. Since effluent flow is sometimes necessary to
calculate loadings from concentration values of pollutants, precise estimates of total loadings to
Great Lakes waters may be next to impossible to obtain on a large scale.
Another future effort towards the implementation of this indicator would be to use a consistent
guideline when analyzing wastewater treatment in both the U.S. and Canada. In the U.S. portion
of the basin, data were compiled from several different databases, with population information
derived from a separate source than effluent monitoring reports. For Ontario, data from randomly
chosen municipalities serving a population of 10,000 or greater were available for analysis.
Focusing on this criterion for wastewater treatment can only provide a fragmented view of the
treatment patterns in the Canadian Great Lakes basin; however, by using a consistent wastewater
treatment analysis guideline, bias results would be avoided.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Furthermore, a more organized monitoring program must be implemented in order to successfully
correlate wastewater treatment quality with the status of the Great Lakes basin. Although the
wastewater treatment plants provide useful monitoring information regarding the quality of
wastewater, they only state the quality of that specific municipality, rather than the overall quality
of the great lakes. Implementation of a more standardized, updated approach to monitoring
contaminants in effluent and reporting data for wastewater treatment is needed to address this
issue. Additionally, the difference in monitoring requirements between Canada and the U.S.
make it difficult to assess the quality of wastewater treatment on a basin-wide scale. A
standardized reporting format and inclusive database, accessible to all municipalities, researchers,
and the general public, should be established for binational use. This would make trend analysis
easier, and thus provide a more effective assessment of the potential health hazards associated
with wastewater treatment for the Great Lakes as a whole.
Considering all the difficulties encountered while attempting to adequately summarize the vast
amount of U.S. effluent monitoring data contained in the PCS database, the logical solution
would be to request an application that could automate accurate calculations. Interestingly, such
an application previously existed that was capable of producing effluent data mass loadings
reports from the PCS database, but it was discontinued due to the modernization of the PCS
system that is currently underway. While the PCS system is being updated, adequate resources
have not been available to extend this overhaul to the previously mentioned application as of yet,
and the lack of substantial use of the application in the past raised concern over its cost-
effectiveness. Additionally, incorporating this component into the current modernization could
take years due to various logistical problems, including the inherent quality assurance controls
needed for PCS metadata before potential loadings results could be accepted as reliable, high
quality data (personal communication with James Coleman, 2006).Despite these problems, the
reinstatement of such a tool would solve the data summarization needs presented in this indicator
report and could lead to an effective, comprehensive, and time-efficient analysis of pollutant
loadings to the Great Lakes from wastewater treatment plants.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe, Environmental Careers Organization Associate, on
appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL;
Tracie Greenberg, Environment Canada Intern, Burlington, ON
Contributors
James Coleman, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Water Division, Water Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Branch
Paul Bertram, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Sreedevi Yedavalli, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Water Division, NPDES Support and Technical
Assistance Branch
Data Sources
2000 Clean Watershed Needs Survey data was supplied in 2006 by William Tansey, U.S. EPA,
and was compiled for the Great Lakes basin by Tetra Tech, Inc.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2006. Municipal Wastewater Effluent. Last
accessed September 7, 2006 from: http://www.ccme.ca/initiatives/water.html?categorv id=81
City of Hamilton. 2006. Woodward Wastewater Treatment Plant Report 2005 Annual Report.
Woodward Wastewater Treatment Plant, Hamilton, Ontario.
City of Toronto. 2006. Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant 2005 Summary. Toronto, Ontario.
City of Toronto. 2006. Highland Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 2005 Summary. Toronto,
Ontario.
City of Toronto. 2006. Number Wastewater Treatment Plant 2005 Summary. Toronto, Ontario.
City of Sault Ste Marie. 2006. East End Water Pollution Control Plant 2005 Annual Report.
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario.
City of Sault Ste Marie. 2006. West End Water Pollution Control Plant 2005 Annual Report.
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario.
City of Windsor. 2006. Little River Water Pollution Control Plant 2005 Annual Report. Windsor,
Ontario.
City of Windsor. 2006. Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant 2005 Annual Report. Windsor,
Ontario.
County of Prince Edward. 2006. Picton Water Pollution Control Plant - Monitoring and
Compliance Report 2005. The corporation of the country of Prince Edward, Belleville, Ontario.
County of Prince Edward. 2006. Wellington Water Pollution Control Plant - Monitoring and
Compliance Report 2005. The corporation of the country of Prince Edward, Belleville, Ontario.
Environment Canada. 2004. Guidelines for Effluent Quality and Wastewater Treatment at
Federal Establishments. Last accessed September 5, 2006 from:
http://www.ec.gc. ca/etad/default.asp?lang=En&n=023194F5-l#general
Environment Canada. 2001. The State of Municipal Wastewater Effluents in Canada. Last
Accessed August 31, 2006 from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/soer/MWWE.pdf
Government of Canada. 2002. Municipal Water Issues in Canada. Last accessed September 14,
2006 from: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp333-e.htmtfTREATING
Halton Region. 2006. Acton WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of Halton,
Halton, Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Skyway WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of
Halton, Halton Ontario.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Halton Region. 2006. Georgetown WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of
Halton, Halton Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Milton WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of
Halton, Halton Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Mid-Halton WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of
Halton, Halton Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Oakvitte South East WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional
Municipality of Halton, Halton Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Oakville South West WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional
Municipality of Halton, Halton Ontario.
PCS data supplied by James Coleman, Information Management Specialist, U.S. EPA, Region 5
Water Division, Water Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch.
Peel Region. 2006. Clarkson Compliance Report 2005. Mississauga, Ontario.
Peel Region. 2006. Lakeview Compliance Report 2005. Mississauga, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Corbett Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005.
Town of Whitby, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Duffin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005.
Town of Whitby, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Newcastle Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005.
Town of Whitby, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Port Darlington Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005.
Town of Whitby, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Harmony Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005.
Town of Whitby, Ontario.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Wastewater Primer. U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
http://www.eap. gov/owm/
U.S. EPA. 2000. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA-832-R-00-008.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
U.S. EPA. 2004. Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems. U.S. EPA, Office of
Water and Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC. EPA 832-R-04-001.
U.S. EPA. "Compliance and Enforcement Water Data Systems." Data, Planning and Results.
July 03, 2006. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/svstems/index.html (Accessed September 27, 2006).
U.S. EPA. "Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO)." Compliance and
Enforcement. September 2006. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
http://www.epa.gov/echo/index.html (Accessed September27, 2006).
U.S. EPA. "NPDES Permit Program Basics." National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). July 05, 2006. U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm (Accessed July 25, 2006).
List of Tables
Table 1. Canadian Pollutant Effluent Limits
Source: Environment Canada, 2004 http://www.ec.gc.ca/etad/default.asp?lang=En&n=023194F5-
l#general
List of Figures
Figure 1. Population served by Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) by treatment level in
the U.S. Great Lakes basin
Caption: (a)= "No discharge" facilities do not discharge treated wastewater to the Nation's
waterways. These facilities dispose of wastewater via methods such as industrial re-use,
irrigation, or evaporation.
* Lake St. Clair and Detroit River watersheds are also considered part of the Lake Erie basin
** MI Unknown refers to the population served by facilities in the state of Michigan for which
exact watershed locations are unknown, so the data could not be grouped with a specific lake
basin. Population could potentially be distributed between the Lakes Michigan, Huron, or Erie.
Source: 2000 Clean Watershed Needs Survey
Figure 2. Percent of Population Served in Canada by Each Treatment Type in 1999.
Source: Municipal Water Use Database Web site:
(http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/use/e_data.htm)
Figure 3. Total number of quarters with reported effluent limit violations by pollutant for
selected U.S. facilities
Caption: Data was compiled from 15 different facilities according to the total number of quarters
that were in non-compliance of at least one pollutant effluent limit permit during 2003-2006.
* = combination of violations for 5-day BOD listed as total % removal and total
** = combination of violations for fecal coliform listed as general and broth totals
*** = combination of violations for cyanide listed as A and CN totals
**** _ combination of violations for total nitrogen listed as N and as NH3
***** = combination of violations for solids as listed as total settleable, total dissolved, total
suspended, and suspended % removal
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Source: U.S. EPA. "Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO)." Compliance
and Enforcement. September 2006. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, http://www.epa.gov/echo/index.html (Accessed September27, 2006).
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Pollutant Effluent
5 day Biochem Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliforms
Chlorine Residual
PH
Phenols
Oils & Greases
Phosphorus (Total P)
Temperature
Limit
20 mg/L
25 mg/L
400 per 1 00 mL (after disinfection)
0. 50 mg/L minimum after 30 minutes contact
time
6 to 9
20 micrograms/L
15 mg/L
1 .0 mg/L
Not to alter the ambient water temperature
by more than one degree Centigrade (1°C).
Table 1. Canadian Pollutant Effluent Limits
Source: Environment Canada, 2004 http://www.ec.gc.ca/etad/default.asp?lang=En&n=023194F5-
l#general
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Population served by POTWs by treatment level in the U.S. Great Lakes basin
DNo Discharge (a)
I Secondary
D Greater than Secondary
6,000,000
5,000,000
SJ 4,000,000
(A
3,000,000
3
§• 2,000,000
Q.
1,000,000
Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron
St. Lawrence Ml Unknown*'
Lake/River Basin
Figure 1. Population served by Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) by treatment level
in the U.S. Great Lakes basin
Caption: (a)= "No discharge" facilities do not discharge treated wastewater to the Nation's
waterways. These facilities dispose of wastewater via methods such as industrial re-use,
irrigation, or evaporation.
* Lake St. Clair and Detroit River watersheds are also considered part of the Lake Erie basin
** MI Unknown refers to the population served by facilities in the state of Michigan for which
exact watershed locations are unknown, so the data could not be grouped with a specific lake
basin. Population could potentially be distributed between the Lakes Michigan, Huron, or Erie.
Source: 2000 Clean Watershed Needs Survey
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Percent of Population Served by Each Treatment Type (in
1999)
D primary
• stabilizing ponds
• secondary
• tertiary
71.31%
21.26%
Figure 2. Percent of Population Served in Canada by Each Treatment Type in 1999.
Source: Municipal Water Use Database Web site:
(http://www.ec.gc. ca/water/en/manage/use/e_data.htm)
D significant non-compliance with effluent limits
[general limit violations
o
Pollutant
Figure 3. Total number of quarters with reported effluent limit violations by pollutant for
selected U.S. facilities
Caption: Data was compiled from 15 different facilities according to the total number of quarters
that were in non-compliance of at least one pollutant effluent limit permit during 2003-2006.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
15
-------
* = combination of violations for 5-day BOD listed as total % removal and total
** = combination of violations for fecal coliform listed as general and broth totals
*** = combination of violations for cyanide listed as A and CN totals
**** _ combination of violations for total nitrogen listed as N and as NH3
***** = combination of violations for solids as listed as total settleable, total dissolved, total
suspended, and suspended % removal
Source: U.S. EPA. "Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO)." Compliance
and Enforcement. September 2006. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, http://www.epa.gov/echo/index.html (Accessed September27, 2006).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-
Induced Changes
Indicator #7100
Assessment: Not Assessed
Note: This indicator report uses data from the Grand River
watershed only and may not be representative of groundwater
conditions throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To measure groundwater quality as determined by the natural
chemistry of the bedrock and overburden deposits, as well as
any changes in quality due to anthropogenic activities; and
To address groundwater quality impairments, whether they
are natural or human induced in order to ensure a safe and
clean supply of groundwater for human consumption and
ecosystem functioning.
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective for this indicator is to ensure that
groundwater quality remains at or approaches natural condi-
tions.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Natural groundwater quality issues and human induced changes
in groundwater quality both have the potential to affect our
ability to use groundwater safely. Some constituents found nat-
urally in groundwater renders some groundwater reserves inap-
propriate for certain uses. Growing urban populations, along
with historical and present industrial and agricultural activity,
have caused significant harm to groundwater quality, thereby
obstructing the use of the resource and damaging the environ-
ment. Understanding natural groundwater quality provides a
baseline from which to compare, while monitoring anthro-
pogenic changes can allow identification of temporal trends and
assess any improvements or further degradation in quality.
Natural Groundwater Quality
The Grand River watershed can generally be divided into three
distinct geological areas; the northern till plain, the central
region of moraines with complex sequences of glacial,
glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits, and the southern
clay plain. These surficial overburden deposits are underlain by
fractured carbonate rock (predominantly dolostone). The
groundwater resources of the watershed include regional-scale
unconfined and confined overburden and bedrock aquifers as
well as discontinuous local-scale deposits which contain suffi-
cient groundwater to meet smaller users needs. In some areas of
the watershed (e.g. Whitemans Creek basin) the presence of high
permeability sands at ground surface and or a high water table
leads to unconfined aquifers which are highly susceptible to
degradation from surface contaminant sources.
The natural quality of groundwater in the watershed for the most
part is very good. The groundwater chemistry in both the over-
burden and bedrock aquifers is generally high in dissolved inor-
ganic constituents (predominantly calcium, magnesium, sodium,
chloride and sulphate). Measurements of total dissolved solids
(TDS) suggest relatively "hard" water throughout the watershed.
For example, City of Guelph production wells yield water with
hardness measured from 249 mg/1 to 579 mg/1, which far
exceeds the aesthetic Ontario Drinking Water Objective of 80
mg/1 to 100 mg/1. Elevated concentrations of trace metals (iron
and manganese) have also been identified as ambient quality
issues with the groundwater resource.
Ambienl Wa»r Quality IBUSC
• Salt,
A Sulphm
• Mural
* Gas
DUNDEE
DNONDAOA - AMHERSTBURG
•1 BOIS BLANC
ORISKANY
BUSS ISLANDS - BERTIE
SAUNA
EUELPH
LOCKPORT - AMABEL
B CLINTON • CATARACT GROUP
MANITOULIN
OUEENSTON
Kilometres
Figure 1. Bedrock wells with natural quality issues in the Grand
River watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate water quality problems observed in
bedrock and overburden wells, respectively. These figures are
241
-------
based on a qualitative assessment of well water at the time of
drilling as noted on the Ontario Ministry of Environment's water
well record form. The majority of these wells were installed for
domestic or livestock uses. Overall, between 1940 and 2000, less
than 1% (approximately 1131 wells) of all the wells drilled in
the watershed reported having a water quality problem. Of the
wells exhibiting a natural groundwater problem about 90% were
bedrock wells while the other 10% were completed in the over-
burden. The most frequently noted quality problem associated
with bedrock wells was high sulphur content (76% of bedrock
wells with quality problems). This is not surprising, as sulphur is
easy to detect due to its distinctive and objectionable odour.
Generally, three bedrock formations commonly intersected with-
in the watershed contain most of the sulphur wells: the Guelph
Formation, the Salina Formation, and the Onondaga-
Amherstburg Formation. The Salina Formation forms the shal-
low bedrock under the west side of the watershed while the
Ambient Water Quality Issues
• Salty
A Sulphur
• Mineral
• Gas
Generalized Surficial Geology
m Bedrock
Clay
Gravel
Organic
Sand
Sandy Till
M Silty Till
• Water
Kilometres
Figure 2. Overburden wells with natural quality issues in the Grand
River watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
Guelph underlies the east side of the watershed.
Additional quality concerns noted in the water well records
include high mineral content and salt. About 20% of the reported
quality concerns in bedrock wells were high mineral content
while 4% reported salty water. Similar concerns were noted in
overburden wells where reported problems were sulphur (42%),
mineral (34%), and salt (23%).
Human Induced Changes to Groundwater Quality
Changes to the quality of groundwater from anthropogenic activ-
ities associated with urban sprawl, agriculture and industrial
operations have been noted throughout the watershed. Urban
areas within the Grand River watershed have been experiencing
considerable growth over the past few decades. The groundwater
quality issues associated with human activity in the watershed
include: chloride, industrial chemicals (e.g. trichloroethylene
(TCE)), and agricultural impacts (nitrate, bacteria, and pesti-
cides). These contaminants vary in their extent from very local
impact (e.g. bacteria) to widespread impact (e.g. chloride).
Industrial contaminants tend to be point sources, which general-
ly require very little concentration to impact significant ground-
water resources.
Chloride
Increasing chloride concentrations in groundwater have been
observed in most municipal wells in the urban portions of the
watershed. This increase has been attributed to winter deicing of
roads with sodium chloride (salt). Detailed studies carried out by
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo have illustrated the
impact of road salting associated with increased urban develop-
ment to groundwater captured by two municipal well fields.
Figure 3 shows the temporal changes in chloride concentration
for the two well fields investigated in this study. Wells A, B, and
C, are from the first well field while wells D and E are from the
second well field. In 1967 land use within the capture zone of
the first field was 51% rural and 49% urban, while in the second
well field capture zone the land use was 94% rural and 6%
urban. By 1998, the area within the first well field capture zone
had been completely converted to urban land while in the second
well field capture zone 60% of the land remained rural.
Although wells from both well fields show increased chloride
levels, wells A, B, and C in the heavily urbanized capture zone
show a greater increase in chloride concentrations than do wells
D and E in the predominantly rural capture zone. For example,
well B showed a change in chloride concentration from 16.8
mg/1 in 1960, to 260 mg/1 in 1996, where as well D showed a
change from 3 mg/1 in 1966, to 60 mg/1 in 1996. This indicates
that chloride levels in groundwater can be linked to urban
growth and its associated land uses (i.e. denser road network).
The Ontario Drinking Water Objective for chloride had been
242
-------
Wells
-•-A
-•-B
-*-C
-*-D
-•-E
1960
1970
1980
Year
1990
2000
Figure 3. Chloride levels in selected groundwater wells in the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Red indicates wells from one
area/well field. Green indicates wells from a different area/well
field.
Source: Stanley Consulting, 1998
established at 250 mg/1, although this guideline is predominantly
for aesthetic reasons, the issue of increasing chloride levels
should be addressed.
Industrial Contaminants
Groundwater resources in both the overburden and bedrock
deposits within the Grand River watershed have been impacted
by contamination of aqueous and non-aqueous contaminants
which have entered the groundwater as a result of industrial
spills or discharges, landfill leachates, leaky storage containers,
and poor disposal practices. A significant number of these chem-
icals are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Contamination by
VOCs such as TCE, have impacted municipal groundwater sup-
plies in several communities in the watershed. For example, by
the year 1998, five of the City of Guelph's 24 wells were taken
out of service due to low-level VOC contamination. These wells
have a combined capacity of 10,000 to 12,000 mVday and repre-
sent about 15% of the City's permitted water-taking capacity. As
a second example, contamination of both a shallow aquifer and a
deeper municipal aquifer with a variety of industrial chemicals
(including toluene, chlorobenzene, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T) emanating
from a chemical plant in the Region of Waterloo led to the
removal of municipal wells from the water system in the town of
Elmira.
Agricultural and Rural Impacts
Groundwater quality in agricultural areas is affected by activities
such as pesticide application, fertilizer and manure applications
on fields, storage and disposal of animal wastes and the improp-
er disposal and spills of chemicals. The groundwater contami-
nants from these activities can be divided into three main
groups: nitrate, bacteria and pesticides. For example, the applica-
tion of excessive quantities of nutrients to agricultural land may
impact the quality of the groundwater. Excess nitrogen applied
to the soil to sustain crop production is converted to nitrate with
infiltrating water and hence transported to the water table.
Seventy-six percent of the total land area in the Grand River
watershed is used for agricultural purposes and thus potential
and historical contamination of the groundwater due to these
activities is a concern.
Land use and nitrate levels measured in surface water from two
sub-watersheds, the Eramosa River and Whitemans Creek, are
Eramosa River
Sub-Basin
Whitemans Creek
Other
Urban and
/-Developed
Eramosa River
Figure 4. Land cover on moraine systems and areas that facilitate high to very high groundwater recharge of the
Whitemans Creek and Eramosa River sub-watersheds: (a) Spatial distribution and (b) Percent distribution of classi-
fied land use.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
243
-------
used to illustrate the effects of agricultural activities on ground-
water quality and the quality of surface water.
In the Whitemans Creek sub-watershed, approximately 78% of
the land classified as groundwater recharge area is covered with
agricultural uses, and only 20% is forested. In the Eramosa sub-
watershed about 60% of the significant recharge land is used for
agricultural purposes with approximately 34% of the land being
covered with forest (Figure 4). Both of these tributary streams
are considered predominantly groundwater-fed streams, meaning
that the majority of flow within them is received directly from
groundwater discharge.
Average annual concentrations of nitrate measured in the
Eramosa River and Whitemans Creek from 1997 to 2003 are
shown in Figure 5. Average annual concentration of nitrate
measured in Whitemans Creek between 1997 and 2003 were 2.5
to 8 times higher than those measured in the Eramosa River. The
higher nitrate levels measured in Whitemans Creek illustrate the
linkage between increased agricultural activity and groundwater
contamination and its impact on surface water quality. In addi-
tion to the agricultural practices in the Whitemans Creek sub-
watershed, the observed nitrate concentrations may also be
linked to rural communities with a high density of septic sys-
tems that leach nutrients to the subsurface.
Manure spreading on fields, runoff from waste disposal sites.
"5> 19
I
c m
.1
'•&
S. ft -
*J
§ 6
E
O
O 4
0)
*j
2 2
*j £-
z
0
T
J
M\
1997
J
19
dn
98
jl
-
|
-
.p
i--i r
T
P
1 rTi
I
f
! 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
ED Eramosa
River D Whitemans Cree
k
Figure 5. Average annual concentrations of nitrate measured in the
Eramosa River and Whitemans Creek from 1997 to 2003. (Also shown
on the bar graphs is the standard error of measurement)
Source: Ontario Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network, 2003.
and septic systems may all provide a source of bacteria to
groundwater. Bacterial contamination in wells in agricultural
areas is common, however, this is often due to poor well con-
struction allowing surface water to enter the well and not indica-
tive of widespread aquifer contamination. Shallow wells are par-
ticularly vulnerable to bacterial contamination.
Pressures
The population within the Grand River watershed is expected to
increase by over 300,000 people in the next 20 years. The urban
sprawl and industrial development associated with this popula-
tion growth, if not managed appropriately, will increase the
chance for contamination of groundwater resources.
Intensification of agriculture will lead to increased potential for
pollution caused by nutrients, pathogens and pesticides to enter
the groundwater supply and eventually surface water resources.
While largely unknown at this time, the effects of climate
change may lead to decreased groundwater resources, which
may concentrate existing contaminant sources.
Management Implications
Protecting groundwater resources generally requires multi-
faceted strategies including regulation, land use planning, water
resources management, voluntary adoption of best management
practices and public education. Programs to reduce the amount
of road salt used for deicing will lead to reductions in chloride
contamination in groundwater. For example, the Regional of
Waterloo (the largest urban community in the watershed) in
cooperation with road maintenance departments has been
able to decrease the amount of road salt applied to Regional
roads by 27% in just one winter season.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Alan Sawyer, Grand River Conservation Authority.
Cambridge, ON;
Sandra Cooke, Grand River Conservation Authority.
Cambridge, ON;
Jeff Pitcher, Grand River Conservation Authority.
Cambridge, ON; and
Pat Lapcevic, Grand River Conservation Authority.
Cambridge, ON.
Alan Sawyer's position was partially funded through a grant
from Environment Canada's Science Horizons internship
program. The assistance of Samuel Bellamy of the Grand
River Conservation Authority, as well as Harvey Shear.
Nancy Stadler-Salt and Andrew Piggott of Environment
Canada is gratefully acknowledged.
Sources
Braun Consulting Engineers, Gartner Lee Limited, and
244
-------
Jagger Hims Limited Consulting Engineers. 1999. City of
Guelph Water System Study Resource Evaluation Summary.
Report prepared for the City of Guelph.
Crowe, A.S., Schaefer, K.A., Kohut, A., Shikaze, S.G., and
Ptacek, CJ. 2003. Groundwater quality. Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Linking
Water Science to Policy Workshop Series. Report No. 2, 52pp.
Holysh, S., Pitcher, J., and Boyd, D. 2001. Grand River regional
groundwater study. Grand River Conservation Authority,
Cambridge, ON, 78pp+ appendices.
Ontario Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network. 2003.
Grand River Conservation Authority Water Quality Stations.
Region of Waterloo. Official Municipal Website.
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca.
Stanley Consulting. 1998. Chloride Impact Assessment Parkway
and Strasburg Creek Well Fields Final Report. Prepared for the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Whiffin, R.B., and Rush, RJ. 1989. Development and demon-
stration of an integrated approach to aquifer remediation at an
organic chemical plant. In Proceedings of the FOCUS
Conference on Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues, October
17-19, 1989, Kitchener, ON, Canada, pp. 273-288.
Authors' Commentary
While there is a large quantity of groundwater quality data avail-
able for the various aquifers in the watershed, this data has not
been consolidated and evaluated in a comprehensive or system-
atic way. Work is needed to bring together this data and incorpo-
rate ongoing groundwater monitoring programs. An assessment
of the groundwater quality across Ontario is currently being
undertaken through sampling and analysis of groundwater from
the provincial groundwater-monitoring network (PGMN) wells
(includes monitoring stations in the Grand River watershed).
Numerous watershed municipalities also have had ongoing mon-
itoring programs, which examine the quality of groundwater as a
source of drinking water in place for a number of years.
Integrating this data along with data contained in various site
investigations will allow for a more comprehensive picture of
groundwater quality in the watershed.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
245
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Indicator #7101
Assessment: Not Assessed
Note: This indicator report uses data from the Grand River
watershed only and may not be representative of groundwater
conditions throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To measure water use and intensity and land use and intensity;
To infer the potential impact of land and water use on the
quantity and quality of groundwater resources as well as evalu-
ate groundwater supply and demand; and
To track the main influences on groundwater quantity and
quality such as land and water use to ensure sustainable high
quality groundwater supplies.
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective for this indicator is to ensure that land
and water use does not negatively impact groundwater
supplies/resources.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Land use and intensity has the potential to affect both groundwa-
ter quality and quantity. Similarly, water use and intensity (i.e.
demand) can impact the sustainability of groundwater supplies.
In addition, groundwater use and intensity can impact streams
and creeks, which depend on groundwater for base flows to sus-
tain aquatic plant and animal communities.
Land use and intensity
The Grand River watershed can generally be divided into three
distinct geological areas; the northern till plain, central moraines
with complex sequences of glacial, glaciofluvial and glaciolacus-
trine deposits, and the southern clay plain. These surficial over-
burden deposits are underlain by fractured carbonate rock (pre-
dominantly dolostone). The groundwater resources of the water-
shed include regional-scale unconfined and confined overburden
and bedrock aquifers as well as discontinuous local-scale
deposits which contain sufficient groundwater to meet smaller
users' needs. In some areas of the watershed (e.g. Whiteman's
Creek basin) the presence of high permeability sands at ground
surface and/or a high water table leads to unconfined aquifers
which are highly susceptible to contamination from surface con-
taminant sources.
Agricultural and rural land uses predominate in the Grand River
watershed. Approximately 76% of the watershed land area is
used for agriculture (Figure 1). Urban development covers about
A
B
Urban and
Developed
5%
Other
(e.g. golf courses)
Open Water and
Wetland
2%
Forested
17%
Agricultural
76%
Figure 1. Land cover in the Grand River watershed: (a) Spatial distri-
bution and (b) Percent distribution of classified land use.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
246
-------
5% of the watershed area while forests cover about 17%. The
largest urban centres, including Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge
and Guelph, are located in the central portion of the watershed
and are situated on or in close proximity to many of the complex
moraine systems that stretch across the watershed (Figure 1).
The moraines and associated glacial outwash area in the water-
shed form a complex system of sand and gravel layers separated
by less permeable till layers. Together with the sand plain in the
southwest portion of the watershed these units provide signifi-
cant groundwater resources. The majority of the groundwater
recharge in the watershed is concentrated in a land area that cov-
ers approximately 38% of the watershed. Figure 2 illustrates the
land cover associated with those areas that have high recharge
potential.
Land use on these moraines and significant recharge areas can
have major influence on both groundwater quantity and quality
(Figure 2). Intensive cropping practices with repeated manure
and fertilizer applications have the potential to impact ground-
water quality while urban development can interrupt groundwa-
ter recharge and impact groundwater quantity. About 67% of the
significant recharge areas are in agricultural production while
23% and 8% of the recharge areas are covered with forests and
urban development respectively. Since the moraine systems and
recharge areas in the Grand River watershed provide important
ecological, sociological and economical services to the water-
shed, they are important watershed features that must be main-
tained to ensure sustainable groundwater supplies.
Land use directly influences the ability of precipitation to
recharge shallow aquifers. Urban development such as the
paving of roads and building of structures intercepts precipita-
tion and facilitates the movement of water off the land in surface
runoff, which subsequently reduces groundwater recharge of
shallow aquifers. A significant portion (62%) of the urban area
in the Grand River watershed tends to be concentrated in the
highly sensitive groundwater recharge areas (Figure 3).
Development is continuing in these sensitive areas. For example,
of the total kilometres of new roads built between 2000 and
2004 in the Region of Waterloo, about half of them were situated
in the more sensitive areas.
Land uses that protect groundwater recharge such as some agri-
cultural land use and forested areas need to be protected to
ensure groundwater recharge. About 34% and 51% of the water-
shed's agricultural and forested land cover is located in the sig-
nificant recharge areas. Strategic development is needed to pro-
tect these recharge areas to protect groundwater recharging func-
tion in the watershed.
Kilometres
B
Urban and
Developed-,
8% \
Other
e.g. golf courses^
1%
Open Water and /
Wetland
2%
Agricultural
67%
Forested
23%
Figure 2. Land cover on moraine systems and areas that facilitate high
or very high groundwater recharge of the Grand River watershed:
(a) Spatial distribution and (b) Percent distribution of classified land use.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
247
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
90
-------
Figure 6. Changes in amount of irrigated land in the Grand
River watershed (percentage of total watershed area irrigated).
Source: Statistics Canada data for 1986, 1991, and 1996
impact the quantity of groundwater supplies for watershed resi-
dents. Therefore, it is essential that municipalities and watershed
residents protect the moraine systems and significant recharge
areas to ensure future groundwater supplies.
Population growth with continued urban development and agri-
cultural intensification are the biggest threats to groundwater
supplies in the Grand River watershed. It is estimated that the
population of the watershed will increase by approximately
300,000 people in the next 20 years (Figure 8). The biggest sin-
gle users of groundwater are municipalities for municipal drink-
ing water supplies, although industrial users, including aggregate
and dewatering operations, use a significant amount of ground-
water. Municipalities, watershed residents and industries will
need to increase their efforts in water conservation as well as
continue to seek out new or alternate supplies.
-o 180° 1
a) -|600
1 1400 -
80 -s«
CO 9)
i|
~ 5i
ra
v>
-•— Percent Average Annual River Flow
Figure 7. Number of new wells drilled each year (bars). Annual
stream flow
(as a percentage on long term
watershed illustratin
(green line)
g below average, and
average
average) in the Grand River
average climatic conditions
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment Water Well Database,
2003
1971
1981 1991
Year
2001
2021
Figure 8. Estimated population in the Grand River water-
shed including future projections (burgundy bar).
Source: Dorfman, 1997 and Grand River Conservation
Authority, 2003
Climate influence on groundwater resources in the Grand
River watershed cannot be underestimated. It is evident that
during times with below average precipitation, there is
increased demand for groundwater resources for both the nat-
ural environment and human uses. In addition, climate
change will likely redistribute precipitation patterns through-
out the year, which will likely impact groundwater resources
in the watershed.
Management Implications
Land use and development has a direct effect on groundwater
quantity and quality. Therefore, land use planning must con-
sider watershed functions such as groundwater recharge when
directing future growth. Municipal growth strategies should
direct growth and development away from sensitive water-
shed landscapes such as those areas that facilitate groundwa-
ter recharge. Efforts in recent years have focussed on delin-
eating wellhead protection zones, assessing the threats and
understanding the regional hydrogeology. Through the plan-
ning process, municipalities such as the Region of Waterloo.
City of Guelph and the County of Wellington have recog-
nized the importance of protecting recharge to maintain ground-
water resources and have been taking steps to protect this water-
shed function. These initiatives include limiting the amount of
impervious cover in sensitive areas and capturing precipitation
with rooftop collection systems. By permitting development that
facilitates groundwater recharge or redirecting development to
landscapes that are not as sensitive, important watershed func-
tions can be protected to ensure future groundwater supplies.
Water conservation measures should be actively promoted and
adopted in all sectors of society. Urban communities must
actively reduce consumption while rural communities require
management plans to strategically irrigate using high efficiency
methods and appropriate timing.
249
-------
Acknowledgments
Authors: Alan Sawyer, Grand River Conservation Authority,
Cambridge, ON;
Sandra Cooke, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge,
ON;
Jeff Pitcher Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge,
ON; and
Pat Lapcevic, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge,
ON.
Alan Sawyer's position was partially funded through a grant
from Environment Canada's Science Horizons internship pro-
gram. The assistance of Samuel Bellamy of the Grand River
Conservation Authority, as well as Harvey Shear, Nancy Stadler-
Salt and Andrew Piggott of Environment Canada is gratefully
acknowledged.
Sources
Bellamy, S., and Boyd, D. 2004. Water use in the Grand River
watershed. Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge,
ON.
Dorfman, M.L., and Planner Inc. 1997. Grand River Watershed
Profile. Prepared for the Grand River Conservation Authority.
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2003. Watershed
Report. Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON.
Holysh, S., Pitcher, J., and Boyd, D. 2001. Grand River
Regional Groundwater Study. Grand River Conservation
Authority, Cambridge, ON.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2003. Water Well
Information System Database. Ministry of Environment,
Toronto, ON.
Region of Waterloo. Official Municipal Website.
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca
Statistics Canada. Census of Agriculture. 1986, 1991, 1996.
Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Consistent and improved monitoring and data collection are
required to accurately estimate groundwater demand as well as
determine long-term trends in land use. For example, linking
groundwater permits to actual well log identification numbers
will assist with understanding the spatial distribution of ground-
water takings. Furthermore, groundwater permit holders should
be required to report actual water use as opposed to permitted
use. This will help estimate actual water use and therefore the
true impact on the groundwater system.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
Authors' Commentary
Understanding the impact of water use on the groundwater
resources in the watershed will require understanding the avail-
ability of water to allow sustainable human use while still main-
taining healthy ecosystems. Assessing groundwater availability
and use at appropriate scales is an important aspect of water bal-
ance calculations in the watershed. In other words, assessing
water and land use at the larger watershed scale masks more
local issues such as the impact of extensive irrigation.
250
-------
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge
Indicator #7102
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Deteriorating
It is estimated that human activities have detrimentally impacted
groundwater discharge on at least a local scale in some areas of the
Great Lakes basin and that discharge is not significantly impaired in
other areas.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Purpose
•To measure the contribution of base flow due to groundwater discharge to total stream flow; and
•To detect the impacts of anthropogenic factors on the quantity of the groundwater resource.
Ecosystem Objective
Base flow due to the discharge of groundwater to the rivers and inland lakes and wetlands of the
Great Lakes basin is a significant and often major component of stream flow, particularly during
low flow periods. Base flow frequently satisfies flow, level, and temperature requirements for
aquatic species and habitat. Water supplies and the capacity of surface water to assimilate
wastewater discharge are also dependent on base flow. Base flow due to groundwater discharge is
therefore critical to the maintenance of water quantity and quality and the integrity of aquatic
species and habitat.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Ecosystem
Background
A significant portion of precipitation over the inland portion of the Great Lakes basin returns to
the atmosphere by evapo-transpiration. Water that does not return to the atmosphere either flows
across the ground surface or infiltrates into the subsurface and recharges groundwater. Some of
this water is subsequently removed by consumptive uses such as irrigation and water bottling.
Water that flows across the ground surface discharges into surface water features (rivers, lakes,
and wetlands) and then flows toward and eventually into the Great Lakes. The component of
stream flow due to runoff from the ground surface is rapidly varying and transient, and results in
the peak discharges of a stream.
Water that infiltrates into the subsurface and recharges groundwater also results in flow toward
the Great Lakes. Most recharged groundwater flows at relatively shallow depths at local scales
and discharges into adjacent surface water features. However, groundwater also flows at greater
depths at regional scales and discharges either directly into the Great Lakes or into distant surface
water features. The quantities of groundwater flowing at these greater depths can be significant
locally but are generally believed to be modest relative to the quantities flowing at shallower
depths. Groundwater discharge to surface water features in response to precipitation is greatly
delayed relative to surface runoff. The stream flow resulting from groundwater discharge is,
therefore, more uniform.
Base flow is the less variable and more persistent component of total stream flow. In the Great
Lakes region, groundwater discharge is often the dominant component of base flow; however,
various human and natural factors also contribute to base flow. Flow regulation, the storage and
delayed release of water using dams and reservoirs, creates a stream flow signature that is similar
to that of groundwater discharge. Lakes and wetlands also moderate stream flow, transforming
rapidly varying surface runoff into more slowly varying flow that approximates the dynamics of
groundwater discharge. It is important to note that these varying sources of base flow affect
surface water quality, particularly with regard to temperature. All groundwater discharge
contributes to base flow but not all base flow is the result of groundwater discharge.
Status of Base Flow
Base flow is frequently determined using a mathematical process known as hydrograph
separation. This process uses stream flow monitoring information as input and partitions the
observed flow into rapidly and slowly varying components, surface runoff and base flow,
respectively. The stream flow data that are used in these analyses are collected across the Great
Lakes basin using networks of stream flow gauges that are operated by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) and Environment Canada. Neff et al. (2005) summarize the
calculation and interpretation of base flow for 3,936 gauges in Ontario and the Great Lakes states
using six methods of hydrograph separation and length-of-record stream flow monitoring
information for the periods ending on December 31, 2000 and September 30, 2001, respectively.
The results reported by Neff et al. (2005) are the basis for the majority of this report. Results
corresponding to the UKIH method of hydrograph separation (Piggott et al. 2005) are referenced
throughout this report in order to maintain consistency with the previous report for this indicator;
however, results calculated using the five other methods are considered to be equally probable
outcomes. Figure 1 illustrates the daily stream flow monitoring information and the results of
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
hydrograph separation for the Nith River at New Hamburg, Ontario for January 1 to December
31, 1993. The rapidly varying response of stream flow to precipitation and snow melt are in
contrast to the more slowly varying base flow.
Application of hydrograph separation to daily stream flow monitoring information results in
lengthy time series of output. Various measures are used to summarize this output; for example,
base flow index is a simple, physical measure of the contribution of base flow to stream flow that
is appropriate for use in regional scale studies. Base flow index is defined as the average rate of
base flow relative to the average rate of total stream flow, is unitless, and varies from zero to one
where increasing values indicate an increasing contribution of base flow to stream flow. The
value of base flow index for the data shown in Figure 1 is 0.28, which implies that 28% of the
observed flow is estimated to be base flow. Neff et al. (2005) used a selection of 960 gauges in
Ontario and the Great Lakes states to interpret base flow. Figure 2 indicates the distribution of the
values of base flow index calculated for the selection of gauges relative to the gauged and
ungauged portions of the Great Lakes basin. The variability of base flow within the basin is
apparent; however, further processing of the information is required to differentiate the
component of base flow that is due to groundwater discharge and the component that is due to
delayed flow through lakes and wetlands upstream of the gauges. An approach to the
differentiation of base flow calculated using hydrograph separation into these two components is
summarized in the following paragraphs of this report. Variations in the density of the stream
flow gauges and discontinuities in the coverage of monitoring are also apparent in Figure 2 and
may have significant implications relative to the interpretation of base flow.
The values of base flow index calculated for the selection of gauges using hydrograph separation
are plotted relative to the extents of surface water upstream of each of the gauges in Figure 3
where the extents of surface water are defined as the area of lakes and wetlands upstream of the
gauges relative to the total area upstream of the gauges. While there is considerable scatter among
the values, the expected tendency for larger values of base flow index to be associated with larger
extents of surface water is confirmed. Neff et al. (2005) modeled base flow index as a function of
surficial geology and the spatial extent of surface water. Surficial geology is assumed to be
responsible for differences in groundwater discharge and is classified into coarse and fine
textured sediments, till, shallow bedrock, and organic deposits.
The modeling process estimates a value of base flow index for each of the geological
classifications, calculates the weighted averages of these values for each of the gauges based on
the extents of the classifications upstream of the gauges, and then modifies the weighted averages
as a function of the extent of surface water upstream of the gauges. A non-linear regression
algorithm was used to determine the values of base flow index for the geological classifications
and the parameter in the surface water modifier that correspond to the best match between the
values of base flow index calculated using hydrograph separation and the values predicted using
the model. The process was repeated for each of the six methods of hydrograph separation.
Extrapolation of base flow index from gauged to ungauged watersheds was performed using the
results of the modeling process. The ungauged watersheds consist of 67 tertiary watersheds in
Ontario and 102 eight-digit hydrologic unit code or HUC watersheds in the Great Lakes states.
The extents of surface water for the ungauged watersheds are shown in Figure 4 where the ranges
of values used in the legend match those used to average the values of base flow index shown in
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
p':?Sii!fc - m^f^
-,'•«§»»» ''"'""" T*""" ' ' ""' r .."
Figure 3. A component of base flow due to delayed flow through lakes and wetlands appears to
be likely over extensive portions of the Great Lakes basin. The distribution of the classifications
of geology is shown in Figure 5. Organic and fine textured sediments are not differentiated in this
rendering of the classifications because both classifications have estimated values of base flow
index due to groundwater discharge in the range of 0.0 to 0.1; however, organic deposits are of
very limited extent and represent, on average, less than 2% of the area of the ungauged
watersheds. The spatial variation of base flow index shown in Figure 5 resembles the variation
shown in Figure 2. However, it is important to note that the information shown in Figure 2
includes the influence of delayed flow through lakes and wetlands upstream of the gauges while
this influence has been removed, or at least reduced, in the information shown in Figure 5.
Figure 6 indicates the values of the geological component of base flow index for the ungauged
watersheds obtained by calculating the weighted averages of the values for the geological
classifications that occur in the watersheds. This map therefore represents an estimate of the
length-of-record contribution of base flow due to groundwater discharge to total stream flow that
is consistent and seamless across the Great Lakes basin. The pie charts indicate the range of
values of the geological component of base flow index for the six methods of hydrograph
separation averaged over the sub-basins of the Great Lakes. Averaging the six values for each of
the sub-basins yields contributions of base flow due to groundwater discharge of approximately
60% for Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior and 50% for Lakes Erie and Ontario. It is
important to note that there is frequently greater variability of this contribution within the sub-
basins than among the sub-basins as the result of variability of geology that is more uniformly
averaged at the scale of the sub-basins.
Mapping the geological component of base flow index, which is assumed to be due to
groundwater discharge, across the Great Lakes basin in a consistent and seamless manner is an
important accomplishment in the development of this indicator. Additional information is,
however, required to determine the extent to which human activities have impaired groundwater
discharge. There are various alternatives for the generation of this information. For example, the
values of base flow index calculated for the selection of stream flow gauges using hydrograph
separation can be compared to the corresponding modeled values. If a calculated value is less
than a modeled value, and if the difference is not related to the limitations of the modeling
process, then base flow is less than expected based on physiographic factors and it is possible that
discharge has been impacted by human activities. Similarly, if a calculated value is greater than a
modeled value, then it possible that the increased base flow is the result of human activities such
as flow regulation and wastewater discharge. Time series of base flow can also be used to assess
these impacts. The previous report for this indicator illustrated the detection of temporal change
in base flow using data for watersheds with approximately natural stream flow and with extensive
flow regulation and urbanization; however, no attempt has yet been made to systematically assess
change at the scale of the Great Lakes basin. Change in base flow over time may be subtle and
difficult to quantify (e.g., variations in the relation of base flow to climate) and may be
continuous (e.g., a uniform increase in base flow due to aging water supply infrastructure and
increasing conveyance losses) or discrete (e.g., an abrupt reduction in base flow due to a new
consumptive water use). Change may also be the result of cumulative impacts due to a range of
historical and ongoing human activities, and may be more pronounced and readily detected at
local scales than at the scales that are typical of continuous stream flow monitoring.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Figure 7 is an alternative view of the data for the Grand River at Gait, Ontario that was previously
used to illustrate the impact of flow regulation on base flow. The cumulative depth of base flow
calculated annually as the total volume of flow at the location of the gauge during each year
divided by the area that is upstream of the gauge, is plotted relative to cumulative total flow. Base
flow index is, by definition, the slope of the accumulation of base flow relative to the
accumulation of total flow. The change in slope and increase in base flow index from a value of
0.45 prior to the construction of the reservoirs that are located upstream of the gauge to 0.57
following the construction of the reservoirs clearly indicates the impact of active flow regulation
to mitigate low and high flow conditions. Calculating and interpreting diagnostic plots such as
Figure 7 for hundreds to thousands of stream flow gauges in the Great Lakes basin will be a large
and time consuming, but perhaps ultimately necessary, task.
Improving the spatial resolution of the current estimates of base flow due to groundwater
discharge would be beneficial in some settings. For example, localized groundwater discharge has
important implications in terms of aquatic habitat and it is unlikely that this discharge can be
predicted using the current regional estimates of base flow. The extrapolation of base flow
information from gauged to ungauged watersheds described by Neff et al. (2005) is based on a
classification and therefore reduced resolution representation of the Quaternary geology of the
basin. Figure 8 compares this classification to the full resolution of the available 1:1,000,000
scale (Ontario Geological Survey 1997) and 1:50,000 scale (Ontario Geological Survey 2003)
mapping of the geology of the gauged portion of the Grand River watershed in southern Ontario.
Interpretation of base flow in terms of these more detailed descriptions of geology, where feasible
relative to the network of stream flow gauges, may result in an improved estimate of the spatial
distribution of groundwater discharge for input into functions such as aquatic habitat
management.
Estimation of base flow using low flow observations, single "spot" measurements of stream flow
under assumed base flow conditions, is another means of improving the spatial resolution of the
current prediction of groundwater discharge. Figure 9 illustrates a series of low flow observations
performed within the watershed of Duffins Creek above Pickering, Ontario where the
observations are standardized using continuous monitoring information and the drainage areas for
the observations following the procedure described by Gebert et al. (in press) and then classified
into quantile groupings of high, intermediate, and low values. The standardized values of low
flow illustrate the spatially variable pattern of groundwater discharge that results from the
interaction between surficial geology, the complex three-dimensional hydrostratigraphy,
topography, and surface water features. Areas of potentially high groundwater discharge may
have particularly important implications in terms of aquatic habitat for cold water fish species
such as Brook Trout.
Finally, reconciling estimates of base flow generated using differing methods of hydrograph
separation, perhaps by interpreting the information in a relative rather than absolute manner, will
improve the certainty and therefore performance of base flow as an indicator of groundwater
discharge. It may also be possible to assess the source of this uncertainty using chemical and
isotopic data in combination with the methods of hydrograph separation if adequate data is
available at the scale of the gauged watersheds. Figure 10 compares the values of base flow index
calculated for the selection of 960 stream flow gauges in Ontario and the Great Lake states using
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
the PART (Rutledge 1998) and UKIH methods of hydrograph separation. The majority of the
values calculated using the PART method are greater than the values calculated using the UKIH
method and there is considerable scatter in the differences among the two methods. The average
of the differences between the two sets of values is 0.15 and is significant when measured relative
to the differences in the estimates of base flow index for the sub-basins of the Great Lakes, which
is on the order of 0.1.
Pressures
The discharge of groundwater to surface water features is the end-point of the process of
groundwater recharge, flow, and discharge. Human activities impact groundwater discharge by
modifying the components of this process where the time scale, and to some extent the severity,
of these impacts is a function of hydrogeological factors and the proximity of surface water
features. Increasing the extent of impervious surfaces during residential and commercial
development and installation of drainage to increase agricultural productivity are examples of
activities that may reduce groundwater recharge and ultimately groundwater discharge.
Withdrawals of groundwater as a water supply and during dewatering (pumping groundwater to
lower the water table during construction, mining, etc.) remove groundwater from the flow
regime and may also reduce groundwater discharge. Groundwater discharge may be impacted by
activities such as the channelization of water courses that restrict the motion of groundwater
across the groundwater and surface water interface. Human activities also have the capacity to
intentionally, or unintentionally, increase groundwater discharge. Induced storm water
infiltration, conveyance losses within municipal water and wastewater systems, and closure of
local water supplies derived from groundwater are examples of factors that may increase
groundwater discharge. Climate variability and change may compound the implications of human
activities relative to groundwater recharge, flow, and discharge.
Management Implications
Groundwater has important societal and ecological functions across the Great Lakes basin.
Groundwater is typically a high quality water supply that is used by a significant portion of the
population, particularly in rural areas where it is often the only available source of water.
Groundwater discharge to rivers, lakes, and wetlands is also critical to aquatic species and habitat
and to in-stream water quantity and quality. These functions are concurrent and occasionally
conflicting. Pressures such as urban development and water use, in combination with the potential
for climate impacts and further contamination of the resource, may increase the frequency and
severity of these conflicts. In the absence of systematic accounting of groundwater supplies, use,
and dependencies; it is the ecological function of groundwater that is most likely to be
compromised.
Managing the water quality of the Great Lakes requires an understanding of water quantity and
quality within the inland portion of the basin, and this understanding requires recognition of the
relative contributions of surface runoff and groundwater discharge to stream flow. The results
described in this report indicate the significant contribution of groundwater discharge to flow
within the tributaries of the Great Lakes. The extent of this contribution has tangible management
implications. There is considerable variability in groundwater recharge, flow, and discharge that
must be reflected in the land and water management practices that are applied across the basin.
The dynamics of groundwater flow and transport are different than those of surface water flow.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Groundwater discharge responds more slowly to climate and maintains stream flow during
periods of reduced water availability; however, this capacity is known to be both variable and
finite. Contaminants that are transported by groundwater may be in contact with geologic
materials for years, decades, and perhaps even centuries or millennia. As a result, there may be
considerable opportunity for attenuation of contamination prior to discharge. However, the
lengthy residence times of groundwater flow also limit opportunities for the removal of
contaminants, in general, and non-point source contaminants, in particular.
Comments from the author(s)
The indicated status and trend are estimates that the authors consider to be a broadly held opinion
of water resource specialists within the Great Lakes basin. Further research and analysis is
required to confirm these estimates and to determine conditions on a lake by lake basis.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Andrew Piggott, Environment Canada;
Brian Neff, U.S. Geological Survey; and
Marc Hinton, Geological Survey of Canada.
Contributors: Lori Fuller, U.S. Geological Survey and
Jim Nicholas, U.S. Geological Survey.
Base flow information cited in the report is a product of Groundwater and the Great Lakes: A Co-
ordinated Bi-national Basin-wide Assessment in Support of Annex 2001 Decision Making, which
was supported by the Great Lakes Protection Fund.
Data Sources
Gebert, W.A., Lange, M.J., Considine, EJ.,and Kennedy, J.L., in press, Use of streamflow data to
estimate baseflow/ground-water recharge for Wisconsin: Journal of the American Water
Resources Association.
Neff, B.P., Day, S.M., Piggott, A.R., Fuller, L.M., 2005, Base Flow in the Great Lakes Basin:
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5217, 23 p.
Ontario Geological Survey, 1997, Quaternary geology, seamless coverage of the province of
Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey, ERLIS Data Set 14.
Ontario Geological Survey, 2003, Surficial geology of southern Ontario: Ontario Geological
Survey, Miscellaneous Release Data 128.
Piggott, A.R., Moin, S., and Southam, C., 2005, A revised approach to the UKIH method for the
calculation ofbaseflow: Hydrological Sciences Journal, v. 50, p. 911-920.
Rutledge, A.T., 1998, Computer programs for describing the recession of ground-water discharge
and for estimating mean ground-water recharge and discharge form streamflow data - update:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4148, 43 p.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Hydrograph of observed total stream flow (black) and calculated base flow (red) for the
Nith River at New Hamburg during 1993.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 2. Distribution of the calculated values of base flow index relative to the gauged (light
grey) and ungauged (dark grey) portions of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 3. Comparison of the calculated values of base flow index to the corresponding extents of
surface water. The step plot (red) indicates the averages of the values of base flow index within
the four intervals of the extent of surface water.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 4. Distribution of the extents of surface water for the ungauged watersheds.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 5. Distribution of the geological classifications. The classifications are shaded using the
estimated values of the geological component of base flow index shown in parentheses.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 6. Distribution of the estimated values of the geological component of base flow index for
the ungauged watersheds. The pie charts indicate the estimated values of the geological
component of base flow index for the Great Lakes sub-basins corresponding to the six methods of
hydrograph separation. The charts are shaded using the six values of base flow index and the
numbers in parentheses are the range of the values.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 7. Cumulative base flow as a function of cumulative total flow for the Grand River at Gait
prior to (red), during (green), and following (blue) the construction of the reservoirs that are
located upstream of the stream flow gauge. The step plot indicates the cumulative storage
capacity of the reservoirs where the construction of the largest four reservoirs is labeled. The
dashed red and blue lines indicate uniform accumulation of flow based on data prior to and
following, respectively, the construction of the reservoirs.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 8. Geology of the gauged portion of the Grand River watershed based on the classification
(A) and Ml resolution (B) of the 1:1,000,000 scale Quaternary geology mapping and the Ml
resolution of the 1:50,000 scale Quaternary geology mapping (C) where random colours are used
to differentiate the various geological classifications and units.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 9. Distribution of the standardized values of low flow within the watershed of Duffins
Creek above Pickering.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, and
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Figure 10. Comparison of the values of base flow index calculated using the PART method of
hydrograph separation to the values calculated using the UKIH method.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
1000
100
•S
§
J2
u.
10
1 -
0.1
1993/01/01
1993/04/01
1993/07/01
Date
1993/10/01
1993/12/31
Figure 1. Hydrograph of observed total stream flow (black) and calculated base flow (red) for the
Nith River at New Hamburg during 1993.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
51° N
94° W
Base Flow Index
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 2. Distribution of the calculated values of base flow index relative to the gauged (light
grey) and ungauged (dark grey) portions of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
10
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
0.0
0,001
0,01
Extent of Surface Water
0,1
Figure 3. Comparison of the calculated values of base flow index to the corresponding extents of
surface water. The step plot (red) indicates the averages of the values of base flow index within
the four intervals of the extent of surface water.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
II
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
51° N
94° W
Extent of Surface Water
0.001
0.01
0,1
1
Figure 4. Distribution of the extents of surface water for the ungauged watersheds.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
12
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
51° N
94° W
Geological Classification
Organic Till
(0.00) and (0.33)
Fine (0.10)
Bedrock Coarse
(0.59) (0.82)
Figure 5. Distribution of the geological classifications. The classifications are shaded using the
estimated values of the geological component of base flow index shown in parentheses.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
13
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Lake Superior
(0,47-0.70)
N
Lake Huron
(0.47-0.70)
Lake Ontario
(0.38 - 0.60)
Lake Michigan
<0.51 -0.63)
94° W
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.8
1,0
Figure 6. Distribution of the estimated values of the geological component of base flow index for
the ungauged watersheds. The pie charts indicate the estimated values of the geological
component of base flow index for the Great Lakes sub-basins corresponding to the six methods of
hydrograph separation. The charts are shaded using the six values of base flow index and the
numbers in parentheses are the range of the values.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
14
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
15
.£ 10
1
u_
ID
m
m
JS
I
Conestogo
Guelph
Shand
Luther
tner r
JL
200
10 20
Cumulative Tola! Flow (m)
30
E
a
fim
X
u
to
Q.
CO
O
Figure 7. Cumulative base flow as a function of cumulative total flow for the Grand River at Gait
prior to (red), during (green), and following (blue) the construction of the reservoirs that are
located upstream of the stream flow gauge. The step plot indicates the cumulative storage
capacity of the reservoirs where the construction of the largest four reservoirs is labeled. The
dashed red and blue lines indicate uniform accumulation of flow based on data prior to and
following, respectively, the construction of the reservoirs.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
15
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Figure 8. Geology of the gauged portion of the Grand River watershed based on the classification
(A) and full resolution (B) of the 1:1,000,000 scale Quaternary geology mapping and the full
resolution of the 1:50,000 scale Quaternary geology mapping (C) where random colours are used
to differentiate the various geological classifications and units.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
16
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
of the
High
Intermediate
Low
Figure 9. Distribution of the standardized values of low flow within the watershed of Duffins
Creek above Pickering.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, and
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
17
-------
Of.
X
0)
T3
_g
0}
01
TO
CD
1.0
0-8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0,2 0.4 0.6
Base Flow Index (UKIH)
0.8
1.0
Figure 10. Comparison of the values of base flow index calculated using the PART method of
hydrograph separation to the values calculated using the UKIH method.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
Groundwater Dependant Plant and Animal
Communities
Indicator #7103
Assessment: Not Assessed
Note: This indicator report uses data from the Grand River
watershed only and may not be representative of groundwater
conditions throughout the Great Lakes basin. Additionally, there
is insufficient biological and physical hydrological data for most
of the streams in the Grand River watershed to report on many
of the selected species reliant on groundwater discharge, hence
this discussion focuses on brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as
an indicator of groundwater discharge.
Purpose
To measure the abundance and diversity as well as presence or
absence of native invertebrates, fish, plant and wildlife (includ-
ing cool-water adapted frogs and salamanders) communities that
are dependent on groundwater discharges to aquatic habitat;
To identify and understand any deterioration of water quality
for animals and humans, as well as changes in the productive
capacity of flora and fauna dependant on groundwater resources;
To use biological communities to assess locations of ground-
water intrusions; and
To infer certain chemical and physical properties of ground-
water, including changes in patterns of seasonal flow.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal for this indicator is to ensure that plant and animal
communities function at or near maximum potential and that
populations are not significantly compromised due to anthro-
pogenic factors.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
The integrity of larger water bodies can be linked to biological,
chemical and physical integrity of the smaller watercourses that
feed them. Many of these small watercourses are fed by ground-
water. As a result, groundwater discharge to surface waters
becomes cumulatively important when considering the quality of
water entering the Great Lakes. The identification of groundwa-
ter fed streams and rivers will provide useful information for the
development of watershed management plans that seek to pro-
tect these sensitive watercourses.
Human activities can change the hydrological processes in a
watershed resulting in changes to recharge rates of aquifers and
discharges rates to streams and wetlands. This indicator should
serve to identify organisms at risk because of human activities
can be used to quantify trends in communities over time.
256
Status of Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal
Communities in the Grand River Watershed
The surficial geology of the Grand River watershed is generally
divided into three distinct regions; the northern till plain, central
moraines with large sand and gravel deposits, and the southern
clay plain (Figure 1). These surficial overburden deposits are
underlain by thick sequences of fractured carbonate rock (pre-
dominantly dolostone).
Generalized Geologic Units
Clay
Gravel
Organic
Sand
Sandy Till
Silly Till
Water
10 0 10 20 .,.. .
Kilometres
Figure 1. Surficial geology of the Grand River watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
The Grand River and its tributaries form a stream network hous-
ing approximately 11,329 km of stream habitat. The Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) has classified many of
Ontario's streams based on habitat type. While many streams
and rivers in the Grand River watershed remain unclassified, the
MNR database currently available through the Natural
Resources and Values Information System (NRVIS) has docu-
mented and classified about 22% of the watershed's streams
(Figure 2). Approximately 19% of the classified streams are
-------
cold-water habitat and therefore dependent on groundwater dis-
charge. An additional 16% of the classified streams are consid-
ered potential cold-water habitat. The remaining 65% of classi-
fied streams are warm-water habitat.
Stream Classification
Not Classified
— Coldwater
— Potential Coldwater
Warmwater Sportfish
— Warmwater Baitfish
High Recharge Area
4-
Kilometres
Figure 2. Streams of the Grand River watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
A map of potential groundwater discharge areas was created for
the Grand River watershed by examining the relationship
between the water table and ground surface (Figure 3). This map
indicates areas in the watershed where water well records indi-
cate that the water table could potentially be higher than the
ground surface. In areas where this is the case, there is a strong
tendency toward discharge of groundwater to land, creating
cold-water habitats. Groundwater discharge appears to be geo-
logically controlled with most potential discharge areas noted
associated with the sands and gravels in the central moraine
areas and little discharge in the northern till plain and southern
clay plain. The map suggests that some of the unclassified
streams in Figure 2 may be potential cold-water streams, particu-
larly in the central portion of the watershed where geological
conditions are favourable to groundwater discharge.
o Spawning Location
Potential Ho*ght ol Water Table
Above Ground Surface (moires)
120.
19-20
18-19
—| 17 18
—116-17
— 115-16
1-1 - 15
13-14
12- 13
11-12
10-11
Kilometres
Figure 3. Map of potential discharge areas in the Grand River
watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
Brook trout is a freshwater fish species native to eastern Canada.
The survival and success of brook trout is closely tied to cold
groundwater discharges in streams used for spawning.
Specifically, brook trout require inputs of cold, clean water to
successfully reproduce. As a result, nests or redds are usually
located in substrate where groundwater is upwelling into surface
water. A significant spawning population of adult brook trout
generally indicates a constant source of cool, good quality
groundwater.
Locations of observed brook trout redds are shown on Figure 3.
The data shown are a compilation of several surveys carried out
on selected streams in 1988 and 1989. Additional data from sev-
eral sporadic surveys carried out in the 1990s are also included.
These redds may represent single or multiple nests from brook
trout spawning activity. The results of these surveys illustrate
257
-------
that there are significant high quality habitats in several of the
subwatersheds in the basin.
Cedar Creek is a tributary of the Nith River in the central portion
of the watershed. It has been described as containing some of the
best brook trout habitat in the watershed. Salmonoid spawning
surveys for brook trout were carried out over similar stretches of
the creek in 1989 and 2003 (Figure 4). In 1989 a total redd count
of 53 (over 4.2 km) was surveyed while in 2003 the total redd
count was 59 (over 5.4 km). In both surveys, many of the redds
counted were multiple redds meaning several fish had spawned
at the same locations. Redd densities in 1989 and 2003 were
12.6 redds/km and 10.9 redds/km respectively. From Figure 4 it
appears that in 2003 brook trout were actively spawning in
Cedar Creek in mainly the same locations as in 1989. While
redd density in Cedar Creek has decreased slightly, the similar
survey results suggest that groundwater discharge has remained
fairly constant and reductions in discharge have not significantly
affected aquatic habitat.
surface will decrease the geological protection afforded ground-
water supplies and may increase the temperature of groundwater.
Higher temperatures can reduce the moderating effect groundwa-
ter provides to aquatic stream habitat. At local scales the creation
of surface water bodies through mining or excavation of aggre-
gate or rock may change groundwater flow patterns, which in
turn might decrease groundwater discharge to sensitive habitats.
In the Grand River watershed, groundwater is used by about
80% of the watershed's residents as their primary water supply.
Additionally, numerous industrial and agricultural users also use
groundwater for their operations. Growing urban communities
will put pressure on the resource and if not managed properly
will lead to decreases in groundwater discharge to streams.
Development in some areas can also lead to decreased areas
available for precipitation to percolate through the ground and
recharge groundwater supplies.
1989
X
/ — 1
1
I ~l
1
If ,
I .
/
1
i -x _^- '
\ \
*
^ _~ " -~""~
2003 '
' ^ JP>^
/ \
•' i' '!i>
) i - < \ .—
.— — ^ ^--
,'X '.-- /
, X*v,j' ''— x, _--"'
\ \ )
' \ / -^
\J ^
m Survey Endpoints
• Redd Location
\ Roads
/\ Streams
200 0 200 400
N
^J^
Figure 4. Results of brook trout spawning surveys carried out in the Cedar Creek
subwatershed in 1989 and 2003.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
Management Implications
Ensuring that an adequate supply of cold ground-
water continues to discharge into streams
requires protecting groundwater recharge areas
and ensuring that groundwater withdrawals are
undertaken at sustainable rates. Additionally, an
adequate supply of groundwater for habitat pur-
poses does not only refer to the quantity of dis-
charge but also to the chemical quality, tempera-
ture and spatial location of that discharge. As a
result, protecting groundwater resources is com-
plicated and generally requires multi-faceted
strategies including regulation, voluntary adop-
tion of best management practices and public
education.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Alan Sawyer, Grand River Conservation
Authority, Cambridge, ON;
Sandra Cooke, Grand River Conservation
Authority, Cambridge, ON;
Jeff Pitcher, Grand River Conservation Authority,
Cambridge, ON; and
Pat Lapcevic, Grand River Conservation
Authority, Cambridge, ON.
Pressures
The removal of groundwater from the subsurface through pump-
ing at wells reduces the amount of groundwater discharging into
surface water bodies. Increasing impervious surfaces reduces the
amount of water that can infiltrate into the ground and also ulti-
mately reduces groundwater discharge into surface water bodies.
Additionally, reducing the depth to the water table from ground
258
Alan Sawyer's position was partially funded through a grant from
Environment Canada's Science Horizons internship program. The
assistance of Samuel Bellamy and Warren Yerex of the Grand
River Conservation Authority, as well as Harvey Shear, Nancy
Stadler-Salt and Andrew Piggott of Environment Canada is grate-
fully acknowledged.
-------
Sources
Grand River Conservation Authority. 2003. Brook Trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis) Spawning Survey - Cedar Creek.
Grillmayer, R.A., and Baldwin, RJ. 1990. Salmonid spawning
surveys of selected streams in the Grand River watershed 1988-
1989. Environmental Services Group, Grand River Conservation
Authority.
Holysh, S., Pitcher, J., and Boyd, D. 2001. Grand River
Regional Groundwater Study. Grand River Conservation
Authority, Cambridge, ON. 78pp. + figures and appendices.
Scott, W.B., and Grossman, EJ. 1973. Freshwater fishes of
Canada. Bulletin 184, pp. 208-213. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Authors' Commentary
This report has focused on only one species dependent on
groundwater discharge for its habitat. The presence or absence of
other species should be investigated through systematic field
studies.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
259
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Alvars
Indicator #8129 (Alvars)
Assessment: Mixed, Trend Not Assessed
Purpose
To assess the status of Great Lakes alvars (including changes
in area and quality), one of the 12 special lakeshore communities
identified within the nearshore terrestrial area;
To infer the success of management activities; and
To focus future conservation efforts toward the most ecologi-
cally significant alvar habitats in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is the preservation of the area and quality of Great
Lakes alvars, individually and as an ecologically important sys-
tem, for the maintenance of biodiversity and the protection of
rare species. This indicator supports Annex 2 of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Alvar communities are naturally open habitats occurring on flat
limestone bedrock. They have a distinctive set of plant species
and vegetative associations, and include many species of plants.
molluscs, and invertebrates that are rare elsewhere in the basin.
All 15 types of alvars and associated habitats are globally imper-
iled or rare.
A four-year study of Great Lakes alvars completed in 1998 (the
International Alvar Conservation Initiative-IACI) evaluated con-
servation targets for alvar communities, and concluded that
essentially all of the existing viable occurrences should be main-
tained, since all types are below the minimum threshold of 30-60
viable examples. As well as conserving these ecologically dis-
tinct communities, this target would protect populations of
dozens of globally significant and disjunct species. A few
species, such as lakeside daisy (Hymenoxis herbacea) and the
beetle Chlaenius p. purpuricollis, have nearly all of their global
occurrences within Great Lakes alvar sites.
Status of Great Lakes Alvars
Alvar habitats have likely always been sparsely distributed, but
more than 90% of their original extent has been destroyed or
substantially degraded by agriculture and other human uses.
Approximately 64% of the remaining alvar area occurs within
Ontario, with about 16% in New York State, 15% in Michigan.
4% in Ohio, and smaller areas in Wisconsin and Quebec.
Data from the IACI and state/provincial alvar studies were
screened and updated to identify viable community occurrences.
Just over two-thirds of known Great Lakes alvars occur close to
the shoreline, with all or a substantial portion of their area within
one kilometre of the shore.
No. of alvar sites
No. of community occurences
Alvar area (ha)
Total in Basin
82
204
1 1 ,523
Nearshore
52
138
8,097
Table 1 . Number of alvar sites/communities found
nearshore and total in the basin.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Typically, several different community types occur within each
alvar site. Among the 15 community types documented, six
types show a strong association (over 80% of their area) with
nearshore settings. Four types have less than half of their occur-
rences in nearshore settings.
The current status of all nearshore alvar communities was evalu-
ated by considering current land ownership and the type and
severity of threats to their integrity. As shown in Figure 1, less
than one-fifth of the nearshore alvar area is currently fully pro-
tected, while over three-fifths is at high risk.
Limited 11.9%
Partly 9.1%
Fully 18.8%
At High Risk 60.2%
Figure 1. Protection status of nearshore alvar area (2000).
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
The degree of protection for nearshore alvar communities varies
considerably among jurisdictions. For example, Michigan has
66% of its nearshore alvar area in the Fully Protected category.
while Ontario has only 7%. In part, this is a reflection of the
much larger total shoreline area in Ontario, as shown in Figure
2. (Other states have too few nearshore sites to allow compari-
son).
Each location of an alvar community or rare species has been
documented as an "element occurrence" or EO. Each alvar com-
260
-------
Acres of Alvar
L nnn
!000 -
1
Ontario
• At High Risk
Partly Protected
^^i
Michigan
H Limited
• Fully Protected
Figure 2. Comparison of the protection status of nearshore
alvars (in acres) for Ontario and Michigan.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
munity occurrence has been assigned an "EO rank" to reflect its
relative quality and condition ("A" for excellent to "D" for
poor). A and B-ranks are considered viable, while C-ranks are
marginal and a D ranked occurrence is not expected to survive
even with appropriate management efforts. As shown in Figure
3, protection efforts to secure alvars have clearly focused on the
best quality sites.
AB B
EO Rank
BC&C
] Partly Protected
Fully Protected
Figure 3. Protection of high quality alvars. EO Rank = Element
Occurrence (A is excellent, B is good and C is marginal).
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Documentation of the extent and quality of alvars through the IACI
has been a major step forward, and has stimulated much greater
public awareness and conservation activity for these habitats. Over
the past two years, a total of 10 securement projects have resulted in
protection of at least 2140.6 ha of alvars across the Great Lakes
basin, with 1353.5 ha of that within the nearshore area. Most of the
secured nearshore area is through land acquisition, but 22.7 ha on
Pelee Island (ON) are through a conservation easement, and 0.6 ha
on Kelleys Island (OH) are through state dedication of a nature
reserve. These projects have increased the area of protected alvar
dramatically in a short time.
Pressures
Nearshore alvar communities are most frequently threatened by
habitat fragmentation and loss, trails and off-road vehicles, resource
extraction uses such as quarrying or logging, and adjacent land uses
such as residential subdivisions. Less frequent threats include graz-
ing or deer browsing, plant collecting for bonsai or other hobbies,
and invasion by non-native plants such as European buckthorn and
dog-strangling vine.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises, Washago, ON; and
Heather Potter, The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Brownell, V.R., and Riley, J.L. 2000. The alvars of Ontario: signifi-
cant alvar natural areas in the Ontario Great Lakes Region.
Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Toronto, ON.
Cusick, A.W. 1998. Alvar landforms and plant communities in
Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.
Oilman, B. 1998. Alvars of New York: A Site Summary Report.
Finger Lakes Community College, Canandaigua, NY.
Lee, Y.M., Scrimger, L.J., Albert, D.A., Penskar, M.R., Comer, P.J.,
and Cuthrell, DA. 1998. Alvars of Michigan. Michigan Natural
Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Reid, R. 2000. Great Lakes alvar update, July 2000. Prepared for
the International Alvar Conservation Initiative Working Group.
Bobolink Enterprises, Washago, ON.
Reschke, C., Reid, R., Jones, J., Feeney, T., and Potter, H. 1999.
Conserving Great Lakes alvars: final technical report of the
International Alvar Conservation Initiative. The Nature
Conservancy, Chicago, IL.
Authors' Commentary
Because of the large number of significant alvar communities at
risk, particularly in Ontario, their status should be closely watched
to ensure that they are not lost. Major binational projects hold great
promise for further progress, since alvars are a Great Lakes
resource, but most of the unprotected area is within Ontario.
Projects could be usefully modeled after the 1999 Manitoulin Island
(ON) acquisition of 6880 ha through a cooperative project of The
Nature Conservancy of Canada, The Nature Conservancy,
Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2001
261
-------
2 0 0 7
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Cobble Beaches
Indicator #8129 (Cobble Beaches)
Assessment: Mixed, Deteriorating
Purpose
To assess the status of cobble beaches, one of the 12 special
shoreline communities identified within the nearshore terrestrial
area. To assess the changes in area and quality of Great Lakes
cobble beaches;
To infer the success of management activities; and
To focus future conservation efforts toward the most
ecologically significant cobble beach habitats in the Great
Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is the preservation of the area and quality of
Great Lakes cobble beaches, individually and as an ecolog-
ically important system, for the maintenance of biodiversi-
ty and the protection of rare species. This indicator sup-
ports Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Cobble beaches are shaped by wave and ice erosion. They
are home to a variety of plant species, several of which are
threatened or endangered provincially/statewide, globally,
or both making them one of the most biodiverse terrestrial
communities along the Great Lakes shoreline. Cobble beaches
serve as seasonal spawning and migration areas for fish as well
as nesting areas for the piping plover, a species listed in the U.S.
as endangered.
Status of Cobble Beaches
Cobble beaches have always been a part of the Great Lakes
shoreline. The number and area of these beaches, however, is
decreasing due to shoreline development. In fact, cobble shore-
lines are becoming so scarce that they are considered globally
rare.
Lake Superior has the most cobble shoreline of all the Great
Lakes with 958 km of cobble beaches (Figure 1); 541 km on the
Canadian side and 417 km on the U.S. side. This constitutes
20% of the whole Lake Superior shoreline (11.3% on the
Canadian side and 8.7% on the U.S. side).
Lake Huron has the 2nd most cobble shoreline with approximate-
ly 483 km of cobble shoreline; 330 km on the Canadian side and
153 km on the U.S. side. Most of the cobble beaches are found
along the shoreline of the Georgian Bay (Figure 2). This consti-
262
tutes approximately 9% of the whole Lake Huron shoreline
(6.1% on the Canadian side and 2.8% on the U.S. side).
Approximately 164 km of the Lake Michigan shoreline is cob-
ble, representing 6.1% of its shoreline. Most of these beaches are
located at the northern end of the lake in the state of Michigan
(Figure 3).
Lake Ontario has very little cobble shoreline of about 35 km,
representing only 3% of its shoreline (Figure 4).
\
Figure 1. Cobble beaches along Lake Superior's shoreline (red = cobble
beach locations).
Source: Lake Superior Binational Program, Lake Superior LaMP 2000,
Environment Canada, and Dennis Albert
fx~-~
Figure 2. Cobble beaches along Lake Huron's shoreline (red =
cobble beach locations).
Source: Environment Canada
-------
,?,(**.*,) «ll%'«
•./
Figure 3. Cobble beaches along Lake Michigan's shoreline
(red = cobble beach locations).
Source: Albert 1994a, Humphrys et al. 1958
,-t
0
Figure 5. Cobble beaches along Lake Erie's shoreline (red = cobble
beach locations).
Source: Environment Canada
Lake Superior's large cobble shoreline provides for several rare
plant species (Table 1) some of which include the Lake Huron
tansy and redroot. It is also home to the endangered heart-leaved
plantain, which is protected under the Ontario Endangered
Species Act.
j
Figure 4. Cobble beaches along Lake Ontario's shoreline (red
cobble beach locations).
Source: International Joint Commission (IJC) and Christian J.
Stewart
Lake Superior
Common Name
Bulrush sedge
Great northern aster
Northern reedgrass
Purple clematis
Northern grass of Parnassus
Mountain goldenrod
Narrow-leafed reedgrass
Downy oat-grass
Pale Indian paintbrush
Butterwort
Pearlwort
Calypso orchid
Lake Huron tansy
Redroot
Heart-leaved plantain
Scientific Name
Carex sclrpoldea
Aster modestus
Calamagmstis lacustris
Clematis occldentalls
Pamassia palustris
Solldago decumbens
Calamagmstis stricta
Trisetum spicatum
Castllleja septentrlonalls
Plnguicula vulgaris
Sagina nodosa
Calypsa bulbosa
Tanacetum humnense
Lachnanthes carol/ana
Plantago cordata
Table 1 . Rare plant species on Lake Superior's cobble
shoreline.
Source: Lake Superior LaMP, 2000
Lake Erie has the smallest amount of cobble shoreline of all the
Great Lakes with only 26 km of cobble shore. This small area
represents approximately 1.9% of the lake's shoreline (Figure 5).
While the cobble beaches themselves are scarce, they do have a
wide variety of vegetation associated with them, and they serve
as home to plants that are endemic to the Great Lakes shoreline.
Lake Michigan and Lake Huron's cobble shorelines are home to
Houghton's goldenrod and the dwarf lake iris, both of which are
endemic to the Great Lakes shoreline (Table 2, Table 3). Some
other rare species on the Lake Michigan shoreline include the
Lake Huron tansy and beauty sedge (Table 2).
Not many studies have been conducted on the cobble shorelines
of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie because these areas are so small.
The report author was unable to find any information about the
263
-------
vegetation that grows there.
Lake Michigan
Common Name
Dwarf lake iris
Houghton's goldenrod
Slender cliff-brake
Lake Huron tansy
Beauty sedge
Richardson's sedge
Scientific Name
Iris lacustris
Solidago houghtonii
Cryptogramma stelleri
Tanacetum huronense
Carex concinna
Carex richardsonii
Table 2. Rare plant species along Lake Michigan's
cobble shoreline.
Source: Dennis Albert
Lake Huron
Common Name
Dwarf lake iris
Houghton's goldenrod
Scientific Name
Iris lacustris
Solidago houghtonii
Table 3. Rare plant species along Lake Huron's cobble
shoreline.
Source: Environment Canada
Pressures
Cobble beaches are most frequently threatened and lost by
shoreline development. Homes built along the shorelines of the
Great Lakes cause the number of cobble beaches to become lim-
ited. Along with the development of homes also comes increased
human activity along the shoreline resulting in damage to rare
plants in the surrounding area and ultimately a loss of terrestrial
biodiversity on the cobble beaches.
Acknowledgments
Author: Jacqueline Adams, Environmental Careers Organization,
on appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office.
Sources
Albert, D. 1994a. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Albert, D., Comer, P., Cuthrell, D., Penskar, M., Rabe, M., and
Reschke, C. 1994b. Bedrock shoreline surveys of the Keweenaw
Peninsula and Drummond Island in Michigan s Upper
Peninsula. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Albert, D.A., Comer, P.J., Corner, R.A., Cuthrell, D., Penskar,
M., and Rabe, M. 1995. Bedrock shoreline survey of the
Niagaran escarpment in Michigan s Upper Peninsula: Mackinac
County to Delta County. Michigan Natural Features Inventory,
Lansing, MI.
Environment Canada. 1994a. Environmental Sensitivity Atlas for
Lake Erie (including the Welland Canal) and the Niagara River
264
shorelines. Environment Canada, Ontario Region, United States
Coast Guard, and the United States National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Environment Canada. 1994b. Environmental Sensitivity Atlas for
Lake Huron s Canadian shoreline (including Georgian Bay).
Environment Canada, Ontario Region.
Humphrys, C.R., Horner, R.N., and Rogers, J.H. 1958. Shoretype
Bulletin Nos. 1-29. Michigan State University Department of
Resource Development, East Lansing, MI.
International Joint Commission (IJC) 2002. Classification of
shore units. Coastal working group. Lake Ontario and Upper St.
Lawrence River. Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA).
Lake Superior Binational Program. 2000. Lake Superior
Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2000. Environment Canada
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
Michigan's Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). Rare Plant
Reference Guide. Michigan State University Extension.
http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/data/rareplants.cfm. last
accessed October 5, 2005.
Stewart, CJ. 2003. A revised geomorphic, shore protection and
nearshore classification of the Canadian and United States
shorelines of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Christian
J. Stewart Consulting, British Columbia, Canada.
Authors' Commentary
Not much research has been conducted on cobble beach commu-
nities; therefore, no baseline data have been set. A closer look
into the percentage of cobble beaches that already have homes
on them or are slated for development would yield a more accu-
rate direction in which the beaches are headed. Also, a look at
the percentage of these beaches that are in protected areas would
provide valuable information. Projects similar to Dennis Albert's
Bedrock Shoreline Surveys of the Keweenaw Peninsula and
DrummondIsland in Michigan's Upper Peninsula (1994) for the
Michigan Natural Features Inventory, as well as the International
Joint Commission's Classification of Shore Units Coastal
Working Group: Lake Ontario and Upper St. Lawrence River
(2002), would be very useful in determining exactly where the
remaining cobble beaches are located and what is growing and
living within them.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
-------
Extent, Condition and Conservation Management of Great Lakes Islands
Indicator #8129
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Undetermined
The Framework for Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands
will be completed in 2007. The following results reflect detailed
analysis from Canadian islands and preliminary results from the US.
This project has created the first detailed binational map Great Lakes
islands. This includes the identification of 31,407 island polygons with
a total coastline of 15,623 km.
This project has established baseline information that will be used to
assess future trends.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Good
Undetermined
Detailed analysis for Canada only. Total (Canada and US) of 2,591 island
polygons. St. Mary's River has 630 island polygons.
Canadian islands in Lake Superior have the lowest threats score in the
basin. A high proportion of these islands are within protected areas and
conservation lands. Overall condition is good. These islands include a high
number of disjunct plant species.
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Detailed analysis not completed. Total of 329 island polygons.
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Undetermined
Detailed analysis for Canada only. Total (Canada and US) of 23,719 island
polygons (includes Georgian Bay).
These islands tend to be more threatened in the south compared to the north.
A large number of protected areas and conservation lands occur in the
northern region. Southern regions are more developed, and under
increasing pressures from development. These islands include high number
of globally rare species and vegetation communities.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Undetermined
Detailed analysis for Canada only. Total (Canada and US) of 1,724 island
polygons. Other island polygons with Lake St. Clair/ St. Clair River (339),
Detroit River (61) and Niagara River (36).
These islands include a mix of protected areas and private islands. Islands
in the western Lake Erie basin have some of the highest biodiversity values
of all Great Lakes islands.
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Undetermined
Detailed analysis for Canada only. Total (Canada and US) of 2,591 island
polygons (including upper St. Lawrence River).
Many of these islands have high threat index scores and a long history of
recreational use. One of the highest building point counts. Few areas have
been protected.
Purpose
•To assess the status of islands, one of the 12 special lakeshore communities identified within the
nearshore terrestrial area.
Ecosystem Objective
To assess the changes in area and quality of Great Lakes islands individually, and as an
ecologically important system; to infer the success of management activities; and to focus future
conservation efforts toward the most ecologically significant island habitats in the Great Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
There are 31,407 islands that have been idnetified in the Great Lakes (Figure 1). The islands
range in size from no bigger than a large boulder to the world's largest freshwater island,
Manitoulin, and often form chains of islands known as archipelagos. Though not well known, the
Great Lakes contain the world's largest freshwater island system, and are globally significant in
terms of their biological diversity. Despite this, the state of our knowledge about them as a
collection is quite poor.
By their very nature, islands are vulnerable and sensitive to change. Islands are exposed to the
forces of erosion and accretion as water levels rise and fall. Islands are also exposed to weather
events due to their 360-degree exposure to the elements across the open water. Isolated for
perhaps tens of thousands of years from the mainland, islands in the past rarely gained new
species, and some of their resident species evolved into endemics that differed from mainland
varieties. This means that islands are especially vulnerable to the introduction of non-native
species, and can only support a fraction of the number of species of a comparable mainland area.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Some of the Great Lakes islands are among the last remaining wildlands on Earth. Islands must
be considered as a single irreplaceable resource and protected as a whole if the high value of this
natural heritage is to be maintained. Islands play a particularly important role in the "storehouse"
of Great Lakes coastal biodiversity. For example, Michigan's 600 Great Lakes islands contain
one-tenth of the state's threatened, endangered, or rare species while representing only one-
hundredth of the land area. All of Michigan's threatened, endangered, or rare coastal species
occur at least in part on its islands. The natural features of particular importance on Great Lakes
islands are colonial waterbirds, neartic-neotropical migrant songbirds, endemic plants, arctic
disjuncts, endangered species, fish spawning and nursery use of associated shoals and reefs and
other aquatic habitat, marshes, alvars, coastal barrier systems, sheltered embayments, nearshore
bedrock mosaic, and sand dunes. New research indicates that nearshore island areas in the
Ontario waters of Lake Huron account for 58% of the fish spawning and nursery habitat and thus
are critically important to the Great Lakes fishery. Many of Ontario's provincially rare species
and vegetation communities can be found on islands in the Great Lakes.
Pressures
By their very nature, islands are more sensitive to human influence than the mainland and need
special protection to conserve their natural values. Proposals to develop islands are increasing.
This is occurring before we have the scientific information about sustainable use to evaluate,
prioritize, and make appropriate natural resource decisions on islands. Island stressors include
development, invasive species, shoreline modification, marina and air strip development,
agriculture and forestry practices, recreational use, navigation/shipping practices, wastewater
discharge, mining practices, drainage or diversion systems, overpopulation of certain species such
as deer, industrial discharge, development of roads or utilities, abandoned landfills, and disruption
of natural disturbance regimes.
Management Implications
Based on the results of assessments of island values, biological significance, categorization, and
ranking, the Binational Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands will soon
recommend management strategies on Great Lakes islands to preserve the unique ecological
features that make islands so important. In addition, based on a proposed threat assessment to be
completed in 2005, the Collaborative will recommend management strategies to reduce the
pressures on a set of priority island areas.
Comments from the author(s)
The Great Lakes islands provide a unique opportunity to protect a resource of global importance
because many islands still remain intact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Team (GLBET) has taken on the charge of providing leadership to coordinate and
improve the protection and management of the islands of the Great Lakes. The GLBET island
initiative includes the coordination and compilation of island geospatial data and information,
developing standardized survey/monitoring protocols, holding an island workshop in the fall of
2002 to incorporate input from partners for addressing the Great Lakes Island indicator needs,
and completion of a Great Lakes Island Conservation Strategic Plan.
A subset of the GLBET formed the Binational Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes
Islands. Recently, the Collaborative received a habitat grant from the Environmental Protection
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Agency's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to develop a framework for the
binational conservation of Great Lakes islands. With this funding, the team has developed:
1) An island biodiversity assessment and ranking system (based on a subset of biodiversity
parameters) that will provide a foundation to prioritize island conservation;
2) A freshwater island classification system; and
3) A suite of indicators that can be monitored to assess change, threats, and progress towards
conservation of Great Lakes islands biodiversity.
To date, the Collaborative has tentatively proposed ten state, five pressure, and two response
indicators. We anticipate developing additional response indicators and may be able to
incorporate existing Great Lakes response indicators. The island indicators are still being
evaluated and are not final. Final selection of indicators will take place in 2005-2006, and will be
based on relevance, feasibility, response variability, and interpretation and utility. The
Collaborative is currently drafting the Framework for the Binational Conservation of Great Lakes
Islands, which is expected to be submitted for public and peer review in the fall of 2006.
The information conveyed by a science-based suite of island indicators will help to focus
attention and management efforts to best conserve these unique and globally significant Great
Lakes resources.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Richard H. Greenwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Team Leader and Liaison to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL;
Dr. Karen E. Vigmostad, Great Lakes Policy Analyst Ecosystem Team, Northeast-Midwest
Institute, Washington, DC;
Megan M. Seymour, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Team Island Committee Chair, Ecological Services Field Office, Reynoldsburg, OH;
Dr. Francesca Cuthbert, Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of
Minnesota, St. Paul, MN;
Dr. David Ewert, Director of Conservation Science, Great Lakes Program, Nature Conservancy,
Lansing, MI;
Dan Kraus, Coordinator of Conservation Science, Ontario Region of Nature Conservancy of
Canada, Guelph, ON; and
Linda R. Wires, Research Associate, Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
Data Sources
Susan Crispin, Director, Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. Ph: 406-444-5434,
scrispin@state.mt.us.
Bruce Manny and Greg Kennedy, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451
Green Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2807. Ph: 734-214-7213, bruce_manny@usgs.gov or
gregory_kennedy@usgs.gov.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
:^
ix!iaz"te'***zj»-*j-B**-!/ '--'•-•—•- .•-. ••
Dr. Judy Soule, Director, U.S. Network Partnerships, Nature Serve, East Lansing, MI. Ph: 517-
381-5310,
judy_soule@natureserve.org.
Dr. Karen E. Vigmostad, Great Lakes Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington,
DC. 20003. Ph: 202-464-4016, kvigmostad@nemw.org.
List of Tables
Table 1. Biodiversity and Threats Scores for Great Lakes Islands (Canada only), by coastal
environment.
Source: Framework for Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands
List of Figures
Figure 1. Islands of the Great Lakes
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Costal
Environment
Georgian Bay 1
Georgian Bay 2
Georgian Bay 3
Georgian Bay 4
Georgian Bay 5
Georgian Bay 6
Lake Erie 1
Lake Erie 2
Lake Erie 3
Lake Erie 4
Lake Erie 5
Lake Erie 6
Lake Erie 7
Lake Erie 8
Lake Huron 1
Lake Huron 2
Lake Huron 3
Lake Ontario 1
Lake Ontario 2
Lake Ontario 3
Lake Ontario 4
Lake Ontario 5
Lake Superior 1
Lake Superior 2
Lake Superior 3
Lake Superior 4
Lake Superior 5
St. Clair 1
St. Clair 2
St. Clair 3
St. Clair 4
St. Clair 5
St. Lawrence 1
No.
Individual
Islands
3992
17615
38
36
290
225
0
15
2
66
2
1461
21
17
887
31
8
0
9
34
74
603
167
1228
495
77
246
21
234
53
1
41
337
No. Islands/
Complexes
595
848
22
18
90
119
0
15
2
13
2
30
18
4
173
19
5
0
7
13
32
171
117
459
160
28
45
11
25
11
1
14
111
Biodiversity Score
Mean
85.2
90.2
93.9
95.8
103.6
92.8
0
151.7
92.5
198.9
90.5
203.4
88.4
144.5
103.4
85.0
127.0
0
108.6
127.0
131.5
114.1
84.6
81.2
71.7
97.2
93.6
119.7
162.2
160.3
116
162.1
92.4
Range
0-345
0-290
57-244
47-195
39-300
46-401
0
87-388
91-94
154-340
87-94
81-333
57-143
96-164
39-490
57-137
114-145
0
90-148
86-190
83-231
44-302
39-290
37-288
40-195
57-253
49-275
84-187
92-336
102-239
116
79-231
44-211
Threat Score
Mean
1.3
11.8
8.2
5.7
4.0
9.7
0
11.2
1.0
4.8
2.0
9.7
7.7
2.3
8.2
3.4
2.8
0
2.3
7.0
3.3
3.7
2.2
2.0
2.4
3.3
8.8
22.1
9.2
6.0
2
11.5
19.5
Range
0-65
0-52
1-46
1-33
1-44
1-581
0
1-88
1
1-32
1-3
1-41
1-42
1-6
1-179
1-22
1-4
0
1-5
1-27
1-22
1-143
1-25
1-40
1-28
1-26
1-138
1-46
1-68
1-36
2
1-36
1-81
Table 1. Biodiversity and Threats Scores for Great Lakes Islands (Canada only), by coastal
environment.
Source: Framework for Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
v
Framework for the
Binational Conservation
of Great Lakes Islands
Lakes and Comiectiug
MINN
Figure 1. Islands of the Great Lakes.
Source: Framework for the Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Indicator #8131
Assessment: Mixed, Deteriorating
Purpose
To assess the extent (in kilometres) of hardened shoreline
along the Great Lakes through construction of sheet piling, rip
rap, or other erosion control structures.
Ecosystem Objective
Shoreline conditions should be healthy enough to support aquat-
ic and terrestrial plant and animal life, including the rarest
species.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Anthropogenic hardening of the shorelines not only directly
destroys natural features and biological communities, it also has
a more subtle but still devastating impact. Many of the biologi-
cal communities along the Great Lakes are dependent upon the
transport of shoreline sediment by lake currents. Altering the
transport of sediment disrupts the balance of accretion and ero-
sion of materials carried along the shoreline by wave action and
lake currents. The resulting loss of sediment replenishment can
intensify the effects of erosion, causing ecological and economic
impacts. Erosion of sand spits and other barriers allows
increased exposure of the shoreline and loss of coastal wetlands.
Dune formations can be lost or reduced due to lack of adequate
nourishment of new sand to replace sand that is carried away.
Increased erosion also causes property damage to shoreline
properties.
Status of Hardened Shorelines in the Great Lakes
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Medium Resolution Digital Shorelines dataset was compiled
between 1988 and 1992. It contains data on both the Canadian
and U.S. shorelines, using aerial photography from 1979 for the
state of Michigan and from 1987-1989 for the rest of the basin.
From this dataset, shoreline hardening has been categorized for
each Lake and connecting channel (Table 1). Figure 1 indicates
the percentages of shorelines in each of these categories. The St.
Clair, Detroit, and Niagara Rivers have a higher percentage of
their shorelines hardened than anywhere else in the basin.
Of the Lakes themselves, Lake Erie has the highest percentage
of its shoreline hardened, and Lakes Huron and Superior have
the lowest (Figure 2). In 1999, Environment Canada assessed
change in the extent of shoreline hardening along about 22 kilo-
metres of the Canadian shoreline of the St. Clair River from
1991-1992 to 1999. Over the eight-year period, an additional 5.5
All 5 Lakes
All Connecting
Channels
Entire Basin
i 0-15% Hardened
i 40-70% Hardened
n 15-40% Hardened
• 70-100% Hardened
Figure 1. Shoreline hardening in the Great Lakes compiled
from 1979 data for the state of Michigan and 1987-1989 data
for the rest of the basin.
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
kilometers (32%) of the shoreline had been hardened. This is
clearly not representative of the overall basin, as the St. Clair
River is a narrow shipping channel with high volumes of Great
Lakes traffic. This area also has experienced significant develop-
ment along its shorelines, and many property owners are harden-
ing the shoreline to reduce the impacts of erosion.
zb
0)
= on
o
•= m-
(0 10
T3
2 m
c 10
0)
1 5
« 0
a? o
—
•=,_•=,_ n
1
i — i
h
///s////
V <^
• 70-100% Hardened n 40-
70% Hardened
Figure 2. Shoreline hardened by lake compiled from 1979 data
fro the state of Michigan and 1987-1989 for the rest of the
basin.
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
269
-------
2007
Lake / Connecting
Channel
Lake Superior
St. Marys River
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
St. Clair River
Lake St. Clair
Detroit River
Lake Erie
Niagara River
Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence Seaway
All 5 Lakes
All Connecting Channels
Entire Basin
70 - 100%
Hardened
3.1
2.9
1.5
8.6
69.3
11.3
47.2
20.4
44.3
10.2
12.6
5.7
15.4
7.6
40 - 70%
Hardened
1.1
1.6
1.0
2.9
24.9
25.8
22.6
11.3
8.8
6.3
9.3
2.8
11.5
4.6
15-40%
Hardened
3.0
7.5
4.5
30.3
2.1
11.8
8.0
16.9
16.7
18.6
17.2
10.6
14.0
11.3
0 - 15%
Hardened
89.4
81.3
91.6
57.5
3.6
50.7
22.2
49.1
29.3
57.2
54.7
78.3
54.4
73.5
Non-structural
Modifications
0.03
1.6
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.5
Unclassified
3.4
5.1
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.9
7.7
6.2
2.0
4.4
2.5
Total
Shoreline
(km)
5,080
707
6,366
2,713
100
629
244
1,608
184
1,772
2,571
17,539
4,436
21 ,974
Table 1 . Percentages of shorelines in each category of hardened shoreline. The St. Clair, Detroit and Niagara
Rivers have a higher percentage of their shorelines hardened than anywhere else in the basin. Lake Erie has the
highest percentage of its shoreline hardened, and Lakes Huron and Superior have the lowest.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Pressures
Shoreline hardening is generally not reversible, so once a section
of shoreline has been hardened it can be considered a permanent
feature. As such, the current state of shoreline hardening likely
represents the best condition that can be expected in the future.
Additional stretches of shoreline will continue to be hardened,
especially during periods of high lake levels. This additional
hardening in turn will starve the downcurrent areas of sediment
to replenish that which eroded away, causing further erosion and
further incentive for additional hardening. Thus, a cycle of
shoreline hardening can progress along the shoreline. The future
pressures on the ecosystem resulting from existing hardening
will almost certainly continue, and additional hardening is likely
in the future. The uncertainly is whether the rate can be reduced
and ultimately halted. In addition to the economic costs, the eco-
logical costs are of concern, particularly the percent further lost
or degradation of coastal wetlands and sand dunes.
Management Implications
Shoreline hardening can be controversial, even litigious, when
one property owner hardens a stretch of shoreline that may
increase erosion of an adjacent property. The ecological impacts
are not only difficult to quantify as a monetary equivalent, but
difficult to perceive without an understanding of sediment trans-
port along the lakeshores. The importance of the ecological
process of sediment transport needs to be better understood as an
incentive to reduce new shoreline hardening. An educated public
is critical to ensuring wise decisions about the stewardship of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem, and better platforms for getting
understandable information to the public is needed.
Acknowledgments
Authors: John Schneider, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL;
Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL; and
Harold Leadlay, Environment Canada, Environmental
Emergencies Section, Downsview, ON.
Sources
The National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Medium resolution digital
shoreline, 1988-1992. In Great Lakes Electronic Environmental
Sensitivity Atlas, Environment Canada, Environmental Protection
Branch, Downsview, ON.
Authors' Commentary
It is possible that current aerial photography of the shoreline will
be interpreted to show more recently hardened shorelines. Once
more recent data provides information on hardened areas,
updates may only be necessary basin-wide every 10 years, with
monitoring of high-risk areas every 5 years.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2001
270
-------
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald
Eagles
Indicator #8135
Assessment: Mixed, Improving
Purpose
To assess the number of territorial pairs, success rate of nest-
ing attempts, and number of fledged young per territorial pair as
well as the number of developmental deformities in young bald
eagles;
To measure concentrations of persistent organic pollutants and
selected heavy metals in unhatched bald eagle eggs and in
nestling blood and feathers; and
To infer the potential for harm to other wildlife caused by eat-
ing contaminated prey items.
Ecosystem Objectives
This indicator supports annexes 2, 12, and 17 of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
As the top avian predator in the nearshore and tributary areas of
the Great Lakes, the bald eagle integrates contaminant stresses,
food availability, and the availability of relatively undeveloped
habitat areas over most portions of the Great Lakes shoreline. It
serves as an indicator of both habitat quantity and quality.
MINNESOTA
Concentrations of organochlorine chemicals are decreasing or
stable but still above No Observable Adverse Effect
Concentrations (NOAECs) for the primary organic contami-
nants, dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethene (DDE) and polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs). Bald eagles are now distributed exten-
sively along the shoreline of the Great Lakes (Figure 1). The
number of active bald eagle territories has increased markedly
from the depths of the population decline caused by DDE
(Figure 2). Similarly, the percentage of nests producing one or
more fledglings (Figure 3) and the number of young produced
per territory (Figure 4) have risen. The recovery of reproductive
output at the population level has followed similar patterns in
each of the lakes, but the timing has differed between the vari-
ous lakes. Lake Superior recovered first, followed by Erie and
Huron, and most recently, Lake Michigan. An active territory
has been reported from Lake Ontario. Established territories in
most areas are now producing one or more young per territory
indicating that the population is healthy and capable of growing.
Eleven developmental deformities have been reported in bald
eagles within the Great Lakes watershed; five of these were from
territories potentially influenced by the Great Lakes.
Figure 1. Approximate nesting locations of bald eagles (in red) along
the Great Lakes shorelines, 2000.
Source: W. Bowerman, Clemson University, Lake Superior LaMPs,
and for Lake Ontario, Peter Nye, and N.Y. Department of
Environmental Conservation
200
180
160
140
o 120
Q.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Year
-Superior ® Michigan-^- Huron-"- Erie A Ontario
Figure 2. Average number of occupied bald eagle territories per
year by lake.
Source: David Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela
Martin, Canadian Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Pressures
High levels of persistent contaminants in bald eagles contin-
ue to be a concern for two reasons. Eagles are relatively rare
and contaminant effects on individuals can be important to
the well-being of local populations. In addition, relatively
large habitat units are necessary to support eagles and con-
tinued development pressures along the shorelines of the
271
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
2
I
3
a.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Superior Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
D 1962-1 966
D 1967-1 971
D 1972-1 976
D 1977-1 981
D 1982-1 986
D 1987-1991
D 1992-1 996
D 1997-2001
Figure 3. Average percentage of occupied territories fledging at
least one young.
Source: David Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela Martin.
Canadian Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
1.6
1.4
j? 1.2
•§ 1.0
% 0.8
| 0.6
Z 0.4
0.2
0
,-r
n
rJl
r
n
rl
I -
Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario
• 1962-1966 D 1972-1 976
D1967-1971 D1977-1981
• 1982-1986 D 1992-1 996
D1987-1991 D1997-2001
Figure 4. Average number of young fledged per occupied
territory per year.
Source: David Best, U
S. Fish
and Wildlife Service;
Pamela Martin, Canadian Wildlife Service; and Michael
Meyer, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
Great Lakes constitute a concern. The interactions of contami-
nant pressures and habitat limitations are unknown at present.
There are still several large portions of the Great Lakes shore-
line, particularly around Lake Ontario, where the bald eagle has
not recovered to its pre-DDE status despite what appears to be
adequate habitat in many areas.
Management Implications
The data on reproductive rates in the shoreline populations of
272
Great Lakes bald eagles imply that widespread effects of persist-
ent organic pollutants have decreased. However, there are still
gaps in this pattern of reproductive recovery that should be
explored and appropriate corrective actions taken. In addition.
information on the genetic structure of these shoreline popula-
tions is still lacking. It is possible that further monitoring will
reveal that these populations are being maintained from surplus
production from inland sources rather than from the productivity
of the shoreline birds themselves. Continued expansion of these
populations into previously unoccupied areas is encouraging and
might indicate several things; there is still suitably undeveloped
habitat available, or bald eagles are adapting to increasing alter-
ation of the available habitat.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ken Stromborg, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service;
David Best, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service;
Pamela Martin, Canadian Wildlife Service; and
William Bowerman, Clemson University.
Additional data were contributed by: Ted Armstrong, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources; Lowell Tesky, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources; Cheryl Dykstra, Cleves, OH;
Peter Nye, New York Department of Environmental
Conservation; Michael Hoff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
John Netto, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service assisted with computer
support.
Authors' Commentary
Monitoring the health and contaminant status of Great Lakes
bald eagles should continue across the Great Lakes basin. Even
though the worst effects of persistent bioaccumulative pollutants
seem to have passed, the bald eagle is a prominent indicator
species that integrates effects that operate at a variety of levels
within the ecosystem. Symbols such as the bald eagle are valu-
able for communicating with the public. Many agencies continue
to accomplish the work of reproductive monitoring that results
in compatible data for basin-wide assessment. However, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Ohio
Department of Natural Resources programs are diminished as
the result of budgetary constraints, while Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources programs will continue for the near future. In the very
near future, when the bald eagle is removed from the list of
threatened species in the United States, existing monitoring
efforts may be severely curtailed. Without the required field
monitoring data, overall assessments of indicators like the bald
eagle will be impossible. Part of the problem with a lessened
emphasis on wildlife monitoring by governmental agencies is
the failure of initiatives such as the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
-------
OF T H
Conference (SOLEC) process to identify and designate programs
that are essential in order to ensure that data continuity is main-
tained. Two particular needs for additional data also exist. There
is no basin-wide effort directed toward assessing habitat suitabil-
ity of shoreline areas for bald eagles. Further, it is not known to
what degree the shoreline populations depend on recruiting sur-
plus young from healthy inland populations to maintain the cur-
rent rate of expansion or whether shoreline populations are self-
sustaining.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
273
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
Population Monitoring and Contaminants
Affecting the American Otter
Indicator #8147
Assessment: Mixed, Trend Not Assessed
Purpose
To directly measure the contaminant concentrations found in
American otter populations within the Great Lakes basin; and
To indirectly measure the health of Great Lakes habitat,
progress in Great Lakes ecosystem management, and/or concen-
trations of contaminants present in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
As a society we have a moral responsibility to sustain healthy
populations of American otter in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence
basin. American otter populations in the upper Great Lakes
should be maintained, and restored as sustainable populations in
all Great Lakes coastal zones, lower Lake Michigan, western
Lake Ontario, and Lake Erie watersheds and shorelines. Great
Lakes shoreline and watershed populations of American otter
should have an annual mean production of >2 young/adult
female; and concentrations of heavy metal and organic contami-
nants in otter tissue samples should be less than the No
Observable Adverse Effect Level found in tissue
sample from mink. The importance of the American
otter as a biosentinel is related to International Joint
Commission Desired Outcomes 6: Biological
Community Integrity and Diversity, and 7: Virtual
Elimination of Inputs of Persistent Toxic Chemicals.
State of the Ecosystem
A review of State and Provincial otter population
data indicates that primary areas of population sup-
pression still exist in southern Lake Huron water-
sheds, lower Lake Michigan and most Lake Erie
watersheds. Data provided from New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYDEC) and Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources (OMNR) suggest that otter are almost
absent in western Lake Ontario (Figure 1). Most
coastal shoreline areas have more suppressed popu-
lations than interior zones.
Areas of otter population suppression are directly
related to human population centers and subsequent
habitat loss, and also to elevated contaminant con-
centrations associated with human activity. Little
statistically-viable population data exist for the
Great Lakes populations, and all suggested popula-
tion levels illustrated were determined from coarse
population assessment methods.
274
Pressures
American otters are a direct link to organic and heavy metal con-
centrations in the food chain. It is a relatively sedentary species
and subsequently synthesizes contaminants from smaller areas
than wider-ranging organisms, e.g. bald eagle. Contaminants are
a potential and existing problem for many otter populations
throughout the Great Lakes. Globally, indications of contaminant
problems in otter have been noted by decreased population lev-
els, morphological abnormalities (i.e. decreased baculum length)
and decline in fecundity. Changes in the species population and
range are also representative of anthropogenic riverine and
lacustrine habitat alterations.
Management Implications
Michigan and Wisconsin have indicated a need for an independ-
ent survey using aerial survey methods to index otter popula-
tions in their respective jurisdictions. Minnesota has already
started aerial population surveys for otter. Subsequently, some
presence-absence data may be available for Great Lakes water-
sheds and coastal populations in the near future. In addition, if
the surveys are conducted frequently, the trend data may become
useful. There was agreement among resource managers on the
merits of aerial survey methods to index otter populations,
although these methods are only appropriate in areas with ade-
quate snow cover. NYDEC, OMNR, Federal jurisdictions and
Stable
Non-stable
Almost Absent
Extirpated
Figure 1. Great Lakes shoreline population stability estimates for the American
otter.
Source: Thomas CJ. Doolittle, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of
Chippewa Indians
-------
Tribes on Great Lakes coasts indicated strong needs for future
assessments of contaminants in American otter. Funding, other
than from sportsmen, is needed by all jurisdictions to assess
habitats and contaminant levels, and to conduct aerial surveys.
Acknowledgments
Thomas CJ. Doolittle, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe
of Chippewa Indians, Odanah, WI.
Sources
Bishop, P., Gotie, R., Penrod, B., and Wedge, L. 1999. Current
status of river otter management in New York. New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Otter management
team, Delmar, New York.
Bluett, R.D. 2000. Personal Communication. Illinois Department
of Natural Resources, Springfield, IL.
Bluett, R.D., Anderson, E.A., Hubert, G.F., Kruse, G.W., and
Lauzon, S.E. 1999. Reintroduction and status of the river otter
(Lutra canadensis) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State
Academy of Science 92(1 and 2):69-78.
Brunstrom, B., Lund, B., Bergman, A., Asplund, L.,
Athanassiadis, L, Athanasiadou, M., Jensen, S., and Orberg, J.
2001. Reproductive toxicity in mink (Mustela vison) chronically
exposed to environmentally relevant polychlorinated biphenyl
concentrations. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20:2318-2327.
Chapman, J.A., and Pursley, D. (eds.). Worldwide furbearers
conference proceedings. Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Inc.
Frostburg, MD, pp.1752-1780.
Dawson, N. 2000. Personal Communication. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Northwest Region. Thunder Bay, ON.
Dwyer, C.P. 2000a. Personal Communication. Ohio Division of
Wildlife, Oak Harbor, OH.
Dwyer, C.P. 2000b. Population assessment and distribution of
river otters following their reintroduction into Ohio. Crane
Creek Wildlife Experiment Station, Ohio Division of Wildlife,
Oak Harbor, OH.
Foley, F.E., Jackling, S J., Sloan, R.J., and Brown, M.K. 1988.
Organochlorine and mercury residues in wild mink and otter:
comparison with fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7:363-374.
Friedrich, P.D. 2000. Personal Communication. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. East Lansing, MI.
Halbrook, R.S., Jenkins, J.H., Bush, P.B., and Seabolt, N.D.
1981. Selected environmental contaminants in river otters (Lutra
canadensis) of Georgia and their relationship to the possible
decline of otters in North America. In Proc. Worldwide
Furbearer Cong., pp. 1752- 1762, Worldwide Furbearer
Conference, Inc.
Hammill, J. 2000. Personal Communication. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. Crystal Falls, MI.
Henny, C.J., Blus, L.J., Gregory, S.V., and Stafford, C.J. 1981.
PCBs and organochorine pesticides in wild mink and river otters
from Oregon. In Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Cong., pp. 1763-
1780.
Hochstein, J., Bursian, S., and Aulerich, R. 1998. Effects of
dietary exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in adult
female mink (Mustela vison). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
35:348-353.
Johnson, S. 2000. Personal Communication. Indiana Department
of Natural Resources. Bloomington, IN.
Johnson, S.A., and Berkley, K.A. 1999. Restoring river otters in
Indiana. Wildlife Society Bull. 27(2):419-427.
Johnson, S.A., and Madej, R.F. 1994. Reintroduction of the river
otter in Indiana - a feasibility study. Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Bloomington, IN.
Kannan, K., Blankenship, A., Jones, P., and Giesy, J. 2000.
Toxicity reference values for the toxic effects of polychlorinated
biphenyls to aquatic mammals. Human Ecological Risk
Assessment 6:181-201.
Kautz, M. 2000. Personal Communication. New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, Delmar, NY.
Leonards, P., de Vries, T., Minnaard, W., Stuijfzand, S., de
Voogt, P., Cofino, W., van Straalen, N., and van Hattum, B.
1995. Assessment of experimental data on PCB induced repro-
duction inhibition in mink, based on an isomer- and congener-
specific approach using 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
toxic equivalency. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:639-652.
Mason, C. 1989. Water pollution and otter distribution: a review.
Lutra 32:97-131.
Mason, C., and Macdonald, S. 1993. Impact of organochlorine
pesticide residues and PCBs on otters (Lutra lutra): a study from
western Britain. Sci. Total Environ. 138:127-145.
Mayack, D.T. 2000. Personal Communication. New York
275
-------
E S 2007
Department of Environmental Conservation, Gloversville, NY.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2000a, Distribution
of otter harvest by section 1998-99. East Lansing, MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2000b. River otter
reproductive and harvest data 1995-1999. East Lansing, MI.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
1998-99. Furbearer harvest by county and region. Albany, NY.
Ohio Division of Wildlife. 1999-2000. Watersheds with river
otter observations. Oak harbor, OH.
Olson, J. 2000. Personal Communication. Furbearer Specialist,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, WI.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Ontario furbearer
population ranks through trapper questionnaires by Wildlife
Assessment Unit. Thunder Bay, ON.
Roos, A., Greyerz, E., Olsson, M., and Sandegren, F. 2001. The
otter (Lutra lutra) in Sweden? Population trends in relation to
3DDT and total PCB concentrations during 1968-99. Environ.
Pollut. 111:457-469.
Route, W.T., and Peterson, R.O.1988. Distribution and abun-
dance of river otter in Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota.
Resource Management Report MWR-10. National Park Service,
Omaha, NE.
Sheffy, T.B., and St. Amant, J.R. 1982. Mercury burdens in
furbearers in Wisconsin. J. Wildlife Manage. 46:1117-1120.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000a. Distribution
of otter harvest by management unit 1998-99. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000b. Otter popu-
lation model statewide 1982-2005. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1979-1998.
Summary of otter reproductive information. Madison, WI.
Wren, C. 1991. Cause-effect linkages between chemicals and
populations of mink (Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra canadensis)
in the Great Lakes basin. J. Toxicol Environ. Health 33:549-585.
or provincial-wide scales. Most coarse population assessment
methods were developed to assure that trapping was not limiting
populations and that otter were simply surviving and reproduc-
ing in their jurisdiction. There was little work done on finer spa-
tial scales using otter as an indicator of ecosystem heath.
In summary, all state and provincial jurisdictions only marginal-
ly index Great Lakes watershed populations by presence-absence
surveys, track surveys, observations, trapper surveys, population
models, aerial surveys, and trapper registration data.
Michigan has the most useful spatial data that could index the
largest extent of Great Lakes coastal populations due to their
registration requirements. Michigan registers trapped otter to an
accuracy of 1 square mile. However, other population measures
of otter health, such as reproductive rates, age and morphologi-
cal measures, are not tied to spatial data in any jurisdiction, but
are pooled together for entire jurisdictions. If carcasses are col-
lected for necropsy, the samples are usually too small to accu-
rately define health of Great Lakes coastal otter verses interior
populations. Subsequently, there is a large need to encourage and
fund resource management agencies to streamline data for tar-
geted population and contaminant research on Great Lakes otter
populations, especially in coastal zones.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2003
Authors' Commentary
All State and Provincial jurisdictions use different population
assessment methods, making comparisons difficult. Most juris-
dictions use survey methods to determine populations on state-
276
-------
' ^iffiJii;Ci?'ifct^A'T^J^^^
!^*i
v
Biodiversity Conservation Sites
Indicator #8164
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Information on Biodiversity Conservation sites is limited at this time
Determining making it difficult to assess the status and trend of this indicator.
Status and Trend
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Not available at this time.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Michigan
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Not available at this time.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Huron
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Not available at this time.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Erie
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Not available at this time.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Not available at this time.
Determining
Status and Trend
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
s*^t-^'^o'i!ifr^J^1 »t*"s,--Tvz--'r"%x**-""«
Purpose
• To assess and monitor the biodiversity of the Great Lakes watershed.
Ecosystem Objective
The ultimate goal of this indicator is to generate and implement a distinct conservation goal for
each target species, natural community type and aquatic system type within the Great Lakes
basin. Through establishing the long-term survival of viable populations, the current level of
biodiversity within the region can be maintained, or even increased. This indicator supports
Great Lakes Quality Agreement Annexes 1, 2 and 11.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
In 1997, the Great Lakes Program of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) launched an initiative to
identify high priority biodiversity conservation sites in the Great Lakes region. Working with
experts from a variety of agencies, organizations, and other public and private entities throughout
the region, a collection of conservation targets was identified. These targets, which represented
the full range of biological diversity within the region, consisted of globally rare plant and animal
species, naturally occurring community types within the ecoregion, and all aquatic system types
found in the Great Lakes watershed.
In order to ensure the long-term survival of these conservation targets, two specific questions
were asked: how many populations or examples of each target are necessary to ensure its long-
term survival in the Great Lakes ecoregion, and how should these populations or examples be
distributed in order to capture the target's genetic and ecological variability across the Great
Lakes ecoregion? Using this information, which is still limited as these questions have not been
satisfactorily answered in the field of conservation biology, a customized working hypothesis, i.e.
conservation goal, was generated for each individual conservation target. Additionally, to
effectively and efficiently achieve these conservation goals, specific portfolio sites were
identified. These sites, many of which contain more than one individual target, support the most
viable examples of each target, thus aiding in the preservation of the overall biodiversity within
the Great Lakes region.
With support from TNC, the Nature Conservancy of Canada has undertaken a similar initiative,
identifying additional targets, goals, and conservation sites within Ontario, Canada. However, as
the commencement of this project occurred some time after the U.S. counterpart, there is a wide
discrepancy in the information that is currently available.
Status of Biodiversity Conservation Sites in the Great Lakes Basin
Within the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes region, 208 species (51 plant species, 77 animal
species and 80 bird species) were identified. Of these, 18 plant species and 28 animal species can
be considered endemic (found only in the Great Lakes region) or limited (range is primarily in the
Great Lakes ecoregion, but also extends into one or two other ecoregions). Furthermore, 24
animals and 14 plants found within the basin are recognized as globally imperiled. Additionally,
274 distinct natural community types are located throughout the ecoregion: 71 of which are
endemic or largely limited to the Great Lakes, while 45 are globally imperiled. The Great Lakes
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
watershed also contains 231 aquatic system types, all of which are inextricably connected to the
region, and thus do not occur outside this geographical area.
A total of 501 individual portfolio sites have been designated throughout the Great Lakes region:
280 of which reside fully within the U.S., 213 are located entirely in Canada, while the remaining
8 sites cross international borders. However, there is an uneven distribution among the
conservation priority sites found in the U.S., as over half are completely or partially located
within the state of Michigan. New York State contains the second greatest number of sites with
56; Wisconsin, 29; Ohio, 25; and Minnesota, 20. Furthermore, 9 sites are located within the state
of Illinois, 7 sites in Indiana, while only 2 sites are found in the state of Pennsylvania (11 sites
cross state borders, while one international and one U.S. site cross more than one border). The
sizes of the selected portfolio sites have a wide distribution, ranging from approximately 60 to
1,500,000 acres; with three-fourths of the sites having areas which are less than 20,000 acres.
The currently established conservation sites provide enough viable examples to fully meet the
conservation goals for 20% of the 128 species and 274 community types described within the
Great Lakes conservation vision. Additionally, under the existing Conservation Blueprint, 80%
of the aquatic systems are sufficiently represented in order to meet their conservation goals.
However, these figures might not present an accurate depiction of the current state of the
biodiversity within the region. Due to a lack of available data for several species, communities,
and aquatic systems, a generalized conservation goal, e.g. "all viable examples" was established
for these targets. As such, even though the conservation goals may have been met, there might
not be an adequate number of examples to ensure the long-term survival of these targets.
In order to sustain the current level of biodiversity, i.e. number of targets that have met their
conservation goals, attention to the health and overall integrity of the conservation sites must be
maintained. While approximately 60% of these sites are irreplaceable, these places represent the
only opportunity to protect certain species, natural communities, aquatic systems, or assemblages
of these targets within the Great Lakes region. Only 5% of all U.S. sites are actually fully
protected. Furthermore, 79% of the Great Lakes sites require conservation attention within the
next ten years, while more than one-third of the sites need immediate attention in order to protect
conservation targets. These conservation actions range from changes in policies affecting land
use, i.e. specific land protection measures (conservation easements or changes in ownership), to
the modification of the management practices currently used.
Pressures
In the U.S., information was obtained from 224 sites regarding pressures associated with the
plants, animals, and community targets within the Great Lakes basin: from this data four main
threats emerged. The top threat to biodiversity sites throughout the region is currently
development, i.e. urban, residential, second home, and road, as it is affecting approximately two-
thirds of the sites in the form of degradation, fragmentation, or even the complete loss of these
critical habitats. The second significant threat, affecting the integrity of more than half the sites,
is the impact exerted by invasive species, which includes non-indigenous species such as purple
loosestrife, reed canary grass, garlic mustard, buckthorn, zebra mussels, and exotic fishes, as well
as high-impact, invasive, native species such as deer. Affecting almost half of the U.S. sites,
hydrology alteration, the third most common threat to native biodiversity, includes threats due to
dams, diversions, dikes, groundwater withdrawals, and other changes to the natural flow regime.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Finally, recreation (boating, camping, biking, hiking, etc.) is a major threat that affects over 40%
of the sites.
Management Implications
A continuous effort to obtain pertinent information is essential in order to maintain the most
scientifically-based conservation goals and strategies for each target species, community and
aquatic system type within the Great Lakes basin. Additional inventories are also needed in many
areas to further assess the location, distribution and viability of individual targets, especially those
that are more common throughout the region. Furthermore, even though current monitoring
efforts and conservation actions are being implemented throughout the watershed, they are
generally site-specific or locally concentrated. A greater emphasis on a regional-wide approach
must be undertaken if the long-term survival of these metapopulations is to be ensured. This
expanded perspective would also assist in establishing region-wide communications, thus
enabling a more rapid and greater distribution of information. However, the establishment of
basin-wide management practices is greatly hindered by the numerous governments represented
throughout this region, (two federal governments, 100 tribal authorities, one province, and eight
states (each with multiply agencies), 13 regional and 18 county municipalities in Ontario, 192
counties in the US and thousands of local governments) and the array of land-use policies
developed by each administrations. Without additional land protection measures, it will be
difficult to preserve the current sites and implement restoration efforts in order to meet the
conservation goals for the individual conservation targets.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Jeffrey C. May, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO Intern.
Contributors: Mary Harkness, The Nature Conservancy.
Data Sources
The Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Ecoregional Planning Team. 1999. Great Lakes
Ecoregional Plan: A First Iteration. The Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Program, Chicago, IL,
USA. 85pp. + iv.
The Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Ecoregional Planning Team. 1999. Toward a New
Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration. The Nature Conservancy,
Great Lakes Program, Chicago, IL, USA. 12 pp.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Biodiversity Conservation Sites within the Great Lakes Region.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/tnc great lakes web.pdf
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Figure 1. Map of Biodiversity Conservation Sites within the Great Lakes Region.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/tnc great lakes web.pdf
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
Indicator #8500
Note: This indicator includes four components that correspond to Montreal Process Criterion
#1, Indicators 1, 2, 3, and 5.
Indicator #8500 Components:
Component (1) - Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area
Component (2) - Extent of area by forest type and by age-class or successional stage
Component (3) - Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories
Component (4) — Extent afforest land conversion, parcelization, and fragmentation (Still
under development for future analysis; data not presented in this report)
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors There is a moderate distribution of forest types in the Great Lakes
Determining basin by age-class and serai stage. Additional analysis is required by
Status and Trend forestry professionals.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Data by individual lake basin was not available for the U.S. at this time.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Michigan
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Data by individual lake basin was not available for the U.S. at this time.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Huron
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Data by individual lake basin was not available for the U.S. at this time.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Erie
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Data by individual lake basin was not available for the U.S. at this time.
Determining
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Data by individual lake basin was not available for the U.S. at this time.
Purpose
•To describe the extent, composition and structure of Great Lakes basin forests; and
•To address the capacity of forests to perform the hydrologic functions and host the organisms
and essential processes that are essential to protecting the biological diversity, physical integrity
and water quality of the watershed.
Ecosystem Objective
To have a forest composition and structure that most efficiently conserves the natural biological
diversity of the region
State of the Ecosystem
Component (1):
Forests cover over half (61%), of the land in the Great Lakes basin. The U.S. portion of the basin
has forest coverage on 54% of its land, while the Canadian portion has coverage on 73% of its
land.
In the U.S. portion of the basin, maple-beech-birch is the most extensive forest type, representing
7.8 million hectares, or 39% of total forest area in the basin. Aspen-birch forests constitute the
second-largest forest type, covering 19% of the total. Complete data are available in Table 1 and
are visually represented in Figure 1.
The entire Canadian portion of the basin is dominated by mixed forest, representing 39% of the
total forest area, followed by hardwoods, covering 23% of the total forest area analyzed from
satellite data, (see Table 2A). The most extensive provincial forest type is the upland mixed
conifer, representing 23% of the forested area available for analysis, followed by the
mixedwoods, tolerant hardwoods, white birch, and poplars, (see Figure 2 and Table 2B).
Implications for the health of Great Lakes forests and the basin ecosystem are difficult to
establish. There is no consensus on how much land in the basin should be forested; much less on
how much land should be covered by each forest type. Generally speaking, maintenance of the
variety of forest types is important in species preservation, and long-term changes in forest type
proportions are indicative of changes in forest biodiversity patterns, (OMNR 2002).
Comparisons to historical forest cover, although of limited utility in developing landscape goals,
can illustrate the range of variation experienced within the basin since the time of European
settlement. (See supplemental section entitled "Historical Range of Variation in the Great Lakes
Forests of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan" in the State of the Great Lakes 2005 version of
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
this indicator report, #8500, for more information). Analysis of similar historical forest cover
data for the entire Great Lakes Basin over the past several years would be useful in establishing
current trends to help assess potential changes to ecosystem function and community diversity.
Component (2):
In the U.S. portion of the basin, the 41-60 and 61-80 year age-classes are dominant and together
represent about 41% of total forest area. Forests 40 years of age and under make up a further
30%, while those in the 100+ year age-classes constitute 7% of total forest area. Table 3 contains
complete U.S. data for age-class distribution as a percentage of forested area within each forest
type.
Because forests are dynamic and different tree species have different growth patterns, age
distribution varies by forest type. In the U.S. portion of the basin, aspen-birch forests tend to be
younger, being more concentrated than other forest types in age classes under 40 years, while the
Oak-Pine forests are more concentrated in the 41-60 and 61-80 year age classes, comparatively.
Spruce-fir and Oak-Hickory forests have a general distribution centered around 41-80 years, but
also have the highest amount of oldest trees, representing about 10% each of total forest area in
the 100+ year age class, (see Figure 3).
This age-class data can serve as a coarse surrogate for the vegetative structure (height and
diameter) of a forest, and can be combined with data from other indicators to provide insight on
forest sustainability.
U.S data on the extent of forest area by successional or serai stage is not available. Although
certain tree species can be associated with the various successional stages, a standard and
quantifiable protocol for identifying successional stage has not yet been developed. It is expected,
however, that in the absence of disturbance, the area covered by early-successional forest types,
such as aspen-birch, is likely to decline as forests convert to late-successional types, such as
maple-beech-birch.
Canadian forest data for this component is available by serai stage. Ontario's forests have a
distribution leaning towards mature stages, representing about 50% of the total forest area
analyzed. Forests in the immature stage make up the next largest group with 20% of the total,
followed by those in late successional with 14%. Every Canadian forest type distribution follows
this general trend except for jack pine. Complete available data for Ontario can be viewed in
Table 4 and is visually represented in Figure 4.
Although the implications of this age-class and serai stage data for forest and basin health overall
are unclear, some conclusions can be made. In general, water quality is most affected during the
early successional stages after a disturbance to forest habitats. Nutrient levels in streams can
increase during these times until the surrounding forest is able to mature, (Swank et. al 2000).
The trend towards mature forests in Canada would therefore mean that area of the Great Lakes
basin has improved water quality. Alternately, forests with balanced forest type distributions and
diverse successional stages are generally considered more sustainable, (USDA Forest Service et.
al 2003). The combined effect on ecosystem health resulting from the balance of these opposing
forces would need to be determined.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Component (3):
In the U.S. basin, 7.8% of forested land is in a protected area category. Among major forest types,
8.9% of maple-beech-birch, 6.6% of aspen-birch and 9.2% of spruce-fir forests are considered to
have protected status. The oak-gum-cypress category has the highest protection rate, with 19.2%
of its forest area protected from harvest. Please refer to Table 1 for complete U.S. data.
In the entire Canadian portion of the basin, 10.6% of forest area, or 1.6 million hectares, are
protected, (see Table 2A). For the region of Ontario that has available forest type data, protection
rates range from 15.4% for red and white pine and 11% for white birch, to 6.4% for poplar and
5.7% for mixed conifer lowland forests, (see Table 2B).
It is difficult to assess the implications of the extent of protected forest area, since there is no
consensus on what the actual proportion should be. National forest protection rates are estimated
to be 8.4% in Canada (WWF 1999) and 14% in the U.S. (USDA Forest Service 2004). Despite
the fact that updated trend data for protected status is not available at this time for the Great Lakes
basin, earlier analyses have shown a recent general increase in protected areas, (see 2005 version
of this report).
As for the range of variation in protection rates by forest types, protected areas should be
representative of the diversity in forest composition within a larger area. However, defining what
constitutes this "larger area" is problematic. Policymakers often have a different jurisdiction than
the Great Lakes basin in mind when deciding where to locate protected areas. Also, the tree
species and forest types found on an individual plot of protected land can change over time due to
successional processes.
Differences among the U.S., Canadian and International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) definitions of protected areas should also be noted. The IUCN standard contains six
categories of protected areas - strict nature reserves/wilderness areas, national parks, natural
monuments, habitat/species management areas, protected landscapes/seascapes, and managed
resource protection areas. The U.S. defines protected areas as forests "reserved from harvest by
law or administrative regulation," including designated Federal Wilderness areas, National Parks
and Lakeshores, and state designated areas (Smith 2004). Ontario defines protected areas as
national parks, conservation reserves, and its six classes of provincial parks - wilderness, natural
environment, waterway, nature reserve, historical and recreational (OMNR 2002). There is
substantial overlap among the specific U.S., Ontario and IUCN definitions, and a more consistent
classification system would ensure proper accounting of protected areas.
Common to the U.S., Ontario and IUCN definitions is that they only include forests in the public
domain. However, there are privately-owned forests similarly reserved from harvest by land
trusts, conservation easements and other initiatives. Inclusion of these forests under this indicator
would provide a more complete definition of protected forest areas.
Moreover, there is debate on how protected status relates to forest sustainability, water quality,
and ecosystem health. In many cases, protected status was conferred onto forests for their scenic
or recreational value, which may not contribute significantly to conservation or watershed
management goals. On the other hand, forests available for harvest, whether controlled by the
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
national forest system, state or local governments, tribal governments, industry or private
landowners, can be managed with the stated purpose of conserving forest and basin health
through the implementation of Best Management Practices and certification under sustainable
forestry programs. (For more information, refer to Indicator #8503, Forest Lands - Conservation
and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources).
Component (4):
This component is still under development, as consensus still has not been reached on definitions
of forest fragmentation metrics and which ones are therefore suitable for SOLEC reporting. The
proposed structure is split into the forces that drive fragmentation, (land conversion and
parcelization,) and a series of forest spatial pattern descriptions based off of (as yet to be agreed
upon) fragmentation metrics.
Conversion of forest land to other land-use classes is considered to be a major cause of
fragmentation. Proposed metrics to describe this include the percent of forest lands converted to
and from developed, agricultural, and pasture land uses. Both Canadian and U.S. data are
available and can be obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Natural Resources Inventory, respectively.
Parcelization of forest lands into smaller privately owned tracks of land can lead to a disruption of
continuous ecosystems and habitats and therefore increased fragmentation. A proposed metric is
the average size of land holdings. Canada does not have available data for this metric, while the
U.S. data should be available through the USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
Program and the National Woodland Owner Survey.
Data for various fragmentation metrics exists for both Canada and the U.S, but the way these
metrics are viewed is drastically different. According to sources that have compiled U.S. data,
fragmentation, "is viewed as a property of the landscape that contains forest... [as opposed to] a
property of the forest itself," (Riitters et. al 2002). That inconsistency aside, data exists for
Ontario for the following metrics: area, patch density and size, edge, shape, diversity and
interspersion, and core area. U.S. data exists for patchiness, perforation, connectivity, edge, and
interior or core forest, and is available from the USDA Forest Service and is also being compiled
by the U.S. EPA. Substantial discussion is still required to refine these metrics before reporting
and analysis of this component can continue.
Pressures
Urbanization, seasonal home construction and increased recreational use, (driven in part by the
desire of an aging and more affluent population to spend time near natural settings,) are among
the general demands being placed on forest resources nationwide.
Additional disturbances caused by lumber removal and forest fires can also alter the structure of
Great Lakes basin forests.
Management Implications
Increased communication and agreement regarding the definitions and reporting methods for
forest type, successional stage, protected area category and fragmentation metrics between the
United States and Canada would facilitate more effective basin-wide analyses.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Reporting of U.S. forest data according to watershed as opposed to county would enable analysis
by individual lake basin, therefore increasing the data's value in relation to specific water quality
and biodiversity objectives.
Canadian data by forest type and serai stage for the entire Great Lakes basin in Ontario as
opposed to just the Area of the Undertaking (AOU), (see definition below in Comments section,)
would allow for a more complete analysis. This can only be accomplished if managers decide to
extent forest planning inventories into the private lands in the southern regions of the province.
Managing forest lands in ways that protect the continuity of forest cover can allow for habitat
protection and wildlife species mobility, therefore maintaining natural biodiversity.
Comments from the author(s)
Stakeholder discussion will be critical in identifying pressures and management implications,
particularly those on a localized basis, that are specific to Great Lakes basin forests. These
discussions will add to longstanding debates on strategies for sustainable forest management.
There are significant discrepancies within and between Canadian and U.S. data that made it
difficult to analyze the data across the Great Lakes basin as a whole. The most pervasive
problems are related to the time frame, frequency and location of forest inventories and
differences in metric definitions.
Canadian Great Lakes data for provincial forest type and serai stage is only available in areas of
Ontario where Forest Resources Planning Inventories occur. This region is commonly referred to
as the Area of the Undertaking (AOU) and only represents about 72% of Ontario's total Great
Lakes basin land area. The remainder of Ontario's forests (and therefore Ontario as a whole) can
only be analyzed using satellite data, which is meant for general land use/land cover analysis and
does not have a fine enough resolution to allow for more detailed investigation.
Forest inventory time frames for the U.S. also have an effect on data consistency. Although the
2002 RPA assessment was used as the data source for the U.S. portion of this report, it actually
draws data from a compilation of numerous state inventory years as follows: Illinois (1998),
Indiana (1998), Michigan (1993), Minnesota (1990), New York (1993), Ohio (1993),
Pennsylvania (1989), and Wisconsin (1996). A re-analysis of U.S. Great Lakes basin forests with
data from the same time frame would be useful.
Also, the U.S. data provided for this report was compiled by county and not by watershed, so the
area of land analyzed is not necessarily completely within the Great Lakes basin and all related
values are therefore skewed. This factor also made it impossible to represent the data by
individual lake basin. Additional GIS analysis of the raw inventory data would be required to
provide forest data by watershed.
Definition of forest type differs between the U.S. and Canada as well. In the U.S., forest cover
type is done according to the predominant tree species and is divided into the nine major groups
represented in this report. The Canadian provincial forest type classifications, (for which data
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
was available for this report,) however, are based on a combination of ecological factors
including dominant tree species, understory vegetation, soil, and associated tree species, (OMNR
2002). The definitions of each provincial forest type are available in Table 5. Standardization of
forest type definitions between the U.S. and Ontario would be necessary for analysis across the
entire Great Lakes basin.
As previously mentioned earlier in this report, the forest fragmentation component of this
indicator needs additional refining before it can be included for analysis.
Acknowledgments
Authors: This report was updated by Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe, Environmental Careers
Organization, on appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO), zuccarino-crowe.chiara@epa.gov from the State of the
Great Lakes 2005 Indicator report #8500 written and prepared by associate Mervyn Han,
Environmental Careers Organization, on appointment to US EPA, GLNPO. (Available online at,
http://binational.net/solec/sogl2005 e.html)
Contributors:
Support in the preparation of this report was given by the members of the SOLEC Forest Land
Criteria and Indicators Working Group. The following members aided in the development of
SOLEC Forest Lands indicators, collection, reporting and analysis of data, and the review and
editing of the text of this report:
Constance Carpenter, Sustainable Forests Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area,
State and Private Forestry, conniecarpenter@fs.fed.us;
Larry Watkins, Forest Analyst, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Evaluations and
Standards Section, Forest Management Branch, larry. watkins@mnr.gov.on.ca;
Eric Wharton, USDA Forest Service, ewharton@fs.fed.us;
T. Bently Wigley, NCASI, wigley@clemson.edu;
Mike Gardner (Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland College), Dain Maddox (USDA
Forest Service), Ann McCammon Soltis (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission), Wil
McWilliams (USDA Forest Service), Bill Meades (Canadian Forest Service), Greg Nowacki
(USDA Forest Service), Teague Prichard (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), Karen
Rodriguez (US EPA, GLNPO), Steve Schlobohm (USDA Forest Service), and Chris Walsh
(Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
Data Sources
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2000. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest
Management in Canada: National Status 2000. http://www.ccfm.org/ci/index e.php
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2003. Defining Sustainable Forest Management in
Canada: Criteria and Indicators, 2003. http://www.ccfm.org/current/ccitf_e.php
Canadian Great Lakes Basin forest data source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest
Standards and Evaluation Section. Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified
imagery, Inventory data based on Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and several common
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
NRVIS coverages such as watersheds, lakes and rivers etc. Data supplied by Larry Watkins,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, larrv.watkins@mnr.gov. on. ca .
Carpenter, C., Giffen, C., and Miller-Weeks, M. 2003. Sustainability Assessment Highlights for
the Northern United States. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area
State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-05-03. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability/pubs/pubs.shtm
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Ontario,
Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://ontariosforests.mnr.gov.on. ca/spectrasites/Viewers/showArticle.cfm?id=20661E52-EE91-
453D9BD475CE675F7DlA&method=DISPLAYFULLNOBARNOTITLE R&ObjectID=20661
E52-EE91-453D-9BD475CE675F7D1A
Riitters, K.H., Wickham, J.D., O'Neill, R.V., Jones, K.B., Smith, E.R., Coulston, J.W., Wade,
T.G., and Smith, J.H. 2002. Fragmentation of Continental United States Forests. Ecosystems 5:
815-822.
Smith, W.B. 2004. United States 2003 Report on Sustainable Forests, Data Report: Criterion 1,
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, Conservation of Biological Diversity. U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service. FS-766A. 24pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/contents.htm
Swank, Wayne. 2000. Effects of Vegetation Management on Water Quality: Forest Succession.
In Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature, ed.
G.E. Dissmeyer, pp.103-119. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
SRS-39.
U.S. Great Lakes Basin forest data source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
National Program, 2002 Resource Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database.
http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/rpa tabler/webclass rpa tabler.asp . Data supplied by Eric
Wharton, USDA Forest Service, ewharton(5),fs.fed.us .
USDA Forest Service. 2000. 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands. Washington
DC: USDA Forest Service. FS-687. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/rpaasses.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003. FS-766.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/SustainableForests.pdf
USDA Forest Service and Northeastern Forest Resource Planners Association. 2002.
Sourcebook on Criteria and Indicators of Forest Sustainability in the Northeastern Area.
Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-
TP-03-02. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/sustain/crit_indicators/02/cover.pdf
USDA Forest Service and Northeastern Forest Resource Planners Association. 2003. Base
Indicators of Forest Sustainability: Metrics and Data Sources for State and Regional
Monitoring. Durham, NH: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 1999. Canada's commitment to forest protected areas: Forests for
life. WWF Status Report. World Wildlife Fund Canada. Toronto, ON. 17 p. Cited in, Canadian
Council of Forest Ministers. 2000. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in
Canada: National Status 2000. 7pp.
List of Tables
Table 1. Total forest area and protected area by forest type in U.S. Great Lakes basin counties
Caption: Non-stocked =
timberland less than 10% stocked with live trees
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Table 2. Total forest area and protected area by forest type in, A) Canadian Great Lakes basin, B)
AOU* portion of Ontario
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of the total land area
analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Table 3. Age-class distribution as a percentage of area within forest type for U.S. Great Lakes
basin counties
Caption: Non-stocked = timberland less than 10% stocked with live trees
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Table 4. Serai stage distribution as a percentage of area within provincial forest type in AOU*
portion of Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of the total land area
analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Table 5. Description of Canadian provincial forest types
Source: Descriptions taken from, Forest Resources of Ontario 2001: State of the Forest Report,
Appendix 1, p. 41, (OMNR 2002).
List of Figures
Figure 1. Proportion of forested area by forest type in U.S. Great Lakes basin
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Figure 2. Proportion of forested area by provincial forest type in AOU* portion of Canadian
Great Lakes basin
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of the total land area
analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
^^tiife?:rM^SiM
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Figure 3. Age-class distribution as a percentage of forested area within forest type for U.S. Great
Lakes basin counties
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Figure 4. Serai stage distribution as a percentage of forested area within provincial forest type in
AOU* portion of Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of total land area
analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Forest Type
White-Red-Jack Pine
Spruce-Fir
Loblolly-Shortleaf
Pine
Oak-Pine
Oak-Hickory
Oak-Gum-Cypress
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Nonstocked
Totals
Area (ha)
1,791,671
2,866,777
4,305
72,675
1,988,126
50,589
1,692,069
7,828,700
3,821,272
88,443
20,204,626
% of Total
Forest
Area
8.87%
14.19%
0.02%
0.36%
9.84%
0.25%
8.37%
38.75%
18.91%
0.44%
Protected
Area (ha)
168,737
263,216
0
4,178
129,431
9,730
45,564
692,600
252,443
4,677
1,570,576
%
Protected
9.42%
9.18%
0.00%
5.75%
6.51%
19.23%
2.69%
8.85%
6.61%
5.29%
7.77%
Table 1. Total forest area and protected area by forest type in U.S. Great Lakes basin counties
Caption: Non-stocked =
timberland less than 10% stocked with live trees
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
10
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
A) Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Satellite Classes
Forest - Sparse
Forest - Hardwood
Forest - Mixed
Forest - Softwood
Swamp - Treed
Fen - Treed
Bog - Treed
Disturbed Forest - cuts
Disturbed Forest - burns
Disturbed Forest -
regenerating
Totals
Area (ha)
2,053,869
3,468,513
5,750,313
2,407,729
49,933
30,197
436,083
578,450
97,545
35,987
14,908,617
% of Total
Forest
Area
13.78%
23.27%
38.57%
16.15%
0.33%
0.20%
2.93%
3.88%
0.65%
0.24%
Protected
Area (ha)
245,118
361,147
649,342
268,753
1,413
3,726
28,128
8,973
18,628
381
1,585,608
%
Protected
11.93%
10.41%
1 1 .29%
11.16%
2.83%
12.34%
6.45%
1.55%
19.10%
1.06%
10.64%
B) AOU* Portion of Ontario
Provincial Forest Type
White Birch
Mixed Conifer Lowland
Mixed Conifer Upland
Mixedwood
Jack Pine
Poplar
Red & White Pine
Tolerant Hardwoods
Totals
Area (ha)
1,593,114
1,048,126
2,657,086
2,099,760
714,165
1,189,573
685,124
1,616,502
11,603,450
% of Total
Forest
Area
13.73%
9.03%
22.90%
18.10%
6.15%
10.25%
5.90%
13.93%
Protected
Area (ha)
175,261
60,192
239,194
194,682
54,991
75,538
105,682
108,993
1,014,533
%
Protected
11.00%
5.74%
9.00%
9.27%
7.70%
6.35%
15.43%
6.74%
8.74%
Table 2. Total forest area and protected area by forest type in, A) Canadian Great Lakes basin,
B) AOU* portion of Ontario
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of the total land area
analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Forest Type
White-Red-Jack
Pine
Spruce-Fir
Loblolly-Shortleaf
Pine
Oak-Pine
Oak-Hickory
Oak-Gum-Cypress
Elm-Ash-
Cottonwood
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Nonstocked
Total
Age Class (in years)
0-20
13.86%
8.84%
0.00%
7.08%
9.43%
4.47%
14.03%
9.25%
25.40%
63.98%
13.29%
21-40
27.04%
18.55%
47.96%
14.58%
10.13%
36.37%
24.29%
12.38%
19.91%
16.73%
16.85%
41-60
25.41%
21 .84%
0.00%
47.30%
18.14%
19.84%
23.21%
21 .96%
26.15%
2.97%
22.77%
61-80
1 1 .63%
1 7.96%
52.04%
18.29%
21.49%
8.75%
15.95%
20.87%
16.64%
1.71%
18.37%
81-100
7.47%
9.57%
0.00%
3.02%
14.14%
4.08%
8.58%
12.31%
3.85%
0.00%
9.65%
100+
4.32%
10.23%
0.00%
6.49%
10.06%
0.00%
6.17%
8.75%
1 .36%
1.14%
7.02%
Mixed
2.40%
0.33%
0.00%
3.18%
1 1 .38%
5.73%
5.21%
6.21%
0.45%
0.00%
4.33%
not
measured
7.87%
12.69%
0.00%
0.07%
5.22%
20.76%
2.56%
8.27%
6.25%
13.47%
7.72%
Table 3. Age-class distribution as a percentage of area within forest type for U.S. Great Lakes
basin counties
Caption: Non-stocked = timberland less than 10% stocked with live trees
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Provincial Forest
Type
White Birch
Mixed Conifer
Lowland
Mixed Conifer
Upland
Mixedwood
Jack Pine
Poplar
Red & White Pine
Tolerant Hardwoods
Totals
Serai Stage
Presapling
3.49%
13.81%
5.91%
4.60%
8.60%
6.60%
4.94%
1 .23%
6.00%
Sapling
4.52%
9.31%
13.12%
7.92%
31.96%
10.45%
3.77%
0.87%
10.14%
Immature
15.55%
13.38%
22.51%
26.06%
29.24%
18.97%
23.28%
6.40%
20.12%
Mature
63.58%
47.00%
42.11%
51 .03%
27.51%
52.55%
62.95%
60.13%
49.84%
Late
Successional
12.87%
16.50%
16.36%
10.39%
2.69%
1 1 .43%
5.06%
31.37%
13.91%
Table 4. Serai stage distribution as a percentage of area within provincial forest type in AOU*
portion of Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of the total land area
analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
1.2
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
$*"*^
' ^i^3|i^t&il.ia*M^
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Provicial Forest
Type
White Birch
Upland Conifers
Lowland Conifers
Mixedwood
Jack Pine
Poplar
White and Red Pine
Tolerant Hardwoods
Description
predominantly white birch stands
predominantly spruce and mixed jack
pine/spruce stands on upland sites
predominantly black spruce stands on low,
poorly drained sites
mixed stands made up mostly of spruce, jack
pine, fir, poplar and white birch
predominantly jack pine stands
predominantly poplar stands
all red and white pine mixedwood stands
predominantly hardwoods such as maple and
oak, found mostly in the Great Lakes forest
region
Table 5. Description of Canadian provincial forest types
Source: Descriptions taken from, Forest Resources of Ontario 2001: State of the Forest Report,
Appendix 1, p. 41, (OMNR 2002).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Nonstocked East 0.44%
[
Aspen-Birch 18.91%
Maple-Beech-Birch
38.75%
White-Red-Jack Pine
8.87%
Spruce-Fir 14.19%
Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine
0.02%
"~-—Oak-Pine 0.36%
^Oak-Hickory 9.84%
^^_ Oak-Gum-Cypress
~~ 0.25%
Im-Ash-Cottonwood
8.37%
Figure 1. Proportion of forested area by forest type in U.S. Great Lakes basin
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
14
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
Tolerant Hardwoods
13.93%
L
White Birch
13.73%
Red & White Pine
5.90%
Poplar _____
10.25%
Jack Pine^/
6.15%
Mixed Conifer Lowland
9.03%
Conifer Upland
22.90%
Mixedwood
18.10%
Figure 2. Proportion of forested area by provincial forest type in AOU* portion of Canadian
Great Lakes basin
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of the total land area
analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
15
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
60%
0%
0-20
21-40
41-60 61-8
Age Class (in years)
81-100
100+
-•-White-Red-Jack Pine
-•-Spruce-Fir
Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine
-K- Oak-Pine
-*- Oak-Hickory
-•- Oak-Gum-Cypress
—l— Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
—— Maple-Beech-Birch
— Aspen-Birch
Figure 3. Age-class distribution as a percentage of forested area within forest type for U.S. Great
Lakes basin counties
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
16
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
5 20%
ai
a.
10%
-White Birch
-Mixed Conifer
Lowland
Mixed Conifer
Upland
Mixedwood
-Jack Pine
-Poplar
-Red & White Pine
-Tolerant
Hardwoods
Late
Successional
Figure 4. Serai stage distribution as a percentage of forested area within provincial forest type in
AOU* portion of Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of total land area
analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
17
-------
Forest Lands - Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems
Indicator #8501
Note: This indicator includes three components and corresponds to Montreal Process Criterion
2, Indicators 10, 11, and 13.
Indicator #8501 Components:
Component (1) - Area of forest land and area of forest land available for timber production
Component (2) - Total merchantable volume of growing stock on forest lands available for
timber production
Component (3) - Annual removal of wood products compared to net growth, or the volume
determined to be sustainable (proposedfor future analysis; data not presented in this report)
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors Additional discussion amongst forestry experts is needed for an
Determining assessment determination.
Status and Trend
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors U.S. data by individual lake basin is not available.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Michigan
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors U.S. data by individual lake basin is not available.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Huron
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors U.S. data by individual lake basin is not available.
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Erie
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Primary Factors U.S. data by individual lake basin is not available.
Determining
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Not Assessed
Undetermined
U.S. data by individual lake basin is not available.
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Purpose
• To determine the Great Lakes forests' capacity to produce wood products
• To allow for future assessments of changes in productivity over time, which can be
representative of social and economic trends affecting management decisions and can
also be related to ecosystem health
Ecosystem Objective
To maximize the productive capacity of Great Lakes forests while maintaining the ecosystem's
health and sustainability.
State of the Ecosystem
Component (1):
The total area of forest land analyzed in the Great Lakes basin for this report was 35,113,242
hectares. Of this area, about 89% (or a total of 31,194,790 hectares) can be considered as
available for timber production, as calculated from U.S. timber land estimates and Canadian
productive forests not restricted from harvesting. In the U.S. portion of the basin, the proportion
of land available for timber production increased to about 91%, while the value decreased to 86%
for the entire Canadian portion of the basin and then rose to 91% for Ontario's managed forests.
Complete U.S. data broken down by state and Canadian data broken down by lake basin can be
viewed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
The amount of forest land available for timber production is directly related to the productive
capacity of forests for harvestable goods. This proportion is affected by different types of
management activities, which provides an indication of the balance between the need for wood
products with the need to satisfy assorted environmental concerns aimed at conservation of
biological diversity.
Component (2):
In the analyzed area of Great Lakes basin forests available for timber production, 78% of the total
wood volume was merchantable. This percentage of growing stock increased to 92% for the U.S.
portion of the basin and decreased to 61% for Ontario's managed forests in the Canadian part of
the basin. Complete U.S. data broken down by state and Canadian data broken down by lake
basin can be viewed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
If the values of net merchantable volume are compared to the total area of forest land available
for timber production, a rough estimate of the forests' productive capacity can be obtained. This
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
puts U.S. forests' per-unit-area productivity at a value of 92.7 cubic meters per hectare (m3/ha),
and Canadian forests' at 90.2 (mVha).
Changes in productivity values can be indicative of the ecosystem's health and vigor, as a
lowered ratio of merchantable volume to available timber land can suggest reduced growth and
ability of trees to absorb nutrients, water and solar energy and increased disease and tree
mortality. Further assessment of productive capacity would require additional historical data and
analysis by forestry experts.
Component 3:
The growth to removal ratio is often used as a course surrogate for the concept of sustainable
production in the U.S. Although exact data for this measure have not been compiled for this
report, nationwide U.S. studies have shown that timber growth has exceeded removals for several
decades, and Ontario's wood removals on managed timber land is supposedly done within
sustainable limits by definition of the forestry practices enacted in those areas.
Pressures
Fluctuating marketplace demands for wood products and increased pressures to reserve forest
lands for recreation, conservation of biodiversity and wildlife habitat can affect the volume of
timber available for harvest.
Disease and disturbance from fires or other events can also affect productivity capacity.
Management Implications
Timber productivity can be increased through the use of timber plantations and sustainable
management of forests available for timber production.
Continued discussion of the meaning of sustainability and how it is affected by wood product
removal is crucial to the effectiveness of future management decisions.
Comments from the author(s)
It can be difficult to analyze forest areas and growing stocks for a set moment in time, because
inventory time frames can vary. U.S. 2002 RPA data are compiled from a range of different
years (1989-1998 for Great Lakes states) depending on when the most recent state inventories
were conducted. This issue should diminish as the FIA switches to an annualized survey cycle,
and future analyses should therefore incorporate this data.
Although Canadian data are available by watershed, U.S. forest data are compiled by county for
this report, so the area of U.S. land analyzed is not necessarily completely within the Great Lakes
basin. Corresponding data may be skewed. This factor makes it difficult to represent the data by
individual lake basin. Additional GIS analysis of the U.S. raw inventory data would be required
to provide forest data by watershed.
Area of timber land in the U.S. is used as a proxy for the net area land available for timber
production in U.S. data calculations, but timber land area may include currently inaccessible and
inoperable areas or areas where landowners do not have timber production as an ownership
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
»a2fc«b.*,'««, w -i>,*,/!Ir. Ji_ «£,-/- v. -«'--" -'•
objective, and is therefore an overestimation of the net area available for timber production and
associated merchantable wood volumes.
Canadian data for growing stock is only available for Ontario's managed forests where Forest
Resources Planning Inventories occur. This area is commonly referred to as the Area of the
Undertaking (AOU), and only represents 12% of Ontario's total Great Lakes basin land area and
78% of its total forest area. The rest of the Canadian part of the basin is restricted to satellite data
capabilities.
Data for annual removal of wood products as compared to net growth is available for Canada and
a few of the U.S. Great Lakes states, but was not prepared for the Great Lakes basin at the time of
this report. This information should be compiled for future analyses when available, and is an
important ratio to monitor over time to ensure that wood harvesting is not reducing the total
volume of trees on timber land at larger spatial scales. Unfortunately this value does not add
much insight to the detailed ecological attributes of sustainability, and must be analyzed with
additional biological components to achieve this indicator's ecosystem objective.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe, Environmental Careers Organization, on appointment to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO),
zuccarino-crowe.chiara@epa.gov , with assistance from the following:
Contributors:
Support in the preparation of this report was given by the members of the SOLEC Forest Land
Criteria and Indicators Working Group. The following members aided in the development of
SOLEC Forest Lands indicators, collection, reporting and analysis of data, and the review and
editing of the text of this report:
Constance Carpenter, Sustainable Forests Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area,
State and Private Forestry, conniecarpenter@fs.fed.us;
Larry Watkins, Forest Analyst, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Evaluations and
Standards Section, Forest Management Branch, larry.watkins@mnr.gov.on.ca;
Eric Wharton, USDA Forest Service, ewharton@fs.fed.us;
T. Bently Wigley, NCASI, wiglev@clemson.edu;
Mike Gardner (Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland College), Dain Maddox (USDA
Forest Service), Ann McCammon Soltis (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission), Wil
McWilliams (USDA Forest Service), Bill Meades (Canadian Forest Service), Greg Nowacki
(USDA Forest Service), Teague Prichard (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), Karen
Rodriguez (US EPA, GLNPO), Steve Schlobohm (USDA Forest Service), and Chris Walsh
(Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
Data Sources
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2003. Defining Sustainable Forest Management in
Canada: Criteria and Indicators, 2003. http://www.ccfm.org/current/ccitf e.php
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Canadian Great Lakes Basin forest data source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest
Standards and Evaluation Section. Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified
imagery, Inventory data based on Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and several common
NRVIS coverages such as watersheds, lakes and rivers etc. Data supplied by Larry Watkins,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, larry.watkins@mnr.gov. on. ca .
Carpenter, C., Giffen, C., and Miller-Weeks, M. 2003. Sustainability Assessment Highlights for
the Northern United States. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area
State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-05-03.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability/pdf/front cover.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Ontario,
Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://ontariosforests.mnr.gov.on. ca/spectrasites/Viewers/showArticle.cfm?id=20661E52-EE91-
453D9BD475CE675F7DlA&method=DISPLAYFULLNOBARNOTITLE R&ObiectID=20661
E52-EE91-453D-9BD475CE675F7D1A
Smith, W.B. 2004. United States 2003 Report on Sustainable Forests, Data Report: Criterion
2, Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service. FS-766A.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/Indicator%2010/indicators%2010_14.pdf
USDA Forest Service and Northeastern Forest Resource Planners Association. 2003. Base
Indicators of Forest Sustainability: Metrics and Data Sources for State and Regional
Monitoring. Durham, NH: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003. FS-766.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/SustainableForests.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2000. 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands. Washington
DC: USDA Forest Service. FS-687. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/rpaasses.pdf
U.S. Great Lakes Basin forest data source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
National Program, 2002 Resource Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database.
http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/rpa tabler/webclass rpa tabler.asp . Data supplied by Eric
Wharton, USDA Forest Service, ewharton(Sjfs.fed.us .
List of Tables
Table 1. Area of forest land available for timber production* in relationship to total area of forest
land in U.S. Great Lakes basin counties
Caption: * Area designated as timber land is used as a proxy for this value and may include
inaccessible areas. The presented data should therefore be considered an over-estimation of the
net area available for timber production.
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Table 2. Area of forest land available for timber production in relationship to total area of forest
land in, A) Canadian Great Lakes basin, and B) the AOU* portion of Ontario
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of Ontario's total Great
Lakes basin land area and 78% of its total forest area.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Table 3. Total volume of growing stock* in U.S. Great Lakes basin counties
Caption: * Calculations do not take inaccessibility or inoperability of timber land into account, so
resulting values are skewed high
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Table 4. Total volume of growing stock in Canadian Great Lakes basin*
Caption: * Data only available for Ontario's managed forests (AOU portion of Ontario)
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total
Total Area of
Forest land
(ha)
29,322
198,351
7,802,663
3,345,320
4,775,982
742,161
223,904
3,086,921
20,204,626
Area of Forest
Land Available
for Timber
Production*
(ha)
5,634
182,287
7,533,587
2,818,676
3,928,686
668,190
210,992
3,033,084
18,381,137
% Available for
Timber
Production*
19.21%
91.90%
96.55%
84.26%
82.26%
90.03%
94.23%
98.26%
90.97%
Table 1. Area of forest land available for timber production* in relationship to total area of forest
land in U.S. Great Lakes basin counties
Caption: * Area designated as timber land is used as a proxy for this value and may include
inaccessible areas. The presented data should therefore be considered an over-estimation of the
net area available for timber production.
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
A) Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Lake
Basin
Superior
Huron
Erie
Ontario
Totals
Total Area of
Forest Land
(ha)
7,061,238
6,162,419
322,317
1,362,643
14,908,617
Net area of Forest
Land Available for
Timber Production
(ha)
6,006,356
5,343,401
291,107
1,172,788
12,813,653
% Available for
Timber
Production
85.06%
86.71%
90.32%
86.07%
85.95%
B) AOU* Portion of Ontario
Lake
Basin
Huron
Ontario
Superior
Totals
Total Area of
AOU's Forest
Land (ha)
4,710,406
665,100
6,227,943
11,603,450
Net area of AOU
Forest Land Available
for Timber Production
(ha)
4,227,743
611,268
5,749,905
10,588,917
% Available for
Timber
Production
89.75%
91.91%
92.32%
91 .26%
Table 2. Area of forest land available for timber production in relationship to total area of forest
land in, A) Canadian Great Lakes basin, and B) the AOU* portion of Ontario
Caption: * The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of Ontario's total Great
Lakes basin land area and 78% of its total forest area.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
""Stefiisi^
aga«,_|j.=1 _____.. ,
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total
Total Live
Volume* (mA3)
on Forest Lands
Available for
Timber
Production
518,577
22,162,859
829,796,679
219,781,880
383,181,677
73,836,032
25,840,363
294,891,458
1,850,009,525
Net
Merchantable
Volume (mA3) of
Timber
Products
(Growing
Stock*)
500,423
18,342,594
754,964,965
199,559,859
365,098,413
71,466,897
24,880,573
269,125,981
1,703,939,705
Volume (mA3) of
Non-
merchantable
Timber Products
18,154
3,820,265
74,826,151
20,222,021
18,083,264
2,369,136
959,790
25,765,478
146,064,258
% Growing Stock*
(of Total Vol.
Available for
Timber
Production)
96.50%
82.76%
90.98%
90.80%
95.28%
96.79%
96.29%
91.26%
92.10%
Table 3. Total volume of growing stock* in U.S. Great Lakes basin counties
Caption: * Calculations do not take inaccessibility or inoperability of timber land into account, so
resulting values are skewed high
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
Lake
Basin
Huron
Ontario
Superior
Totals
Total Volume
(mA3) on Forest
Lands Available
for Timber
Production
667,854,390
114,963,698
787,640,995
1,570,459,083
Net
Merchantable
Volume (mA3) of
Timber
Products
(Growing Stock)
421,077,634
72,717,983
461,410,679
955,206,296
Volume (mA3) of
Non-
merchantable
Timber Products
246,776,756
42,245,715
326,230,315
615,252,787
% Growing Stock
(of Total Vol.
Available for
Timber
Production)
63.05%
63.25%
58.58%
60.82%
Table 4. Total volume of growing stock in Canadian Great Lakes basin*
Caption: * Data only available for Ontario's managed forests (AOU portion of Ontario)
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and NRVIS coverages
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Forest Lands - Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources
Indicator #8503
Note: This indicator includes two components and corresponds to Montreal Process Criterion 4,
Indicator 19
Indicator #8503 Components:
Component (1) - Percent of forested land within riparian zones by watershed and percent of
forested land within watershed by Lake basin
Component (2) - Change in area of forest lands certified under sustainable forestry programs
in Great Lakes states and Ontario
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Undetermined
Trend information is not available for forested areas at this time. Data
for the area of certified forest lands can not be analyzed according to
Great Lakes Basin boundaries at this time, but the overall area of
certified lands is increasing across the region.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Good
Undetermined
A large proportion of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested.
Certification data does not exist specific to this individual lake basin.
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Improving, Unchanging, Deteriorating or Undetermined
Just over half of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested.
Certification data does not exist specific to this individual lake basin.
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Undetermined
Over half of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested.
Certification data does not exist specific to this individual lake basin.
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Poor
Undetermined
Only a small portion of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are
forested. Certification data does not exist specific to this individual lake
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Status and Trend basin.
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Mixed
Undetermined
Just over half of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested.
Certification data does not exist specific to this individual lake basin.
Purpose
• To describe the extent to which Great Lakes basin forests aid in the conservation of the
basin's soil resources and protection of water quality.
• To describe the level of Great Lakes states' and Ontario's participation in sustainable forestry
certification programs.
Ecosystem Objective
Improved soil and water quality within the Great Lakes basin.
State of the Ecosystem
Component (1):
Forests cover about 61% of the total land and 70% of the riparian zones (defined as the 30 meter
buffer around all surface waters) within the Great Lakes basin. This trend of a slightly greater
percentage of forested land by riparian zone as opposed to by overall watershed is repeated for
every major lake basin for the Great Lakes basin as a whole, (see Figure 2).
The U.S. portion of the basin (including the upper St. Lawrence River watersheds) has forest
coverage on 61% of its riparian zones (as of 1992), and the Canadian portion of the basin
(excluding the upper St. Lawrence River watersheds) has forest coverage on 76% of its riparian
zones (as of 2002), (see Table 1). Lake Superior has the best coverage overall, with forested
lands covering 96% of its riparian zones. Lakes Michigan (62%), Huron (74%) and Ontario
(61 %) all have at least half of their total riparian zones covered with forests, while Lake Erie has
only 30% coverage. The percentages of forested riparian zones by watershed are visually
represented in Figure 1 and are available summarized by Lake Basin in Figure 2.
While good water quality is generally associated with heavily forested or undisturbed watersheds,
(USDA 2004) the existence of a forested buffer near surface water features can also protect soil
and water resources despite the land use class present in the rest of the watershed, (Carpenter et.
al 2003). As the percentage of forest coverage within a riparian zones increases, the amount of
runoff and erosion (and therefore nutrient loadings, non-point source pollution and sedimentation)
decreases and the capacity of the ecosystem to store water increases. Studies show that heavy
forest cover is capable of reducing total runoff by as much as 26% as compared to treeless areas
with equivalent land-use conditions, (Sedell, et. al 2000) and that riparian forests can reduce
nutrient and sediment loadings by 30-90%, (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, 2004).
Biodiversity of aquatic species is further maintained in riparian areas with increased forest
coverage by an increase in the amount of large woody debris (which affects stream configuration,
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
regulation of organic matter and sediment storage, and aquatic habitat availability) and decreased
water temperatures, (Eubanks et. al 2002). A study completed in Pennsylvania by Lynch et. al in
1985 claimed that complete commercial clear cutting of a riparian zone allowed a 10 °C rise in
stream water temperatures, but the retention of a forested buffer strip only allowed an increase of
about 1 °C, (Binkley and MacDonald 1994). This regulation of water temperatures can be
critical to the maintenance of assorted cold-water fisheries like trout.
The lack of consensus on the desired percentage of forested land in the basin or riparian zone
(and the desired size of the riparian zone itself) makes it difficult to determine the specific
implications of the presented data. Comparisons to historical forest cover in riparian zones and
manipulative experiments would be useful for trend establishment.
Component (2):
Sustainable forestry management programs are designed to ensure timber can be grown and
harvested in ways that protect the local ecosystem. Participation is often voluntary, but once
certification is gained, compliance with management protocols is required. Data from three
different certification programs was analyzed for this report. It should be noted that their
numbers are not additive, as one area of land can be certified under more than one program at a
time.
The area of forest lands certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI®) program
increased by 855% from 2003 to 2005 across the Great Lakes region, (see Figure 3). Forest
landowners who only elect to enroll in the program, but not go through the formal certification
process, often choose to follow the forest management protocols, but are not required to do so
until they seek certification. It is therefore possible that a much greater amount of forest lands are
being managed according to these sustainable practices than is represented by the given data.
Certification in two other sustainable forestry programs also grew in the U.S. Great Lakes states
over the past few years, (see Figure 4). The acres of forest lands certified by the American Tree
Farm System (ATFS) rose by 47% between 2004 and 2005. The ATFS is a voluntary
certification program for non-industrial, private landowners, and states it's mission as, "To
promote the growing of renewable forest resources on private lands while protecting
environmental benefits and increasing public understanding of all benefits of productive
forestry," (American Forest Foundation, 2004). The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an
international body that accredits certification organizations and guarantees their authenticity.
Acres of forest lands certified under this organization grew by 50% between 2005 and 2006.
This rise in the area of certified forest lands under all three programs can be interpreted as a
greater commitment to sustainable forest management amongst forest industry professionals. The
assumption is that continued growth in sustainable management practices will lead to improved
soil and water resources in the areas where they are implemented.
Pressures
Component (1): The same pressures exerted on all forest resources also apply here.
Development of forest lands to other land use classes (such as developed, agricultural, or pasture)
decreases the amount of forest area across watersheds and in riparian zones. Urbanization and
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
seasonal home construction can specifically impact riparian areas since they are among the most
desirable development locations.
Component (2): Participation in sustainable forestry programs can be affected by marketplace
popularity. Political climate, status of the economy, and public opinion can all influence forest
managers decisions to gain certification.
Management Implications
Component (1): Development of policy directed towards protecting forested lands within riparian
zones would help maintain forested buffers near surface waters, thereby leading to a possible
improvement of local ecosystem health regardless of the land use classification in the rest of the
watershed.
Component (2): Increased reporting of certification data by watershed would make
corresponding analyses easier. Greater participation in sustainable forestry certification programs
would ensure that all timberland is managed in a sustainable manner.
Comments from the author
Component (1): For the purposes of this report, riparian zone was defined as 30 meters on each
side of a surface water feature. Research shows that a forested buffer of this size achieves the
widest range of water quality objectives, (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, 2004), and is the
standard value used in USGS Forestry Service, Northeastern Area. Other sources quote different
amounts of forested buffer needed near surface water features to achieve the highest level of soil
and water resources protection, ranging anywhere from 8-150 meters from the water's edge,
(Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio Departments of Natural Resources, 2006). The ideal riparian zone
size can be affected by a variety of factors such as stream, vegetation and soil type,
geomorphology, slope of land, and season, (Eubanks et. al, 2002).
The resolution of the US landcover dataset used in this analysis was coarse enough to cause slight
inaccuracies, but the data was determined as suitable for summarization at the watershed scale.
Additional research of existing literature would be helpful in further quantifying the effects of
riparian forests on erosion, run-off, water temperatures, and nutrient and pollutant storage.
Although specific studies have been done on these topics, the differences in metrics and sample
locations complicate comparisons for the Great Lakes Basin.
Component (2): In subsequent analyses, data should be collected for the percent of forested
riparian zones that lie within areas also certified in sustainable forestry programs. Presently,
certification data cannot be analyzed by watershed or riparian area, and is therefore less useful for
any analyses other than assessment of changing trends in the programs' utilization.
Expanding this component to include rates of compliance with Forestry Best Management
Practices (BMPs) would provide valuable information for additional analyses. While certification
in sustainable forestry programs often includes the implementation of BMPs, not all forest lands
managed according to BMPs are also certified. Forestry BMPs have been developed in all Great
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Lakes states and provinces, so obtaining the relevant audit data would provide a greater and more
detailed information base relating to the conservation of forest, soil and water resources.
Many BMPs are directed at reducing non-point source pollution and some states even have
monitoring data relating to issues such as water quality. For example, Wisconsin's Forestry Best
Management Practices for Water Quality Report stated that, when BMPs were correctly applied
to areas where they were needed, 96% of the monitored area showed no adverse impact on water
quality, (Breunig et. al 2003). It is generally accepted that this trend exists in other states as well.
For although individual states' BMPs may differ, studies have shown that their correct
implementation results in effective protection of water quality overall.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe, Environmental Careers Organization, on appointment to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, zuccarino-
crowe.chiara@epa.gov , with assistance from the following:
Contributors:
Support in the preparation of this report was given by the members of the SOLEC Forest Land
Criteria and Indicators Working Group. The following members aided in the development of
SOLEC Forest Lands indicators, collection, reporting and analysis of data, and the review and
editing of the text of this report:
Constance Carpenter, Sustainable Forests Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area,
State and Private Forestry, conniecarpenter@fs.fed.us;
Larry Watkins, Forest Analyst, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Evaluations and
Standards Section, Forest Management Branch, larry.watkins@mnr.gov.on.ca;
Rebecca L. Whitney, GIS Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private
Forestry, rwhitnev@fs.fed.us;
T. Bently Wigley, NCASI, wigley@clemson.edu;
Jason Metnick, Manager, SFI Label and Licensing, Sustainable Forestry Board,
metnicki@aboutsfb.org;
Sherri Wormstead, Sustainability Specialist, USDA Forestry Service, Northeastern Area, State
and Private Forestry, swormstead@fs.fed.us;
John Schneider, Ecologist and GIS Specialist, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office,
scneider.iohn@epa.gov;
Karen Rodriguez, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program
Office, Rodriguez.karen@epa.gov;
Mike Gardner (Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland College), Dain Maddox (USDA
Forest Service), Ann McCammon Soltis (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission), Wil
McWilliams (USDA Forest Service), Bill Meades (Canadian Forest Service), Greg Nowacki
(USDA Forest Service), Teague Prichard (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), Steve
Schlobohm (USDA Forest Service), Chris Walsh (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), and
Eric Wharton (USDA Forest Service).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Data Sources
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 2004. Riparian Forest Buffers, Linking Land and Water.
Chesapeake Bay Program, Forestry Workgroup, and USDA Forest Service.
American Tree Farm System. 2004. American Forest Foundation.
http://www.treefarmsystem.org/ (accessed August 15, 2006).
ATFS data citation: Program Statistics (January 2005), provided by Emily Chan, American
Forest Foundation, by e-mail on 11-4-2005, and reported via personal communication with Sherri
Wormstead, USDA Forest Service, swormstead@fs.fed.us .
Binkley, D. and L. MacDonald. 1994. Forests as non-point sources of pollution, and effectiveness
of best management practices. NCASI Technical bulletin No 672.
http ://www.warnercnr. colostate.edu/frws/people/faculty/macdonald/publications/ForestsasNonpoi
ntSourcesofPollution.pdf
Breunig, B., Gasser, D., and Holland, K. 2003. Wisconsin's Forestry Best Management
Practices for Water Quality, The 2002 Statewide BMP Monitoring Report. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. PUB-FR-252-2003.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/forestrv/Usesof/bmp/2002MonitoringReport.pdf
Canadian Great Lakes Basin forest data source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest
Standards and Evaluation Section. Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified
imagery, Inventory data based on Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and several common
NRVIS coverages such as watersheds, lakes and rivers etc. Data supplied by Larry Watkins,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, larry. watkins(Simnr.gov. on. ca
Carpenter, C., Giffen, C., and Miller-Weeks, M. 2003. Sustainability Assessment Highlights for
the Northern United States. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area
State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-05-03. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability/pubs/pubs.shtm
Eubanks, C.E. and Meadows, D. 2002. A Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and
Lakeshore Stabilization. San Dimas, CA: USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development
Program. FS-683. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide/
Forestry Best Management Practices for Illinois. August 8, 2000. Illinois DNR, Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, University of Illinois, and Illinois Forestry Development Council.
http://www.siu.edu/%7eilbmp/ (accessed August 10, 2006).
FSC data originally obtained from Will Price, The Pinchot Institute, and verified and edited from
FSC online database: http://www.fscus.org/certified_companies/ by Sherri Wormstead, USDA
Forest Service, swormstead@fs.fed.us .
Indiana DNR. "Forestry BMP's." July 28, 2006. Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry, http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestrv/ (accessed August 10, 2006).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
NCASI and UGA Warnell School of Forest Resources. Forestry BMPs.
http://www.forestrybmp.net/ (accessed August 10, 2006).
Ohio DNR. 2006. Best Management Practices for Logging Operations, Fact Sheet. Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Columbus, OH.
http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/forestry/landowner/pdf/BMPlogging.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Ontario, Canada:
Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://ontariosforests.mnr.gov.on. ca/spectrasites/Viewers/showArticle.cfm?id=20661E52-EE91-
453D-
9BD475CE675F7DlA&method=DISPLAYFULLNOBARNOTITLE R&ObiectID=20661E52-
EE91-453D-9BD475CE675F7D1A
Sedell, J., Sharpe, M., Dravnieks Apple, D., Copenhagen, M. and Furniss, M.. 2000. Water and
the Forest Service. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Policy Analysis. FS-660.
http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policv-analysis/water.pdf
SFI data supplied via personal communication with Jason Metnick, SFI Label and Licensing,
Sustainable Forestry Board, metnickj(Sjaboutsfb.org , June 30, August 1 and 15, 2006.
Stednick, J.D. 2000. Effects of Vegetation Management on Water Quality: Timber Management.
In Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature, ed. G.E.
Dissmeyer, pp.103-119. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
SRS-39.
USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003. FS-766.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/SustainableForests.pdf
U.S. Great Lakes Basin forest data source: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry, Information Management and Analysis. 2005. Riparian Area Land Cover
Types based on the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset. Data supplied by Rebecca Whitney,
USDA Forest Service, rwhitney@fs.fed.us
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Information Management
and Analysis. 2006. Forest land by Watershed. Data supplied by Rebecca Whitney, USDA
Forest Service, rwhitnev@fs.fed.us .
List of Tables
Table 1. Percent of Land Forested within U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes Watersheds and
Riparian Zones by Lake Basin.
Caption for Table 1: * = Including Upper St. Lawrence, ** = Not including Upper St. Lawrence
Data Sources:
US data: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Information
Management and Analysis. 2005. Riparian Area Land Cover Types based on the 1992 National
Land Cover Dataset. Lake Basin boundaries refined by U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program
Office.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Canadian data: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories andNRVIS watershed coverage (1994).
List of Figures
Figure 1. Percent Forested Land within Riparian Zones by Watershed in the Great Lakes Basin.
Area is technically part of the St. Lawrence River drainage, but included in the Great Lakes basin
by definition in the Clean Water Act and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Data Sources:
USGS National Hydrography Dataset (1999); USGS 1992 National Cover Dataset (1999); USGS
8-digit Watersheds (Hydrologic Unit Code; 1994); Riparian Areas created by the USDA Forest
Service North Central Research Station (2005).
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources - NRVIS Watershed Coverage (1994); Landcover (2002);
Riparian Areas created by Forest Evaluation Section
Map data from USDA Forest Service, Information Management and Analysis Group, Durham,
NH and U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office.
Map created by U.S. EPA, Great Lake National Program Office, Technical Assistance and
Analysis Branch
Figure 2. Percent of Land Forested within Great Lakes Watersheds and Riparian Zones by Lake
Basin.
Caption for figure 2: * = Upper St. Lawrence data only available for U.S.
Data Sources:
US data: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Information
Management and Analysis. 2005. Riparian Area Land Cover Types based on the 1992 National
Land Cover Dataset. Lake Basin boundaries refined by U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program
Office.
Canadian data: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories and NRVIS watershed coverages.
Figure 3. Forest Lands Certified Under SFI in the Great Lakes region (U.S. States and province
of Ontario), 2003-2005.
Data Source:
Personal communication with Jason Metnick, SFI Label and Licensing, Sustainable Forestry
Board, 2006.
Figure 4. Forest Lands Certified Under ATFS and FSC in the Great Lakes States (U.S. only).
Data provided by Sherri Wormstead of the USDA Forestry Service (swormstead@fs.fed.us)
using following sources:
FSC data originally obtained from Will Price, the Pinchot Institute and verified and edited from
FSC online database: http://www.fscus.org/certified_companies/
ATFS data source: Program Statistics (January 2005) (provided by Emily Chan, American Forest
Foundation, by e-mail on 11 -4-2005)
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
' ^i^3|i^t&il.ia*M^
itMji
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Basin
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence
River
Totals
U.S. (1992)
% Forested
(Entire
Watershed)
87.73%
51.54%
55.07%
22.90%
52.15%
84.10%
53.13%*
% Forested
(Riparian
Areas)
88.44%
61.90%
54.28%
36.24%
63.25%
87.03%
60.43%*
Ontario (2002)
% Forested
(Entire
Watershed)
98.60%
74.65%
14.30%
49.99%
73.05%**
% Forested
(Riparian
Areas)
98.05%
77.04%
19.95%
59.28%
75.67%**
Table 1. Percent of Land Forested within U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes Watersheds and
Riparian Zones by Lake Basin.
Caption for Table 1: * = Including Upper St. Lawrence, ** = Not including Upper St. Lawrence
Data Sources:
US data: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Information
Management and Analysis. 2005. Riparian Area Land Cover Types based on the 1992 National
Land Cover Dataset. Lake Basin boundaries refined by U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program
Office. Canadian data: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation
Section. Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data
based on Forest Resources Planning Inventories and NRVIS watershed coverage (1994).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
State of the Great Lakes 2007 - Draft
% forested land
within riparian zones
by watershed
Figure 1. Percent Forested Land within Riparian Zones by Watershed in the Great Lakes Basin.
*The area within the St. Lawrence River drainage does not actually drain into the Great Lakes
basin, but is still included in the Great Lakes basin by definition in the Clean Water Act and the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Data Sources:
USGS National Hydrography Dataset (1999); USGS 1992 National Cover Dataset (1999); USGS
8-digit Watersheds (Hydrologic Unit Code; 1994); Riparian Areas created by the USDA Forest
Service North Central Research Station (2005).
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources - NRVIS Watershed Coverage (1994); Landcover (2002);
Riparian Areas created by Forest Evaluation Section
Map data from USDA Forest Service, Information Management and Analysis Group, Durham,
NH and U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office.
Map created by U.S. EPA, Great Lake National Program Office, Technical Assistance and
Analysis Branch
10
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
D Within Entire Watershed
I Within Riparian Zones
95% 96%
100%
90%
-g 80%
ro 70%
-3 60%
•2 50%
2 40%
o
"• 30% H
^ 20% H
10%
0%
Lake Lake Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ontario St. Lawrence
Superior Michigan River
Basin
Figure 2. Percent of Land Forested within Great Lakes Watersheds and Riparian Zones by Lake
Basin.
Caption for figure 2: * = Upper St. Lawrence data only available for U.S.
Data Sources:
US data: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Information
Management and Analysis. 2005. Riparian Area Land Cover Types based on the 1992 National
Land Cover Dataset. Lake Basin boundaries refined by U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program
Office.
Canadian data: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat 7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on
Forest Resources Planning Inventories and NRVIS watershed coverages
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
30,000,000
25,000,000
•D
£: 20,000,000
'€
O 15,000,000
(/)
p
£3 10,000,000
<
5,000,000
2003
2005
Figure 3. Forest Lands Certified Under SFI in the Great Lakes region (U.S. States and province
of Ontario), 2003-2005.
Data Source:
Personal communication with Jason Metnick, SFI Label and Licensing, Sustainable Forestry
Board, 2006.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
16,000,000
14,000,000
"§ 12,000,000
0)
O
(/>
0)
O
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
ATFS---FSC
13,756,75'
2,841,587
9,168,586
4,169,434
2004
2005
Year
2006
Figure 4. Forest Lands Certified Under ATFS and FSC in the Great Lakes States (U.S. only).
Data provided by Sherri Wormstead of the USDA Forestry Service (swormstead@fs.fed.us)
using following sources:
FSC data originally obtained from Will Price, the Pinchot Institute and verified and edited from
FSC online database: http://www.fscus.org/certified_companies/
ATFS data source: Program Statistics (January 2005) (provided by Emily Chan, American Forest
Foundation, by e-mail on 11 -4-2005)
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
Acid Rain
Indicator #9000
Assessment: Mixed, Improving
Purpose
To assess the pH levels in precipitation;
To assess the critical loads of sulfate to the Great Lakes basin;
and
To infer the efficacy of policies to reduce sulfur and nitrogen
acidic compounds released into the atmosphere.
Ecosystem Objective
The 1991 Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement (Air Quality
Agreement) pledges the two nations to reduce the emissions of
acidifying compounds by approximately 40% relative to 1980
levels. The 1998 Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000
intends to further reduce emissions to the point where deposition
containing these compounds does not adversely impact aquatic
and terrestrial biotic systems.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Acid rain, more properly called "acidic deposition", is caused
when two common air pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitro-
gen oxides (NOX), are released into the atmosphere, react and
mix with atmospheric moisture and return to the earth as acidic
rain, snow, fog or particulate matter. These pollutants can be car-
ried over long distances by prevailing winds, creating acidic pre-
cipitation far from the original source of the emissions.
Environmental damage typi-
cally occurs where local
soils and/or bedrock do not
effectively neutralize the
acid.
Lakes and rivers have been
acidified by acid rain.
directly or indirectly caus-
ing the disappearance of
invertebrates, many fish
species, waterbirds and
plants. Not all lakes
exposed to acid rain become
acidified, however. Lakes
located in terrain that is rich
in calcium carbonate (e.g.
on limestone bedrock) are
able to neutralize acidic
deposition. Much of the
acidic precipitation in North
America falls in areas
284
around and including the Great Lakes basin. Northern Lakes
Huron, Superior and Michigan, their tributaries and associated
small inland lakes are located on the geological feature known as
the Canadian Shield. The Shield is primarily composed of
granitic bedrock and glacially derived soils that cannot easily
neutralize acid, thereby resulting in the acidification of many
small lakes (particularly in northern Ontario and the northeastern
U.S.). The five Great Lakes are so large that acidic deposition
has little effect on them directly. Impacts are mainly felt on veg-
etation and inland lakes in acid-sensitive areas.
A recent report published by the Hubbard Brook Research
Foundation has demonstrated that acid deposition is still a sig-
nificant problem and has had a greater environmental impact
than previously thought (Driscol et al. 2001). For example, acid
deposition has altered soils in the northeastern U.S. through the
accelerated leaching of base cations, the accumulation of nitro-
gen and sulfur, and an increase in concentrations of aluminum in
soil waters. Acid deposition has also contributed to the decline
of red spruce trees and sugar maple trees in the eastern U.S.
Similar observations have been made in eastern Canada (Ontario
and eastward) and are reported in the 2004 Canadian Acid
Deposition Science Assessment (Environment Canada 2005).
The assessment confirms that although levels of acid deposition
have declined in eastern Canada over the last two decades.
approximately 21% of the mapped area currently receives levels
of acid rain in excess of what the region can handle, and 75% of
the area is at potential risk of damage should all nitrogen deposi-
tion become acidifying, i.e. aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
become nitrogen saturated.
Transportation Other
4%
Industrial Sources
53%
Electric Utilities
25%
Industrial Sources
Fuel Combustion
18%
Fuel Combustion
18%
Canada
United States
Figure 1. Sources of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in Canada and the U.S. (1999)
Source: Figure 4 of Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement: 2002 Progress Report.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/airus02.pdfand Environment Canada 1999 National Pollutant
Release Inventory Data and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999 National Emissions Inventory
Documentation and Data
-------
Bectric Utilities
12%
Transportation
Fuel Combustion
19%
Industrial Sources
11%
Canada
United States
Figure 2. Sources of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions in Canada and the U.S. (1999)
Source: Figure 6 of Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement: 2002 Progress
Report, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/airus02.pdfand Environment Canada 1999
Pollutant Release Inventory Data and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999
National Emissions Inventory Documentation and Data
Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides Emissions Reductions
SO2 emissions come from a variety of sources. The most com-
mon releases of SO2 in Canada are industrial processes such as
nonferrous mining and metal smelting. In the United States.
electrical utilities constitute the largest emissions source (Figure
1). The primary source of NOX emissions in both countries is the
combustion of fuels in motor vehicles, with electric utilities and
industrial sources also contributing (Figure 2).
Canada is committed to reducing acid rain in its south-eastern
region to levels below those that cause harm to ecosystems - a
level commonly called the "critical load" - while keeping
other areas of the country (where acid rain effects have not
been observed) clean. In 2000, total SO2 emissions in Canada
were 2.4 million tonnes, which is about 23% below the
national cap of 3.2 million tonnes reiterated under Annex 1
(the Acid Rain Annex) of the Air Quality Agreement.
Emissions in 2000 also represent a 50% reduction from 1980
emission levels. The seven easternmost provinces' 1.6 million
tonnes of emissions in 2000 were 29% below the eastern
Canada cap of 2.3 million tonnes reiterated under the Acid
Rain Annex.
By 2000, Canadian NOX emissions were
reduced by more than 100,000 tonnes
below the forecast level of 970,000 tonnes
(established by Acid Rain Annex) at
power plants, major combustion sources.
and smelting operations. In the U.S..
reductions in NOX emissions have signifi-
cantly surpassed the 2 million ton reduc-
tion for stationary and mobile sources
mandated by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Under the Acid
Rain Program alone, NOX emissions for
all the affected sources in 2002 were 4.5
million tons, about 33% lower than emis-
sions from the sources in 1990. Overall
NOX emissions decreased by about 12% in
the U.S. from 1993 to 2002 and remained
relatively constant in Canada since 1990.
but they are projected to decrease consid-
erably in both countries by 2010. For additional information on
SO2 and NOX emission reductions, including sources outside the
Acid Rain Program, please refer to indicator report #4176 Air
Quality.
Figure 3 illustrates the trends in SO2 emission levels in Canada
and the United States measured from 1980 to 2000 and predicted
through 2010. Overall, a 38% reduction in SO2 emissions is pro-
jected in Canada and the United States from 1980 to 2010. In the
U.S., the reductions are mainly due to controls on electric utili-
In 2002, all participating sources of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Acid Rain Program (Phase I & II)
achieved a total reduction in SO2 emissions of about 35%
from 1990 levels, and 41% from 1980 levels. The Acid Rain
Program now affects approximately 3,000 fossil-fuel power
plant units. These units reduced their SO2 emissions to 10.19
million tons in 2002, about 4% lower than 2001 emissions.
Full implementation of the program in 2010 will result in a
permanent national emissions cap of 8.95 million tons, repre-
senting about a 50% reduction from 1980 levels.
Figure 3. Canada-U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions, 1980-2010
Source: Figure 3 of Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement:
2002 Progress Report, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/airus02.pdf
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Projection year emissions
data, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/hd2007/r00020.pdf
285
-------
OF THE GREAT
2007
( Five-Year Mean nssSO,' Wet Deposition (1980-1994) I
- •* V - "
Wet Deposition 11996-2000)
kgfha.'yr
Five-Vear Mean NOj Wet Deposition (1990-1994)
Figure 4. Five-year mean patterns of wet non-sea-salt-sulfate (nssS042-) and wet nitrate deposition for
the periods 1990-1994 and 1996-2000.
Source: Figures 9 through 12 of Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement: 2002 Progress Report.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/airus02.pdf, and Jeffries, D.S., T.G., Brydges, PJ. Billion and W.
Keller. 2003. Monitoring the results of Canada/U.S.A. acid rain control programs: some lake responses.
J. of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 88:3-20
ties under the Acid Rain Program and the desulphurization of
diesel fuel under Section 214 of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. In Canada, reductions of SO2 are mainly attrib-
uted to reductions from the non-ferrous mining and smelting
sector, and electric utilities as part of the 1985 Eastern Canada
Acid Rain Program that was completed in 1994. Further SO2
reductions will be achieved through the implementation of the
Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy.
Figure 4 compares wet
sulfate deposition (kilo-
grams sulfate per hectare
per year) over eastern
North America before and
after the 1995 Acid Rain
Program Phase I emission
reductions to assess
whether the emission
decreases had an impact
on large-scale wet deposi-
tion. The five-year aver-
age sulfate wet deposition
pattern for the years 1996-
2000 is considerably
reduced from that for the
five-year period prior to
the Phase I emission
reductions (1990-1994).
For example, the large
area that received 25 to 30
kg/ha/yr of sulfate wet
deposition in the 1990-
1994 period had almost
disappeared in the 1996-
2000 period. The shrink-
age of the wet deposition
pattern between the two
periods strongly suggests
that the Phase I emission
reductions were success-
ful at reducing the sulfate
wet deposition over a
large section of eastern
North America.
Monitoring data from
2000 through 2002 indi-
cate that wet sulfate depo-
sition continued to
decrease, probably as a
result of Phase II of the
Acid Rain Program.
However, if SO2 emis-
sions remain relatively constant after the year 2000, as predicted
(Figure 3), it is unlikely that sulfate deposition will change con-
siderably in the coming decade. Sulfate deposition models pre-
dict that in 2010, following implementation of the Phase II acid
rain program, critical loads for aquatic ecosystems in eastern
Canada will still be exceeded over an area of approximately
800,000 km2.
A somewhat different story occurs for nitrate wet deposition.
Five-Year Mean NO,'Wet Deposition (1996-2000)
286
-------
STATE OF
The spatial patterns shown in Figure 4 are approximately the
same before and after the Phase I emission reductions. This sug-
gests that the minimal reductions in NOX emissions after Phase I
resulted in minimal changes to nitrate wet deposition over east-
ern North America.
Pressures
As the human population within and outside the basin continues
to grow, there will be increasing demands on electrical utility
companies and natural resources and increasing numbers of
motor vehicles. Considering this, reducing nitrogen deposition is
becoming more and more important, as its contribution to acidi-
fication may soon outweigh the benefits gained from reductions
in sulfur dioxide emissions.
Management Implications
The effects of acid rain can be seen far from the source of SO2
and NOX generation, so the governments of Canada and the
United States are working together to reduce acid emissions. The
1991 Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement addresses
transboundary pollution. To date, this agreement has focused on
acidifying pollutants and significant steps have been made in the
reduction of SO2 emissions. However, further progress in the
reduction of acidifying pollutants, including NOX, is required.
In December 2000, Canada and the United States signed Annex
III (the Ozone Annex) to the Air Quality Agreement. The Ozone
Annex committed Canada and the U.S. to aggressive emission
reduction measures to reduce emissions of NOX and volatile
organic compounds. (For more information on the Ozone Annex,
please refer to Report #4176 Air Quality).
The 1998 Canada-wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000 pro-
vides a framework for further actions, such as establishing new
SO2 emission reduction targets in Ontario, Quebec, New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In fulfillment of the Strategy, each
of these provinces has announced a 50% reduction from its
existing emissions cap. Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia are committed to achieving their caps by 2010, while
Ontario committed to meet its new cap by 2015.
Since the last State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
(SOLEC) report, there has been increasing interest in both the
public and private sector in a multi-pollutant approach to reduc-
ing air pollution. On March 10, 2005, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), a rule that will achieve the largest reduction in air pol-
lution in more than a decade. Through a cap-and-trade approach,
CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOX across 28
eastern states and the District of Columbia. When fully imple-
mented, CAIR is expected to reduce SO2 emissions in these
states by 73% and NOX emissions by 61% from 2003 levels.
The Clear Skies Initiative, originally proposed by U.S. President
George W. Bush in February 2002, would require a similar level
of SO2 and NOX reductions as CAIR. Because Clear Skies would
be enacted through legislation rather than regulation, it would be
a more efficient, long-term mechanism to achieve multi-pollu-
tant reductions on a national scale. The USEPA is committed to
working with Congress to pass this legislation. However, if
Clear Skies is not passed, CAIR still remains in effect.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Dean S. Jeffries, National Water Research Institute,
Environment Canada, Burlington, ON;
Robert Vet, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment
Canada, Downsview, ON;
Silvina Carou, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment
Canada, Downsview, ON;
Kerri Timoffee, Manager, Acid Rain Program, Environment
Canada, Gatineau, QC; and
Todd Nettesheim, Great Lakes National Program Office, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Canada - United States Air Quality Committee. 2002. United
States - Canada Air Quality Agreement: 2002 Progress Report.
http ://www. epa. gov/airmarkets/ usca/airus02.pdf. last accessed
June 17, 2004.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME).
2004. 2002 Annual progress Report on the Canada-Wide Acid
Rain Strategy for Post-2000. ISBN 0-622-67819-2.
http://dev.sitesl.miupdate.com/l/assets/pdf/2002_ar_annual_rpt_
e.pdf. last accessed June 21, 2004.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME).
2002. 2001 Annual Progress Report on the Canada-Wide Acid
Rain Strategy for Post-2000. ISBN 0-662-66963-0.
http ://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/acid_rain_e.pdf. last accessed
July 16, 2004.
Driscoll, C.T., Lawrence, G.B., Bulger, A.J., Butler, T.J., Cronan,
C.S., Eagar, C., Lambert, K.F., Likens, G.E., Stoddard, J.L., and
Weathers, K.C. 2001. Acid Rain Revisited: advances in scientific
understanding since the passage of the 1970 and 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. Hubbard Brook Research Foundation. Science
LinksTM Publication Vol. 1, no. 1.
Environment Canada. 2005. 2004 Canadian Acid Deposition
Science Assessment: Summary of Key Results, http: //www. msc -
smc.ec.gc.ca/saib/acid/acid_e.html.
Environment Canada. 2004. 2002 National Pollutant Release
Inventory Data.
287
-------
- *"5|fP
—stimffii
2007
http://www. ec. gc. ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e. cfm#highlights. last
accessed June 29, 2004.
Environment Canada. 2003a. 2001 National Pollutant Release
Inventory: National Overview.
http://www.ee. gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e.cfm#annual2001.
last accessed June 29, 2004.
Report. EPA-430-R-03-011.
http ://www. epa. gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp02/2002report.pdf. last
accessed July 16, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003c. EPA's
Draft Report on the Environment: Technical Document. EPA-
600-R-03-050. http://www.epa.gov/indicators/.
Environment Canada. 2003b. Cleaner Air through Cooperation:
Canada - United States Progress under the Air Quality
Agreement 2003. ISBN 0-662-34082-5. http://www.epa.gov/air-
markets/usca/brochure/brochure.htm. last accessed June 17,
2004.
Environment Canada. 2003c. Environmental Signals: Canada's
National Environmental Indicator Series 2003.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-
ree/English/Indicator_series/default.cfm#pic. last accessed June
29, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003d. Latest
Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-454/K-03-
001. http ://www. epa. gov/airtrends/2002_airtrends_final.pdf. last
accessed June 17, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003e.
National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report: 2003 Special
Studies Edition. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
EPA-454/R-03-005. http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd03/.
last accessed June 17, 2004.
Environment Canada. National Atmospheric Chemistry
Database and Analysis Facility. Meteorological Service of
Canada, Downsview, ON.
Jeffries, D.S., Clair, T.A., Couture, S., Dillon, P.J., Dupont, J.,
Keller, W., McNicol, D.K., Turner, M.A., Vet, R., and Weeber,
R. 2003. Assessing the recovery of lakes in southeastern Canada
from the effects of acidic deposition. Ambio. 32(3):176-182.
National Atmospheric Deposition Program. A Cooperative
Research Support Program of the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations (NRSP-3) Federal and State Agencies and Non-
Governmental Research Organizations.
http ://nadp. sws .uiuc. edu/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002.
Procedures for developing base year and future year mass and
modeling inventories for the heavy-duty engine and vehicle stan-
dards and highway dies el fuel (HDD) rulemaking. EPA420-R-
00-020. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/hd2007/r00020.pdf. last
accessed September 29, 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Clean Air
Interstate Rule, http://www.epa.gov/cair/. last accessed June 8,
2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Clear
Skies Initiative, http ://www. epa. gov/clearskies/.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2004. Air
Quality in Ontario 2002 Report. Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/techdocs/4521 eO 1 .pdf. last
accessed June 28, 2004.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2003. Air
Quality in Ontario 2001 Report. Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/air/AirOuality/2001 .htm, last
accessed June 17, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003a. 1999
National Emissions Inventory Documentation and Data.
http ://www. epa. go v/ttn/chief/net/1999inventory.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003b. Clean
Air Markets Programs. In Acid Rain Program: 2002 Progress
Authors' Commentary
While North American SO2 emissions and sulfate deposition lev-
els in the Great Lakes basin have declined over the past 10 to 15
years, rain is still too acidic throughout most of the Great Lakes
region, and many acidified lakes do not show recovery (increase
in water pH or alkalinity). Empirical evidence suggests that there
are a number of factors acting to delay or limit the recovery
response, e.g. increasing importance of nitrogen-based acidifica-
tion, soil depletion of base cations, mobilization of stored sulfur,
climatic influences, etc. Further work is needed to quantify the
additional reduction in deposition needed to overcome these lim-
itations and to accurately predict the recovery rate.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
288
-------
Non-native Species - Aquatic
Indicator #9002
Overall Assessment
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Primary Factors NIS continue to be discovered in the Great Lakes. Negative impacts of
Determining established invaders persist and new negative impacts are becoming
Status and Trend evident
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Fair
Unchanging
Lake Superior is the site of most ballast water discharge in the Great Lakes,
but supports relatively few NIS. This is due at least in part to less
hospitable environmental conditions.
Poor
Deteriorating
Established invaders continue to exert negative impacts on native species.
Diporeia populations are declining.
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Poor
Deteriorating
Established invaders continue to exert negative impacts on native species.
Diporeia populations are declining.
Poor
Deteriorating
Established invaders continue to exert negative impacts on native species.
A possible link exists between waterfowl deaths due to botulism and
established NIS (round goby and dreissenid mussels)
Poor
Deteriorating
Native Diporeia populations are declining in association with quagga
mussel expansion. Condition and growth of lake whitefish, whose primary
food source is Diporeia, are declining. A possible link exists between
waterfowl deaths due to botulism and established NIS (round goby and
dreissenid mussels).
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Purpose
•To assess the presence, number and distribution of nonindigenous species (NIS) in the
Laurentian Great Lakes; and
•To aid in the assessment of the status of biotic communities, because nonindigenous species can
alter both the structure and function of ecosystems.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal of the U.S. and Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is, in part, to restore and
maintain the biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Minimally,
extinctions and unauthorized introductions must be prevented to maintain biological integrity.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Nearly 10% of NIS introduced to the Great Lakes have had significant impacts on ecosystem
health, a percentage consistent with findings in the United Kingdom (Williamson and Brown
1986) and in the Hudson River of North America (Mills et al. 1997). In the Great Lakes,
transoceanic ships are the primary invasion vector. Other vectors, such as canals and private
sector activities, however, are also utilized by NIS with potential to harm biological integrity.
Status of NIS
Human activities associated with transoceanic shipping are responsible for over one-third of NIS
introductions to the Great Lakes (Figure 1). Total numbers of NIS introduced and established in
the Great Lakes have increased steadily since the 1830s (Figure 2a). Numbers of ship-introduced
NIS, however, have increased exponentially during the same time period (Figure 2b). Release of
contaminated ballast water by transoceanic ships has been implicated in over 70% of faunal NIS
introductions to the Great Lakes since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959
(Grigorovich et al. 2003).
During the 1980s, the importance of ship ballast water as a vector for NIS introductions was
recognized, finally prompting ballast management measures in the Great Lakes. In the wake of
Eurasian ruffe and zebra mussel introductions, Canada introduced voluntary ballast exchange
guidelines in 1989 for ships declaring "ballast on board" (BOB) following transoceanic voyages,
as recommended by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the International Joint
Commission. In 1990, the United States Congress passed the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act, producing the Great Lakes' first ballast exchange and management
regulations in May of 1993. The National Invasive Species Act (NISA) followed in 1996, but this
act expired in 2002. A stronger version of NISA entitled the Nonindigneous Aquatic Invasive
Species Act has been drafted and awaits Congressional reauthorization.
Contrary to expectations, the reported invasion rate has increased following initiation of
voluntary guidelines in 1989 and mandated regulations in 1993 (Grigorovich et al. 2003, Holeck
et al. 2004). However, >90% of transoceanic ships that entered the Great Lakes during the 1990s
declared "no ballast on board" (NOBOB, Colautti et al. 2003; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Holeck et
al. 2004) (Figure 3) and were not required to exchange ballast, although their tanks contained
residual sediments and water that would be discharged in the Great Lakes. Recent studies suggest
that the Great Lakes may vary in vulnerability to invasion in space and time. Lake Superior
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
receives a disproportionate number of discharges by both BOB and NOBOB ships, yet it has
sustained surprisingly few initial invasions (Figure 4); conversely, the waters connecting lakes
Huron and Erie are an invasion 'hotspot' despite receiving disproportionately few ballast
discharges (Grigorovich et al. 2003). Ricciardi (2001) suggests that some invaders (such as
Dreissena spp.) may facilitate the introduction of coevolved species such as round goby and the
amphipod Echinogammarus.
Other vectors, including canals and the private sector, continue to deliver NIS to the Great Lakes
and may increase in relative importance in the future. Silver and bighead carp escapees from
southern U.S. fish farms have been sighted below an electric dispersal barrier in the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, which connects the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan. The
prototype barrier was activated in April 2002, to block the transmigration of species between the
Mississippi River system and the Great Lakes basin. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(partnered by the State of Illinois) completed construction of a second, permanent barrier in 2005.
Second only to shipping, unauthorized release, transfer, and escape have introduced NIS into the
Great Lakes. Of particular concern are private sector activities related to aquaria, garden ponds,
baitfish, and live food fish markets. For example, nearly a million Asian carp, including bighead
and black carp, are sold annually at fish markets within the Great Lakes basin. Until recently,
most of these fish were sold live. All eight Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario now
have some restriction on the sale of live Asian carp. Enforcement of many private transactions,
however, remains a challenge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering listing several
Asian carp as nuisance species under the Lacey Act, which would prohibit interstate transport.
Finally, there are currently numerous shortcomings in legal safeguards relating to commerce in
exotic live fish as identified by Alexander (2003) in Great Lakes and Mississippi River states,
Quebec, and Ontario. These include: express and de facto exemptions for the aquarium pet trade;
de facto exemptions for the live food fish trade; inability to proactively enforce import bans; lack
of inspections at aquaculture facilities; allowing aquaculture in public waters; inadequate
triploidy (sterilization) requirements; failure to regulate species of concern, e.g., Asian carp;
regulation through "dirty lists" only, e.g., banning known nuisance species; and failure to regulate
transportation.
Pressures
NIS have invaded the Great Lakes basin from regions around the globe (Figure54), and
increasing world trade and travel will elevate the risk that additional species (Table 1) will
continue to gain access to the Great Lakes. Existing connections between the Great Lakes
watershed and systems outside the watershed, such as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and
growth of industries such as aquaculture, live food markets, and aquarium retail stores will also
increase the risk that NIS will be introduced.
Changes in water quality, global climate change, and previous NIS introductions also may make
the Great Lakes more hospitable for the arrival of new invaders. Evidence indicates that newly
invading species may benefit from the presence of previously established invaders. That is, the
presence of one NIS may facilitate the establishment of another (Ricciardi 2001). For example,
round goby and Echinogammarus have benefited from previously established zebra and quagga
mussels. In effect, dreissenids have set the stage to increase the number of successful invasions,
particularly those of co-evolved species in the Ponto-Caspian assemblage.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Management Implications
Researchers are seeking to better understand links between vectors and donor regions, the
receptivity of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and the biology of new invaders in order to make
recommendations to reduce the risk of future invasion. To protect the biological integrity of the
Great Lakes, it is essential to closely monitor routes of entry for NIS, to introduce effective
safeguards, and to quickly adjust safeguards as needed. Invasion rate may increase if positive
interactions involving established NIS or native species facilitate entry of new NIS. Ricciardi
(2001) suggested that such a scenario of "invasional meltdown" is occurring in the Great Lakes,
although Simberloff (2006) cautioned that most of these cases have not been proven.
To be effective in preventing new invasions, management strategies must focus on linkages
between NIS, vectors, and donor and receiving regions. Without measures that effectively
eliminate or minimize the role of ship-borne and other, emerging vectors, we can expect the
number of NIS in the Great Lakes to continue to rise, with an associated loss of native
biodiversity and an increase in unpredicted ecological disruptions.
Comments from the author(s)
Lake by lake assessment should include Lake St. Clair and connecting channels (Detroit River,
St. Clair River). Species first discovered in these waters were assigned to Lake Erie for the
purposes of this report.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Edward L. Mills, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Bridgeport, NY;
Kristen T. Holeck, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Bridgeport, NY; and
Hugh Maclsaac, Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, University of Windsor,
Windsor, ON, Canada
Data Sources
Alexander, A. 2003. Legal tools and gaps relating to commerce in exotic live fish: phase 1 report
to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by the Environmental Law and Policy Center.
Environmental Law and Policy Center, Chicago, IL.
Colautti, R.I., Niimi, A.J., van Overdijk, C.D.A., Mills, E.L., Holeck, K.T., and Maclsaac, HJ.
2003. Spatial and temporal analysis of transoceanic shipping vectors to the Great Lakes. In
Invasion Species: Vectors and Management Strategies, eds. G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton, pp. 227-
246. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Grigorovich, I.A., Colautti, R.I., Mills, EX., Holeck, K.T., Ballert, A.G., and Maclsaac, HJ.
2003. Ballast-mediated animal introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes: retrospective and
prospective analyses. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:740-756.
Holeck, K.T., Mills, E.L., Maclsaac, H.J., Dochoda, M.R., Colautti, R.I., and Ricciardi, A. 2004.
Bridging troubled waters: understanding links between biological invasions, transoceanic
shipping, and other entry vectors in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Bioscience 54:919-929.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Kolar, C.S., and Lodge, D.M. 2002. Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in
North America. Science 298:1233-1236.
Mills, E.L., Leach, J.H., Carlton, J.T., and Secor, C.L. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: A
history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19(l):l-54.
Mills, E.L., Scheuerell, M.D., Carlton, J.T., and Strayer, D.L. 1997. Biological invasions in the
Hudson River. NYS Museum Circular No. 57. Albany, NY.
Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasions in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in
vector activity. Diversity and Distributions 12: 425-433.
Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an"invasional meltdown"
occurring in the Great Lakes? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:2513-2525.
Ricciardi, A., and Rasmussen, J.B. 1998. Predicting the identity and impact of future biological
invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55:1759-1765.
Rixon, C.A.M., Duggan, I.C., Bergeron, N.M.N., Ricciardi, A., and Maclsaac, HJ. 2004.
Invasion risks posed by the aquarium trade and live fish markets on the Laurentian Great Lakes.
Biodiversity and Conservation (in press).
Simberloff, D. 2006. Invasional meltdown 6 years later: important phenomenon, unfortunate
metaphor, or both? Ecology Letters (in press).
Stokstad, E. 2003. Can well-timed jolts keep out unwanted exotic fish? Science 301:157-158.
Williamson, M.H., and Brown, K.C. 1986. The analysis and modeling of British invasions.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 314:505-522.
List of Tables
Table 1. Nonindigenous species predicted to have a high-risk of introduction to the Great Lakes.
Source: Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Kolar and Lodge 2002; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Stokstad
2003; Rixon et al. 2004
List of Figures
Figure 1. Release mechanisms for aquatic nonindigenous (NIS) established in the Great Lakes
basin since the 1830s. Source: Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich et al. 2003;
Ricciardi 2006
Figure 2. Cumulative number of aquatic nonindigenous (NIS) established in the Great Lakes
basin since the 1830s attributed to (a) all vectors and (b) only the ship vector.
Source: Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Ricciardi 2006
Figure 3. Numbers of upbound transoceanic vessels entering the Great Lakes from 1959 to 2002.
Source: Colautti et al. 2003; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Holeck et al. 2004
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
•*-£, -«"{ » v.-^—
Figure 4. Lake of first discovery for NIS established in the Great Lakes basin since the 1830s.
Discoveries in connecting waters between Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario were assigned to the
downstream lake.
Figure 5. Regions of origin for aquatic NIS established in the Great Lakes basin since the 1830s.
Source: Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Ricciardi 2006
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
Lake/Basin of First
Discovery
Unknown/Widespread
Multiple
Ontario
Erie
Huron
Michigan
Superior
Fauna
33
4
24
16
4
11
3
95
Flora
9
1
33
21
3
16
4
87
182
Table 1. Nonindigenous species predicted to have a high-risk of introduction to the Great
Lakes.
Source: Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Kolar and Lodge 2002; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Stokstad
2003 ;Rixon et al 2004
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Total = 182
Accidental Aquarium Shipping
release release
Cultivation Deliberate Natural means Railroads and Solid ballast Unknown
release release highways
Primary mechanism
Figure I. Release mechanisms for aquatic nonindigenous (NIS) established in the Great Lakes
basin since the 1830s.
Source: Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Ricciardi 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
200
180
160 •
140-
«
z 120
I 100
I 80 •
z
60 •
40 -
20
Total = 182
1830s
1850s
1870s
1890s
1910s 1930s
Decade
1950s
1970s
1990s
Figure 2a. Cumulative number of aquatic nonindigenous (NIS) established in the Great Lakes
basin since the 1830s attributed to all vectors.
Source: Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Ricciardi 2006
80
70
-------
1600 -r
140°
I
1200
8 1000
80°
600
| 400
.Q
Q.
D 200
0
• BOB
DNOBOB
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
Figure 3. Numbers of upbound transoceanic vessels entering the Great Lakes from 1959 to 2002.
Source: Colautti et al. 2003; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Holeck et al. 2004
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Unknown/Widespread Multiple
Ontario Erie Huron
Lake/Basin of first discovery
Michigan
Superior
Figure 4. Lake of first discovery for NIS established in the Great Lakes basin since the 1830s.
Discoveries in connecting waters between Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario were assigned to the
downstream lake.
Source: Grigorovich et al. 2003
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Hgi. "f t, ••'
Total = 182
Africa/Asia Atlantic Eurasia Mississippi Pacific Unknown
basin
Donor region
Figure 5. Regions of origin for aquatic NIS established in the Great Lakes basin since the 1830s.
Source: Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Ricciardi 2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Non-native Species - Terrestrial
Indicator #9002
Determining
Status and Trend
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating/Undetermined
Primary Factors Terrestrial Non-indigenous species are pervasive in the Great Lakes
basin. Although not all introductions have an adverse effect on native
habitats, those that do pose a considerable ecological, social, and
economic burden. Historically, the Great Lakes Basin has proven to be
particularly vulnerable to non-indigenous species, mainly due to the
high volume of transboundary movement of goods and people,
population, and industrialization. Improved monitoring of non-
indigenous species is needed to adequately assess the status, trends, and
impacts of non-indigenous species in the region.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Not available at this time.
Lake Michigan
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Not available at this time.
Lake Huron
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Not available at this time.
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Not available at this time.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Lake Ontario
Status:
Trend:
Primary Factors
Determining
Status and Trend
Not Assessed
Undetermined
Not available at this time.
Purpose
• To evaluate the presence, number, and impact of terrestrial non-indigenous species in the
Great Lakes Basin.
• To assess the biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystems.
Ecosystem Objective
The ultimate goal of this indicator is to limit, or prevent, the unauthorized introduction of non-
indigenous species, and to minimize their adverse affect in the Great Lakes Basin. Such actions
would assist in accomplishing one of the major objectives of U.S. and Canada Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, which is to restore and maintain the biological integrity of the waters of the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Globalization, i.e. the movement of people and goods, has led to a dramatic increase in the
number of terrestrial non-indigenous species (NIS) that are transported from one country to
another. As a result of its high population density and high-volume transportation of goods, the
Great Lakes Basin (GLB) is very susceptible to the introduction of such invaders. Figure 1
depicts this steady increase in the number of terrestrial NIS introduced into the GLB and the rate
at which this has occurred, beginning in the 1900s. In addition, the degradation, fragmentation,
and loss of native ecosystems have also made this region more vulnerable to these invaders,
enabling them to become invasive (non-indigenous species or strains that become established in
native communities or wild areas and replace native species). As such, the introduction of NIS is
considered to be one of the greatest threats to the biodiversity and natural resources of this region,
second only to habitat destruction.
Monitoring of NIS is largely locally based, as a region-wide standard has yet to be established.
As a result, the data that is generated comes from a variety of agencies and organizations
throughout the region, thus providing some difficulty when attempting to assess the overall
presence and impact these species are having on the region. Information provided by the World
Wildlife Fund of Canada indicates that there are 157 exotic plants and animals located within the
GLB, which includes: 95 vascular plants, 11 insects, 6 plant diseases, 4 mammals, 2 birds, 2
animal diseases, 1 reptile, and 1 amphibian. However, the Invasive Plant Association of
Wisconsin has identifies 116 non-native plants within the state, while over one hundred plants
have been introduced into the Chicago region (Chicago Botanic Garden). Even though these
figures are greater then the one provided by the WWF of Canada, they do not compare to the over
900 non-native plants that have been identified within the state of Michigan by the Michigan
Invasive Plant Council.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
The impact NIS have on the areas in which they are introduced can vary greatly, ranging from
little or no affect to dramatically altering the native ecological community. Figure 2 shows the
degree to which each taxonomic group has had an impact on the ecoregion. The WWF of Canada
has listed 29 species, 19 of which are vascular plants, as having a "severe impact" on native
biodiversity. These species, which were generally introduced for medicinal or ornamental
purposes, have become problematic as they continue to thrive due to the fact that they are well
adapted to a broad range of habitats, have no native predators, and are often able to reproduce at a
rapid rate. Common buckthorn, garlic mustard, honeysuckle, purple loosestrife, and reed canary
grass are several examples of highly invasive plant species, while the Asian longhorn beetle,
Dutch elm disease, emerald ash borer, leafy spurge, and the West Nile virus are other terrestrial
invaders that have had a significant impact of the GLB.
One type of terrestrial non-native species not covered in this report is genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). Although GMOs are typically cultivated for human uses and benefits, the
problem arises when pollen is moved from its intended site (often by wind or pollinator species)
and transfers genetically engineered traits, such as herbicide resistance and pest resistance, to
wild plants. This outward gene flow into natural habitats has the potential to significantly alter
ecosystems and create scenarios that would pose enormous dilemmas for farmers. Both Canada
and the U.S. are major producers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Although GMO
crops are monitored for outward gene flow, no centralized database describing the number of
GMO species, or land area covered by GMOs in the Great Lakes Basin currently exists.
There are currently numerous policies, laws and regulations within the GLB that address NIS;
however, similar to NIS monitoring, they originate from state, provincial and federal
administrations and thus have similar obstacles associated with them. As such, strict enforcement
of these laws, in addition to continuous region-wide mitigation, eradication and management of
NIS is needed in order to maintain the ecological integrity of the GLB.
Pressures
The growing transboundary movement of goods and people has heightened the need to prevent
and manage terrestrial NIS. Most cases of invasiveness can be linked to the intended or
unintended consequences of economic activities (Perrings, et al., 2002). For this reason, the GLB
has been, and will continue to be, a hot bed of introductions, unless preventive measures are
enforced. The growth in population, threats, recreation and tourism all contribute to the number
of NIS affecting the region. Additionally, factors such as the increase in development and human
activity, previous introductions and climate change have elevated the levels of vulnerability.
Because this issue has social, ecological, and economic dimensions it can be assumed that the
pressure of NIS will persist unless it is addressed on all three fronts.
Management Implications
Since the early 1800s, biological invasions have compromised the ecological integrity of the
GLB. Despite an elevated awareness of the issue and efforts to prevent and manage NIS in the
Great Lakes, the area remains highly vulnerable to both intentional and non-intentional
introductions. Political and social motivation to address this issue is driven not only by the effects
on the structure and function of regional ecosystems, but also by the cumulative economic impact
of invaders, i.e. threats to food supplies and human health.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Managers of terrestrial NIS in the GLB recognize that successful management strategies must
involve collaboration across federal, provincial and state governments, in addition to non-
governmental organizations. Furthermore, improved integration, coordination and development
of inventories, mapping, and mitigation of terrestrial invasive species can be used to adapt future
strategies and examine trends in terrestrial NIS at a basin-wide scale. Although current
monitoring programs in Canada are fragmented at best, a number of initiatives involving broad-
stakeholder participation and government collaboration are being developed to determine future
priorities. This information will be applied to risk analysis, predictive science, modeling,
improved technology for prevention and management of NIS, legislation and regulations,
education and outreach, and international co-operation to encompass the multi-faceted aspect of
this ecological, social, and economic issue.
Comments from the author(s)
Currently, there is no central monitoring site for terrestrial NIS in Canada. In 1997 the Canadian
Botanical Conservation Network put together a database on invasive plant species for Canada, but
the information has not since been updated. In 2000 the World Wildlife Fund of Canada amassed
information about 150 known NIS in Canada in a centralized database, based on books, journal
articles, websites, and consultation with experts. The author of the chapter acknowledges that a
lack of centralized data was a limitation of the project. The information contained in this indicator
is based on the WWF-C database and has been updated with several more recent insect invaders
present in the GLB.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Katherine Balpataky, Program Officer, Environment Canada - Ontario Region, 867
Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario, Canada, L7R 4A6, (905) 336-6271.
Jeffrey C. May, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO Intern. 77 W. Jackson Blvd (G-
17J) Chicago, Illinois 60604, May.Jeffrey@epa.gov
Contributors: Haber, Erich, National Botanical Services (author of the WWF-C report), Ottawa,
ON, K2A 3A8.
Hendrickson, Ole, Environment Canada, Biodiversity Convention Office, Gatineau, QC, K1A
OH3.
Morgan, Alexis, World Wildlife Fund-Canada, 245 Eglinton Ave. East, suite 410, Toronto, ON,
M4P3J1.
Wallace, Shaun, Plant Pest Surveillance Unit, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 3851
Fallowfield Rd., Nepean, Ontario, K2H 8P9.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Plant Health Division. Proposed Action Plan for Invasive
Alien Terrestrial Plants and Plant Pests Phase 1, 2004.
http://www.cbin.ec.gc.ca/primers/ias_plants.cfm?lang=e, last viewed 28 August 2006.
Environment Canada. Biodiversity Convention Office. An Invasive Alien Species Strategy for
Canada. 2004. http://www.cbin.ec.gc.ca/primers/ias.cfin, last viewed 28 August 2006.
Food and Agricultural Organization. (2001). The state of food and agriculture 2001. Rome, Italy.
Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9800e/x9800el4.htm.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Gwenaelle Dauphina,, Stephan Zientaraa, Herve Zellerb, Bernadette Murgue. West Nile:
worldwide current situation in animals and humans. G. Dauphin et al. / Comp. Immun. Microbiol.
Infect. Dis. 27 (2004) 343-355.
Haack, Robert A. Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at U.S. ports of entry: 1985-2000.
Integrated Pest Management Reviews 6 (2001) 253-282.
IJC, CMI, International Joint Commission, Commission mixte internationale. Then and Now:
Aquatic Alien Invasive Species. 2004. http://www.ijc.org/rel/pdf/ThenandNow_f.pdf.
Lavoie, Claude; Jean, Martin; Delisle, Fanny; Letourneau, Guy. Exotic plant species of the St.
Lawrence River wetlands: a spatial and historical analysis. Journal of Biogeography. 30: (2003)
537-549.
Leung, B.; Finnoff, D.; Shogren, J.F.; Lodge, D. Managing invasive species: Rules of thumb for
rapid assessment. Ecological Economics. 55 (2005) 24-36.
Natural Resources Canada. 2006. Our Forests Under Threat. http://www.cfl.scf.rncan.gc.ca/CFL-
LFC/publications/activites/menace e.html, last accessed August 28, 2006.
Maclsaac, H.J., LA. Grigorovich, and A. Ricciardi. Reassessment of species invasions concepts:
the Great Lakes basin as a model. Biological Invasions. 3: 405-416, 2001.
Mills, E.L., Leach, J.H., Carlton, J.T., Secor, C.L., Exotic species and the integrity of the Great
Lakes. Bioscience. 44, (1994) 666-676.
Mills, E.L., Holeck, K.T., Chrisman, J.R., 1999. The role of canals in the spread of non-
indigenous species in North America. In: Claudi, R., Leach, J. (Eds.). Non-indigenous Organisms
in North America: Their Biology and Impact, CRC Press LCL, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 345-377.
Midwest Natural Resources Group. 2006. Action Plan for Addressing Terrestrial Invasive Species
Within the Great Lakes Basin, http://www.mnrg.gov, last viewed August 28, 2006.
Perrings, C., Williamson, M., Barbier, E., Delfino, D., Dalmazzone, S., Shogren, J., Simmons, P.,
and Watkinson, A. (2002). Biological invasion risks and the public good: An economic
perspective. Conservation Ecology 6(1), 1. Available on the World Wide Web:
http://www.consecol.org/vol6/issl/artl.
Ricciardi, A. Patterns of invasion of the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector
activity. Diversity and Distributions 12: (2006) 425-433.
Wilkins, Pamela, and Del Piero Fabio. West Nile virus: lessons from the 21st century.
Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 14(1) 2004, pp 2-14.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. A timeline of terrestrial introduction in the Great Lakes Basin by taxonomic group.
Data source: World Wildlife Fund-Canada's Exotic Species Database, and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency.
Figure 2. Estimated impact of 124 known terrestrial NIS in the Great Lakes Basin.
Data source: World Wildlife Fund-Canada's Exotic Species Database.
Last updated
SOLEC 2006
120 i
100
S1
o
•s
1900
2000
2020
•Total Species -"-Total Insect - -Total Vascular plant Total Bird -*-Total Plant disease
Figure 1. A timeline of terrestrial introduction in the Great Lakes Basin by taxonomic group.
Data source: World Wildlife Fund-Canada's Exotic Species Database, and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
M>y,
Impact on Ecosystem by taxonomic group
Slight
Impact
Figure 2. Estimated impact of 124 known terrestrial NIS in the Great Lakes Basin by taxonomic
group.
Data source: World Wildlife Fund-Canada's Exotic Species Database.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
List of indicators by category
Contamination indicators
Status, Trend
Open Lake:
Mixed, Undetermined
Nearshore:
Poor, Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
SU, HU, ER, ON: mixed,
improving
MI:NA
Mixed, Improving
SU: good, improving
MI, HU, ER: mixed, improving
ON: poor, improving
Mixed,
Improving/Unchanging
Mixed, Undetermined
SU, MI, HU: fair,
undetermined
ER, ON: mixed, undetermined
Mixed,
Improving/Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
SU, MI, HU, ER, ON: fair,
improving
Poor, Unchanging
SU, MI, HU: undetermined
ER, ON: poor, unchanging
Good, Unchanging
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Undetermined
SU, MI, HU: undetermined
ER, ON: mixed, undetermined
Undetermined
Progress Report
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Indicator Title (indicator number)
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (111)
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners (114)
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (115)
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals (117)
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters (118)
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores (119)
Contaminants in Whole Fish (121)
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish (124)
Drinking Water Quality (4175)
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
(4177)
Contaminants in Sport Fish (4201)
Air Quality (4202)
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (4506)
Nutrient Management Plans (7061)
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution (7065)
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles (8135)
Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the American
Otter (8147)
Acid Rain (9000)
Year
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2005
2006
2005
2003
2005
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Biotic Communities indicators
Status, Trend
Mixed, Improving
SU: fair, improving
MI: mixed, slightly improving
HU: fair, improving
ER: good, improving
ON: mixed, unchanging
Fair, Unchanging
Mixed, Deteriorating
SU: mixed, improving
MI, HU, ER, ON: mixed,
deteriorating
Undetermined
Mixed, Unchanging
SU: good, improving
MI: poor, declining
HU: mixed, improving
ER: mixed, unchanging
ON: mixed, declining
Mixed,
Unchanging/Deteriorating
SU: good, unchanging
MI, ER: mixed,
unchanging/deteriorating
HU, ON: mixed, unchanging
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
SU: good, improving
MI, HU, ER: mixed, improving
ON: poor, improving
Mixed, Undetermined
SU: good, unchanging
MI, HU, ER, ON: undetermined
Mixed, Improving
SU, MI, HU: poor, undetermined
ER: good/mixed,
improving/mixed
ON: undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
SU: mixed, unchanging
MI, HU, ER, ON: poor,
deteriorating
Mixed, Improving
SU, MI, HU: mixed,
improving/undetermined
ER: poor, undetermined
ON: mixed, improving
Progress Report
Undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
SU: undetermined
MI: poor, unchanging
HU, ER: mixed, deteriorating
ON: mixed, unchanging
Indicator Title (indicator number) Year
Salmon and Trout (8) 2006
Walleye (9) 2006
Preyfish Populations (17) 2006
Native Freshwater Mussels (68) 2005
Lake Trout (93) 2006
Benthos Diversity and Abundance - Aquatic Oligochaete 2006
Communities (104)
Phytoplankton Populations (109) 2003
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (115) 2006
Zooplankton Populations (116) 2006
Hexagenia (122) 2006
Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp. (123) 2006
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes (125) 2006
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health (4501) 2005
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (4502) 2006
Wetland-Dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance 2006
(4504)
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Biotic Communities indicators (continued)
Mixed, Deteriorating
SU: undetermined
MI, ER, ON: mixed, deteriorating
HU: poor, deteriorating
Mixed, Undetermined
SU: good, unchanging
MI, ER: mixed, unchanging
HU: mixed, deteriorating
ON: poor, unchanging
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Undetermined
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance (4507)
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health (4862)
2006
2006
Groundwater Dependant Plant and Animal Communities 2005
(7103)
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles 2005
(8135)
Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the 2003
American Otter (8147)
Forest Lands-Conservation of Biological Diversity (8500) 2006
Invasive Species indicators
Sea Lamprey (18)
Non-native Species—Aquatic (9002)
Good/Fair, Improving
Poor, Deteriorating
SU: fair, unchanging
MI, HU, ER, ON: poor,
deteriorating
Mixed, Non-native Species—Terrestrial (9002)
Deteriorating/Undetermined
2005
2006
2006
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Coastal Zones indicators
Status, Trend
Progress Report
Undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
SU: undetermined
MI: poor, unchanging
HU, ER: mixed, deteriorating
ON: mixed, unchanging
Mixed, Undetermined
SU, MI, HU: undetermined
ER, ON: mixed, undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
SU: undetermined
MI, ER, ON: mixed,
deteriorating
HU: poor, deteriorating
Mixed, Deteriorating
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Undetermined
SU: good, unchanging
MI, ER: mixed, unchanging
HU: mixed, deteriorating
ON: poor, unchanging
Progress Report
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
Progress Report
Mixed, Undetermined
SU: good, undetermined
MI: undetermined
HU, ER, ON: mixed,
undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
Indicator Title (indicator number) Year
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health (4501) 2006
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (4502) 2006
Wetland-dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance (4504) 2006
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (4506) 2006
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance (4507) 2006
Coastal Wetland Area by Type (4510) 2005
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations (4861) 2003
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health (4862) 2006
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (4863) 2006
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore 2001
Communities—Alvars (8129)
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore 2005
Communities—Cobble beaches (8129)
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore 2005
Communities—Sand dunes (8129)
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities 2006
—Islands (8129)
Extent of Hardened Shoreline (8131) 2001
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Aquatic Habitat indicators
Status/Trend
Open Lake:
Mixed, Undetermined
Nearshore:
Poor, Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
SU, MI, HU: fair, undetermined
ER, ON: mixed, undetermined
Mixed,
Improving/Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
Undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
Indicator Title (indicator number) Year
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (111) 2006
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters (118) 2006
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores (119) 2006
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes 2005
(7100)
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity (7101) 2005
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge (7102) 2006
Groundwater Dependant Plant and Animal Communities (7103) 2005
Extent of Hardened Shoreline (8131) 2001
Other sources of aquatic habitat information
Additional information on spatial and temporal trends in toxic contaminants in offshore waters
can be found in:
Marvin, C., S. Painter, D. Williams, V. Richardson, R. Rossmann, and P.Van Hoof. 2004.
Spatial and temporal trends in surface water and sediment contamination in the Laurentian Great
Lakes. Environmental Pollution. 129(2004): 131-144.
Kannan, K., J. Ridal, and J. Struger. 2006. Pesticides in the Great Lakes. Heidelberg
Environmental Chemistry 5(N): 151-199.
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. 2002 Progress Report. Environment Canada and US
EPA.
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Assessment of Level 1 Substances Summary. Great
Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (December 2005). U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program
Office and Environment Canada.
Additional information on base flow can be found in:
Neff, B.P., Day, S.M., Piggot, A.R., Fuller, L.M. 2005. Base Flow in the Great Lakes Basin:
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5217, 23p.
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Resource Utilization indicators
Status/trend
Undetermined
Mixed, Undetermined
SU: Mixed, Undetermined
MI, HU, ER, ON: undetermined
Mixed, Unchanging
Mixed, Undetermined
Undetermined
Poor, Deteriorating
Progress Report
Indicator Title (indicator number) Year
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures (3514) 2003
Economic Prosperity (7043) 2003
Water Withdrawals (7056) 2005
Energy Consumption (7057) 2005
Solid Waste Disposal (7060) 2006
Vehicle Use (7064) 2006
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution (7065) 2006
Land Use - Land Cover indicators
Status/Trend
Progress Report
Mixed, Undetermined
Undetermined
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Undetermined
Progress Report
Undetermined
Undetermined
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Deteriorating
Mixed, Undetermined
SU: good, undetermined
MI: undetermined
HU, ER, ON: mixed, undetermined
Progress Report
Undetermined
(Proposed Indicator)
Mixed, Undetermined
Undetermined
Mixed, Undetermined
Indicator Title (indicator number) Year
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (4863) 2006
Urban Density (7000) 2006
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity (7101) 2005
Land Cover/Land Conversion (7002) 2006
Brownfields Redevelopment (7006) 2006
Sustainable Agricultural Practices (7028) 2005
Ground Surface Hardening (7054) 2005
Nutrient Management Plans (7061) 2005
Integrated Pest Management (7062) 2005
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore 2001
Communities - Alvars (8129)
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore 2005
Communities - Cobble Beaches (8129)
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore 2006
Communities - Islands (8129)
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore 2005
Communities - Sand Dunes (8129)
Biodiversity Conservation Sites (8164) 2006
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity (8500) 2006
Forest Lands - Maintenance of Productive Capacity of 2006
Forest Ecosystems (8501)
Forest Lands - Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and 2006
Water Resources (8503)
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Human Health indicators
Status-Trend
Good, Unchanging
Mixed, Undetermined
Mixed, Unchanging
SU: good, undertermined
MI, ER, ON: fair, undetermined
HU: good, unchanging/undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Indicator Title (indicator number) Year
Drinking Water Quality (4175) 2006
Biological Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent 2006
Chemicals (4177)
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures (4200) 2006
Contaminants in Sport Fish (4201) 2006
Air Quality (4202) 2006
Other sources of human health information:
Lake Wide Management Plans http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gl2000/lamps/index.html
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/grtlakes/index.html
Climate Change indicators
Mixed, Deteriorating Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes (4858)
Other sources of climate change information:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/greatlakes.htm
http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/brd_global_change/proj_3 l_great_lakes.html
http://www.geo.msu.edu/glra/assessment/assessment.html
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ccmain.html
http ://www.ucsusa. org/greatlakes/
2003
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
6.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
Agencies and Organizations
ATSDR
CAMNet
CCME
CDC
CIS
CORA
CWS
DFO
EC
ECO
EIA
GLBET
GLC
GLCWC
GLFC
GLNPO
IJC
IUCN
MDEQ
MDNR
NHEERL
NOAA
NRC
NRCS
NYSDEC
ODNR
ODW
OFEC
OMAF
OMOE
OMNR
OSCIA
ORISE
PDEP
USDA
USEPA
USFDA
USFWS
USFS
USGS
WBCSD
WDNR
WDO
WiDPH
Units of Measure
fg
ha
kg
km
kt
kWh
m
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Canadian Atmospheric Mercury Network
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Center for Disease Control (U.S.)
Canada Ice Service
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
Canadian Wildlife Service
Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Environment Canada
Environmental Careers Organization
Energy Information Administration (U.S.)
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team (USFWS)
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Great Lakes National Program Office (USEPA)
International Joint Commission
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (USEPA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Natural Resources Canada
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Division of Wildlife
Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Waste Diversion Organization (Ontario)
Wisconsin Department of Public Health
femptogram, 10~15 gram
hectare, 10,000 square metres, 2.47 acres
kilogram, 1000 grams, 2.2 pounds
kilometre, 0.62 miles
kiloton
kilowat-hour
metre
-------
mg milligram, 10~3 gram
mg/kg milligram per kilogram, part per million
mg/1 milligram per litre
ml milliliter, 10~3 litre
MWh megawatt-hour
ng nanogram, 10~9 gram
ng/g nanogram per gram, part per billion
pg picogram, 10~12gram
ppb part per billion
ppm part per million
ton English ton, 2000 Ib
tonne metric tonne: 1000 kg, 2200 Ib
|o,g microgram, 10"6 gram
ug/g microgram per gram, part per million
(o,g/m microgram per cubic metre
|o,m micrometer, micron, 10"6 metre
Chemicals
2,4-D 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4,5-T 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
BaP Benzo[a]pyrene
BFR Brominated flame retardants
CO Carbon monoxide
DDT 1,1,1 -trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane or dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane
ODD l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane
DDE l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(chlorophenyl) ethylene or dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethene
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
HBCD Hexabromocyclododecane
HCB Hexachlorobenzene
a-HCH Hexachlorocyclohexane
y-HCH Lindane
HE Heptachlor epoxide
MeHg Methylmercury
NAPH Naphthalene
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOX Nitrogen oxides
NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PBDE Polybrominated diphenyl ether
PCA Polychlorinated alkanes
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzo furan
PCN Polychlorinated naphthalenes
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS Perfluoroctanyl sulfonate
PMio Atmospheric particulate matter of diameter 10 microns or smaller
PM2.s Atmospheric particulate matter of diameter 2.5 microns or smaller
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SPCB Suite of PCB congeners that include most of PCB mass in the environment
TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCE Trichloroethylene
TDS Total dissolved solids
TOC Total organic carbon
TRS Total reduced sulfur
VOC Volatile organic compound
-------
Other
AAQC Ambient Air Quality Criterion (Ontario)
AFO Animal Feeding Operation
AOC Area of Concern
APF Agricultural Policy Framework (Canada)
ARET Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics program (Canada)
BEACH Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (U.S. Act of 2000)
BKD Bacterial Kidney Disease
BMP Best Management Practices
BOB Ballast On Board
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
C-CAP Coastal Change and Analysis Program (land cover)
CC/WQR Consumer Confidence/Water Quality Report (drinking water)
CPU Colony Forming Units
CHT Contaminants in Human Tissue program (part of EAGLE)
CMA Census Metropolitan Area
CNMP Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (U.S.)
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CUE Catch per Unit of Effort
CWS Canada-wide Standard (air quality)
DWS Drinking Water System (Canada)
EAGLE Effects on Aboriginals of the Great Lakes program
DWSP Drinking Water Surveillance Program (Canada)
EAPI External Anomaly Prevalence Index
EFP Environmental Farm Plan (Ontario)
EMS Early Mortality Syndrome
FCO Fish Community Objectives
FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis (USDA Forest Service)
FQI Floristic Quality Index
GAP Gap Analysis Program (land cover assessment)
GIS Geographic Information System
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IACI International Alvar Conservation Initiative
IADN Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
IGLD International Great Lakes Datum (water level)
IMAC Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISA Impervious Surface Area
LaMP Lakewide Management Plan
LEL Lowest Effect Level
MAC Maximum Acceptable Concentration
MACT Maximum Available Control Technology
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MGD Million Gallons per Day (3785.4 m3 per day)
MMP Marsh Monitoring Program
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSWG Municipal Solid Waste Generation
NAFTA North America Free Trade Agreement
NATTS National Air Toxics Trend Site (U. S. network)
NEI National Emissions Inventory (U.S.)
NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (CDC)
NIS Nonindigenous species
-------
NLCD National Land Cover Data
NMP Nutrient Management Plan (Ontario)
NOAEC No Observable Adverse Effect Concentrations
NOAEL No Observable Adverse Effect Level
NOBOB No Ballast On Board
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (U.S.)
NPRI National Pollutant Release Inventory (Canada)
NRVIS Natural Resources and Values Information System (OMNR)
ODWQS Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard
OPEP Ontario Pesticides Education Program
PEL Probable Effect Level
PBT Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (chemical)
PNP Permit Nutrient Plans (U.S.)
PGMN Provincial Groundwater-Monitoring Network (Ontario)
RAP Remedial Action Plan
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System (U.S.)
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SOLRIS Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System
SQI Sediment Quality Index
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWMRS Seasonal Water Monitoring and Reporting System (Canada)
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TDI Tolerable Daily Intake
TEQ Toxic Equivalent
TIGER Topological Integrated Geographic Encoding and Reference (U.S. Census Bureau)
TRI Toxics Release Inventory (U.S.)
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
WIC Women Infant and Child (Wisconsin health clinics)
WISCLAND Wisconsin Initiative for Statewide Cooperation on Landscape Analysis and Data
WTP Water Treatment Plant (U.S.)
-------
7.0 Acknowledgments
The State of the Great Lakes 2007 preparation team included:
Environment Canada
Nancy Stadler-Salt, lead
Stacey Cherwaty-Pergentile
Katherine Balpataky
Tracie Greenberg
Leif Matiland
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram, lead
Jackie Adams
Karen Rodriguez
Elizabeth Hinchey Malloy
Paul Horvatin
Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe
Jeffrey May
This report contains contributions from dozens of authors and contributors to the indicator reports
and the Lake and River assessments, and their work is sincerely appreciated. Their voluntary time
and effort to collect, assess and report on conditions of the Great Lakes ecosystem components
reflects their dedication and professional cooperation. Individual authors and contributors are
recognized at the end of their respective report component.
Many governmental and non-governmental sectors were represented by authors and contributors.
We recognize the participation of the following organizations. While we have tried to be
thorough, any misrepresentation of oversight is entirely unintentional, and we sincerely regret any
omissions.
Federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Environment Canada
Air Quality Research Branch
Canadian Wildlife Service
Centre St. Laurent
Climate and Atmospheric Research Directorate
Environmental Conservation Branch
Environmental Protection Branch
Integrated Programs Division
Toxic Prevention Division
Meteorological Service of Canada
National Indicators and Assessment Office
National Water Research Institute
Ontario Region
Great Lakes Environmental Office
Regional Science Advisor's Office
Quebec Region - Environmental Conservation Branch
Industry Canada
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Illinois/Indiana Sea Grant
National Park Service
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Natural Resources Canada
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Natural Resource Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Office of Research and Development
Region 2
Region 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Alpena Fishery Resources Office
Ashland Fishery Resources Office
East Lansing Ecological Services Office
Green Bay Ecological Services Office
Green Bay Fishery Resources Office
Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office
Marquette Biological Station
Reynoldsburg Ohio Ecological Services Office
U.S. Geological Survey
Biological Resources Division
Great Lakes Science Center
Lake Erie Biological Station
Lake Ontario Biological Station
Lake Superior Biological Station
Water Resources Discipline
Provincial and State
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Indiana Geological Survey
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Division of Wildlife
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch
Standards Development Branch
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Quebec
Direction des ecosystems aquatiques
Ministere de la Securite publique du Quebec
Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Division of Public Health
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife
Regional and Municipal
City of Chicago
City of St. Catherines
City of Toronto
Grand River Conservation Authority
Northeast-Midwest Institute
Aboriginal
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
Academic
Brock University, ON
Cornell University, NY
Clemson University, SC
Grand Valley State University, MI
James Madison University, VA
Michigan State University, MI
Michigan Technical University, MI
Northern Michigan University, MI
University of Michigan, MI
University of Minnesota - Duluth, MN
University of Minnesota - St. Paul, MN
University of Windsor, ON
Coalitions
Binational Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Great Lakes Environmental Indicators
Commissions
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
International Joint Commission
Environmental Non-Government Organizations
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------
Bird Studies Canada
Great Lakes Forest Alliance
Great Lakes United
The Nature Conservancy
Industry
American Forests and Paper Association
Council of Great Lakes Industries
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Private Organizations
Bio-Software Environmental Data
Bobolink Enterprises
DynCorp, A CSC Company
Environmental Careers Organization
LURA Consulting
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Stream Benders
Private Citizens
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2006
-------