State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
1998
Selection of Indicators
for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health
Version 3
Draft for Review
Prepared by:
Paul Bertram
United States Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO
77 West Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604
USA
Nancy Stadler-Salt
Environment Canada
867 Lakeshore Rd.,
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
Canada
May 1999
-------
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 History of SOLEC 1
2.0 Indicators 2
2.1 What is an Indicator? 2
2.2 Types of Indicators 3
2.3 Scale 3
2.4 The Need for an Indicator List 3
2.5 Why Should There be Agreement on Indicators? 4
3.0 The Process for Selecting SOLEC Indicators 5
3.1 Pre-SOLEC 98 5
3.2 SOLEC 98 7
3.3 Post-SOLEC 98 7
3.4 The SOLEC Indicators Database 8
4.0 Indicator Core Groups 9
4.1 Nearshore and Open Waters 9
4.1.1 The Indicator Selection Process 9
4.1.2 Problems Encountered 10
4.1.3 Open and Nearshore Waters Indicators 10
4.2 Coastal Wetlands 12
4.2.1 The Indicator Selection Process 13
4.2.2 Problems / Unresolved Issues 13
4.2.3 Coastal Wetland Indicators 15
4.3 Nearshore Terrestrial 16
4.3.1 The Indicator Selection Process 16
4.3.2 Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators 17
4.5 Land Use 19
4.5.1 The Indicator Selection Process 19
4.5.2 Land Use Indicators 19
4.4 Human Health 21
4.4.1 The Indicator Selection Process 21
4.4.2 Human Health Indicators 22
4.6 Societal 23
Stewardship and Sustainability 23
4.6.1 The Indicator Selection Process 24
4.6.2 Societal Indicators 25
Appendices
Appendix 1 — SOLEC Indicator List - Descriptors
Appendix 2 — Listing of All Indicators Entered into Database
Appendix 3 — Relevancies (or Alternate Indicator Groupings)
Appendix 4 — Criteria
Appendix 5 — SOLEC Indicator Database
Appendix 6 — Definitions and Acronyms
Appendix 7 — Referenced Documents
Appendix 8 — Indicator Group, Core Group Members and SOLEC 98 Steering Committee
Members
Appendix 9 — Revisions Since Version 2 of the SOLEC 98 Indicator List
-------
-------
Notice to Readers
The concepts and ideas contained in this paper were assembled for discussion at SOLEC 98
(October 21-23, 1998). The SOLEC deliberations were an important step in the process of
developing a suite of indicators to use in determining the health of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem. Participants were encouraged to review the SOLEC 98 document prior to SOLEC
and provide comments, specific information and / or references during the breakout sessions,
on the comment forms or to the authors. These comments have been considered during the
preparation of this revised post-conference SOLEC Indicator List (Version 3).
The major changes in this report include the deletion of a few indicators, additions of a few
others, revisions to the indicator descriptors of all, summary of a criteria assessment and the
inclusion of a section of the different ways the SOLEC indicators may be sorted and organized.
The Parties to the GLWQA want to establish a consistent, easily
understood suite of indicators that will objectively represent the
state of major ecosystem components across all Great Lakes basins
which the Parties can use to report progress every two years. This
suite of indicators should also be used to assess the Parties
regarding achievement of the purpose of the GLWQA.
To download additional copies of this paper please visit our websites:
http://www.cciw.ca/solec/
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
-------
-------
SOLEC 98
Selection of Indicators For Great Lakes
Ecosystem Health
1.0 Introduction
1.1 History of SOLEC
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) are hosted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, every two years on behalf of the
two countries in response to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Canada
and the United States are known as the Parties to the GLWQA. SOLEC conferences are
intended to focus on the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the major factors
impacting it, and to provide a forum for exchange of this information. These conferences are
not intended to discuss the status of programs needed for its protection and restoration.
Another goal of the conferences is to reach a large audience of people in all levels of the
government, corporate, and not-for-profit sectors who make decisions that affect the Lakes.
The conferences are the focal point of a process of gathering information from a wide range of
sources and engaging a variety of organizations in bringing it together. In the year following
each conference the Governments have prepared a report on the state of the Lakes based in
large part upon the conference process.
The first conference, held in 1994, addressed the entire system with particular emphasis on
aquatic community health, human health, aquatic habitat, toxic contaminants and nutrients in
the water, and the changing Great Lakes economy. The 1996 conference focused on the
nearshore lands and waters of the system where biological productivity is greatest and humans
have had maximum impact. Emphasis was placed on nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, land
by the Lakes, the impact of changing land use, and information availability and management.
For both conferences indicators were chosen and, based on expert opinions, subjective
assessments were provided as to the conditions in terms of good, fair, poor, etc.
In planning for SOLEC 98 the organizers wanted to support further development of easily
understood indicators which objectively represent the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem
components. These would be used every two years to inform the public and report progress in
achieving the purpose of the GLWQA: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Ecosystem. The SOLEC indicators would
reflect conditions of the whole Great Lakes basin and its major components (a general system-
wide overview), and they would draw upon and complement indicators used for more specific
purposes such as Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) or Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for
Areas of Concern.
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators.
-------
2.0 Indicators
2.1 What is an Indicator?
The concept of indicators is quite familiar. They can be thought of as pieces of evidence, or
clues, that tell us something about the condition of something of interest. For example, doctors
use blood pressure and weight to gauge human
health, and economists use interest rates and
housing starts to assess the health of
economies. Similarly, environmental indicators
provide bits of information that are useful to us to
assess our surroundings. Indicators, when
tracked over time, provide information on trends
in the condition of the surroundings.
Indicators can be thought of as
pieces of evidence that help us
assess the condition of
something of interest.
During the organization of a set of indicators for
SOLEC, it became apparent very quickly that a number of related terms and concepts could be
confusing. Some basic definitions are presented here to provide the context for the SOLEC
indicators project. Additional details and examples can be found in Appendix 6.
Vision A general description of the desired state of a lake, geographical area, etc., as
expressed by a group of stakeholders.
Goal A condition or state desired to be brought about through a course of action.
Goals are usually qualitative statements that provide direction for plans and
projects.
Objective Specific descriptions of the state or condition that must be met in order to
achieve goals and the vision.
Indicator A parameter or value that reflects the condition of an environmental (or human
health) component, usually with a significance that extends beyond the
measurement or value itself. Indicators provide the means to assess progress
toward an objective.
Data Point A single measurement of an environmental feature. Data points may be
combined to serve as an indicator.
Target Specific, attainable, quantitative end point or reference values for an indicator
that provides the context for assessing whether or not an objective is being met.
An indicator is more than a data point. It consists of both a value (which may be a direct
environmental measurement or may be derived from measurements) and an end point or
reference value. The indicator is intended to be used, alone or in combination with other
indicators, to assess progress toward one or more objectives. For SOLEC purposes, the
objectives may be expressed in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, LaMPs, RAPs, Fish
Community Objectives, or other generally accepted Great Lakes planning documents. In
addition, to be widely used by decision-makers and others, indicators should be readily
understood by a broad audience.
. SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
2.2 Types of Indicators
There are several classification schemes for indicators, which encompass everything from
human actions (e.g., the number of participants in public hearings) to environmental
measurements (e.g., the number of bald eagle fledglings per breeding pair). SOLEC has
adopted the State—Pressure—Human Activities (Response) indicator model. This framework
is considered one of the most widely accepted classification schemes for environmental
indicators because of its simplicity and broad applicability. The SOLEC indicators can be
classified according to the following types:
State (of the Environment): These indicators address the state of the
environment, the quality and quantity of natural resources, and the state of
human and ecological health. They reflect the ultimate objective of
environmental policy implementation. The indicators are chosen by considering
biological, chemical and physical variables and ecological functions.
Pressure: These indicators describe natural processes and human activities that
impact, stress or pose a threat to environmental quality.
Human Activities (Response): These indicators include individual and
collective actions to halt, mitigate, adapt to, or prevent damage to the
environment. They also include actions for the preservation and the
conservation of the environment and natural resources. Examples of actions
include education, regulation, market incentives, technology changes, etc.
These three indicator types are closely linked. For example, the pressure (or stressor) of a
particular pollutant entering a system may cause a change of state of some species (i.e.
population declines) which may, in turn, cause a response of (additional) restrictions on the
discharge of the pollutant. The additional restrictions reduce the pressure which improves the
state. Most SOLEC indicators will be of types State or Pressure, reflecting the focus of the
Conference.
2.3 Scale
Indicators may be selected to reflect environmental conditions on a variety of scales in both
space and time. From a satellite, one can obtain an image of the entire Great Lakes basin.
From an airplane, one can view an entire lake or lake basin. From a canoe, one can view a
single turtle. Indicators identified for SOLEC 98 are intended to be generally applicable on a
basin-wide or lake basin scale. Lake-by-lake differences may exist in end points or reference
values for some indicators, but the indicators themselves should be relevant across lakes.
Indicators of local conditions, as might be presented in Remedial Action Plans for Areas of
Concern, are not the focus for SOLEC 98. In addition, the indicators identified for SOLEC 98
should reflect changes in conditions in the short, medium, and long-term.
2.4 The Need for an Indicator List
One way to determine the status of the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem is to use
indicators, which address a spectrum of conditions ranging from the health of humans and
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
other living components of the system to the stressors and the activities that cause them.
Ecosystem health indicators reflect ecosystem quality or trends in quality that are useful to
managers and scientists. However, ecosystems are inherently complex so that any single
indicator (or even suites of indicators) cannot be completely representative of all possible
conditions.
The Parties to the GLWQA want to establish a consistent, easily understood suite of indicators
that will objectively represent the state of major ecosystem components across all Great Lakes
basins which the Parties can use to report progress
every two years. This suite of indicators should also be
used to assess the Parties regarding achievement of the
purpose of the GLWQA.
The goal of this project is
to assemble a basin-wide
suite of scientifically valid
indicators that will be
most useful and
understandable in
determining and reporting
the health of the Great
Lakes ecosystem to the
interested public.
The SOLEC 98 process will assemble a set of indicators
that reflects the state of major ecosystem components
for the Great Lakes, including open and nearshore
waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
environments, human health, stewardship, and socio-
economics/land use. The indicators nominated for the
SOLEC list were extracted primarily from existing Great
Lakes documents (see Appendix 7), (e.g., Lakewide
Management Plans, fish community objectives), and
proposed indicators of desired outcomes.
2.5 Why Should There be Agreement on Indicators?
The demand for high quality, relevant data concerning the health of various components of the
Great Lakes ecosystem has been escalating rapidly for the past decade or so. The U.S. and
Canada have spent billions of dollars and uncounted hours attempting to reverse the effects of
cultural eutrophication, toxic chemical pollution, over-fishing, habitat destruction, introduced
species, etc. Environmental management agencies are being asked to demonstrate that past
programs have been successful and that the success of future or continuing programs will be
proportional to the resources expended (financial and personnel time). At the same time, in
both countries, the amount of taxpayers dollars being devoted to Great Lakes environment
issues is decreasing. The demand for high quality data, while operating with limited resources,
is forcing environmental and natural resource agencies to be more selective and more efficient
in the collection and analysis of data.
The most efficient data collection efforts will be those that are cost-effective and relevant to
multiple users. An understanding by stakeholders about what information is necessary and
sufficient to characterize the state of Great Lakes ecosystem health through the use of
indicators, and to measure progress toward ecosystem goals, would facilitate efficient
monitoring and reporting programs. Common databases would provide easier access to
relevant supporting data, and the relative strengths of the agencies could be utilized to improve
the timeliness and quality of the data collection.
The International Joint Commission (IJC) has a responsibility to evaluate progress toward
achieving the goals and objectives of the GLWQA. A set of indicators that is relevant to both
the IJC and the Parties will prevent a dilution of monitoring effort for competing purposes, and
. SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
will foster cooperation between the Parties and the IJC for the common good of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Data will be collected for pre-determined applications, and they will be
available on a timely basis. This system of a core set of indicators will be flexible enough to
expand to take into account new emerging issues.
Access by non-government organizations (NGOs) to environmental data should become easier,
and the data should be more timely and more relevant to a wide variety of stakeholders.
Results of government programs for environmental protection and restoration (or lack thereof)
would be easier to identify.
Achieving consensus on a set of core indicators means that individual programs and
jurisdictions may continue to maintain their own unique indicators.
Individual user groups may need to retain certain indicators or other
data requirements that are not shared by other groups. The
SOLEC process will not attempt to impose a uniform set of
indicators onto all user groups, nor will it discourage new indicator
development work. However, the SOLEC Indicators List is
expected to influence future monitoring and data gathering efforts
for a common broad scale set of indicators. An understanding by
multiple stakeholders about what information is necessary and
sufficient to characterize the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem
should foster cost-efficient, standardized, and relevant monitoring
programs.
...the SOLEC
Indicators List is
expected to
influence future
monitoring and
data gathering
efforts...
3.0 The Process for Selecting SOLEC Indicators
3.1 Pre-SOLEC 98
In preparation for SOLEC 98, a SOLEC Indicators Group was established by the SOLEC
Steering Committee and asked to identify a set of indicators that reflects the state of all major
Great Lakes ecosystem components. The Indicators Group consisted of volunteers from
government, industry, academics, plus contracted writers/coordinators, each an expert in some
aspect of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Because of the high degree of interest in this project,
representatives from the LaMP work groups, IJC, and other government agencies participated
as their time permitted.
The enormous task of finding indicators applicable to the Great Lakes basin ecosystem was
originally divided into seven Core Groups, each lead by experts in the respective fields:
Open waters;
Nearshore waters;
Coastal wetlands;
Nearhshore terrestrial (land by the Lakes);
Human health;
Socio-economics/Land use; and
Stewardship
Each of the seven groups proceeded to select a set of indicators for its domain that would be
proposed as part of the SOLEC list. The Indicators Group coordinated the work, setting out
guidelines for the process (outlined below), arranging conference calls, etc. The groups worked
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 5
-------
largely independently, but each group followed a process somewhat similar to that listed below.
Alternative and/or additional steps in the process followed by some groups are presented in the
specific group sections of this report.
The following is a list of activities that each group undertook to select a list of proposed SOLEC
Indicators:
1. Assembled a group of experts. Each group identified and invited additional experts to
assist in the selection or review of the proposed indicators. Efforts were made to include both
Canadian and U.S. representatives on the expert panels, but representation from every agency
was not attempted. See Appendix 8 for the list of work group participants.
2. Reviewed and extracted proposed indicators from Great Lakes documents. An initial
list of 55 documents was identified early in the process, and this list was the starting point for
each group. The documents included reports from previous SOLEC conferences, the LaMP
work groups, the IJC, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, and others. Each group was also encouraged to find and use other sources for
Great Lakes indicators. See Appendix 7 for a full list of documents.
3. Identified potential indicators from non-Great Lakes documents. Some groups found
that few indicators had been proposed for the Great Lakes for their domain or that other, non-
Great Lakes sources provided relevant indicators or approaches. As time permitted or need
required, these additional sources were consulted, and indicators not previously proposed for
the Great Lakes were identified. Appendix 7 also includes these documents.
4. Entered information about potential indicators into a database. A relational database
was created specifically to assist the Indicator Group assemble, maintain and sort through the
potential indicators for the SOLEC list. Each indicator extracted from (or mined out of) the
documents was entered into the electronic database. See Section 3.4 and Appendix 5 for a
detailed description of the database, the information retained about each indicator, and its
potential usefulness to other user groups. In addition, see Appendix 2 for a full listing of all
indicators entered into the database.
5. Screened the indicators using a broad set of SOLEC criteria. There were three general
criteria that had to be met for an indicator to be put forward as a candidate for a SOLEC
indicator:
Necessary - Do we really need to monitor a particular indicator? We want to gather
information that is necessary to assess ecosystem health.
Sufficient - Will the suite of indicators give us enough information to assess the health
of the Great Lakes ecosystem? We don't want to make an overall assessment
of ecosystem health from too few indicators.
Feasible - Can the information reasonably be gathered, considering budgetary and
monitoring constraints? The ideal situation would be if a monitoring program is
already in place to gather the needed information.
6. Selected a subset (short list) of indicators from the database to be proposed for the
SOLEC Indicators List based on expert opinion. The groups varied considerably in their
approach to this critical task. For some groups (e.g., coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial),
6 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
an active expert panel reviewed the entire list of indicators related to their domain, provided
advice about the selection of an appropriate subset, and/or were involved in the combining or
modification of indicators to create a subset more suitable for SOLEC needs. For other groups,
the group leaders provided most of the energy for identifying the subset, and the expert panel
was consulted during the process or provided review comments. Consultation with the expert
panels is expected to continue up to and beyond SOLEC 98.
7. Screened the short list of indicators with a comprehensive set of SOLEC criteria. A
set of selection criteria were adapted from a recent EPA document, Process for Selecting
Environmental Indicators and Supporting Data, and modified slightly to better fit this project.
These 21 criteria fall under seven categories: validity, understandibility, interpretability,
information richness, data availability, timeliness, and cost considerations. These criteria will
continue to be the basis for the review, selection and refinement of the indicators proposed for
the SOLEC list. Reviewers of the SOLEC list have been encouraged to refer to these criteria
when suggesting improvements, additions or deletions from the list. These criteria can be
found in Appendix 4.
8. Sent the short list (Version 1) out for review. During the review process of the selected
indicators, stakeholders have been invited to provide advice on what indicators would be useful
and interesting - June, 1998
9. Comments from review considered and revisions made. A draft report and SOLEC
Indicator List (Version 2) were prepared for discussions at SOLEC 98 in October 1998.
10. Identify ecosystem components for which additional indicator development is
needed. This step has been and will continue to be considered throughout the process.
3.2 SOLEC 98
Many discussions about the Indicators List were held at SOLEC 98. The conference
workshops looked at the individual core group suites of indicators as well as the total suite of
indicators (basin-wide overview). Many comments, concerns, suggestions and plain old-
fashioned good advice were garnered from these sessions. A more detailed description of the
SOLEC 98 indicator workshops can be found in the "SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings"
document (available on-line at http://www.cciw.ca/solec/).
3.3 Post-SOLEC 98
The majority of the comments from the SOLEC 98 workshops were thoroughly discussed at a
meeting of the core group leaders in January 1999. As a result of these discussions a few
indicators were deleted or combined with others, a few new indicators were added and the
remainder were revised as appropriate. See Appendix 9 for the current list of the SOLEC
indicators.
After the revisions were made, each indicator was subjected to a clarification and consistency
check. The purpose of this was to ensure that the indicators are clear and understandable and
that they all follow a similar format. This process resulted in a much better indicator descriptor
(see Appendix 1) and also helped to identify gaps in information as well as identifying future
research needs.
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 7
-------
For each indicator, a third party assessment against the SOLEC criteria was also undertaken -
the results of which can be seen in Appendix 4.
In addition, and as a result of comments heard at SOLEC 98, the indicators have been
categorized in several ways, in order to meet the needs of SOLEC and other interested
stakeholders. The indicators can now be sorted and organized for many different means (for
example, if you may be interested in seeing a list of all the SOLEC indicators that relate to the
GLWQA Annex 12, Persistent Toxic Substances, these can then be sub-categorized by state,
pressure, and human activity). For more details on many indicator sorting possibilities please
see Appendix 3.
Version 3 of the Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Ecosystem Health is being
distributed for broad review to a wide variety of stakeholders. It will be reviewed from
both a technical standpoint and a policy standpoint in the hopes of generating an
understanding of the project, as well as getting buy-in and commitment. Comments
received from this review will be used to generate the next version of the indicator list
and report, which will be appended to the 1999 State of the Great Lakes report. The 1999
State of the Great Lakes report will be released at the end of August 1999.
3.4 The SOLEC Indicators Database
To assist the Indicator Group collect and sort indicators from existing documents, a database
was designed to retain two main types of information about each indicator: 1) information useful
for sorting the indicators according to various user perspectives, and 2) a detailed description of
each indicator. Because the database contains information about indicators, but does not
contain any of the environmental measurements, the information is more appropriately
described as meta-data.
Within the database, each indicator under consideration for the SOLEC list was designated a
"Candidate." After a decision about an indicator has been reached regarding its inclusion on
the SOLEC list, its status is changed to "Yes," "No," or "Concept Retained." See Appendix 5 for
more details about these designations.
The "sorting" part of the database contains fields whose elements are selected by pull down
pick lists. For example, information is stored concerning the indicator source program or group,
type of indicator (i.e. state, pressure or human activity), and applicable SOLEC group (i.e. open
waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands...). Nearly all of the indicators entered into the
database are associated with some or all of these fields.
The "description" part of the database contains text fields that provide details about the
indicator itself. This information is provided, to the best extent possible, for each of the
indicators being proposed to the SOLEC list. For many of the other indicators in the database,
this information was either not available or remains within the source documents but was not
transferred to the database. The text fields include: indicator purpose, ecosystem objective,
indicator features, desired endpoint (or range, outcome or other reference value), indicator
limitations, indicator interpretation, and additional comments.
Originally conceived as an organizing and sorting tool for the SOLEC Indicator Group, the
database may have value to other user groups. Therefore, an explanation and/or rationale for
each of the database fields is provided in Appendix 5. Since SOLEC 98 work has proceeded
8 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
on the database to make it more useable to a broader audience as well as making it more user
friendly. An interactive version is expected to go on-line by the summer 1999. Please check
the SOLEC web sites frequently.
4.0 Indicator Core Groups
Please note: the following sub-sections have been substantially edited for brevity. If you require
further details on the process of each core group then please refer to the October 1998 draft of
"Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health."
4.1 Nearshore and Open Waters
Definition of Nearshore and Open Waters
For the purposes of SOLEC 98 the nearshore and open waters are defined as in the SOLEC 96
background paper "Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes":
A band of varying width around the perimeter of each lake between the land and
deeper offshore waters of the lake. The band begins at the shoreline or the
lakeward edge of the coastal wetlands and extends offshore to the deepest lake-
bed depth contour at which the thermocline typically intersects with the lake bed
in late summer or early fall. Also included as nearshore waters are the Great
Lakes connecting channels and the reaches of tributaries that are subject to
seiche activity. Offshore Waters, as the name implies, are all of the waters
beyond the lakeward edge of the nearshore waters.
Scale
An attempt was made to develop individual indicators that could be used to provide basin-wide
status and trend information for the aquatic resources and habitats of the Great Lakes.
Whenever possible, reference values have been provided specific to each lake to reflect
significant natural differences between lakes, whether those differences occurred historically or
are found currently.
4.1.1 The Indicator Selection Process
The Open Waters (OW) and Nearshore Waters (NSW) Core Groups proceeded independently
during the initial phases. However, many of the indicators in one group were duplicated by the
other. The two groups and their lists were consolidated for reconsideration and elimination of
duplicative entries.
The groups' philosophical approach was to
present the minimum number of indicators
needed to address the important environmental
issues of concern. The indicators needed to
have solid scientific underpinnings yet be
presented in terms that could be easily
understood by a non-technical audience.
...present the minimum number
of indicators needed to address
the important environmental
issues...
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators.
-------
The candidate indicator list was reduced, and subject experts for each indicator topic were
sought. In most cases the experts provided the text for the descriptive information. At SOLEC
98 the Open and Nearshore Waters list contained 19 indicators. Based on comments and
suggestions from the conference two indicators were moved to the Coastal Wetlands group,
and one composite indicator was split into four separate indicators, for a new total of 20
indicators. The indicators have been revisited by the experts with substantial revisions made to
the content.
4.1.2 Problems Encountered
Descriptive information for each indicator has been expanded on since SOLEC 98, but in some
cases it is still incomplete. Technical experts who could address the candidate indicators in
detail were often difficult to enlist.
4.1.3 Open and Nearshore Waters Indicators
Note: The numbers preceding the indicator name (here and in all the following Core Group
sections) are a means of identifying the indicator in the database.
STATE
Aquatic Habitat (Indicator #0006)
This indicator will measure the quality and amount of aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes
ecosystem and indirectly measure progress in rehabilitating degraded habitat and
associated aquatic communities.
Salmon and Trout (Indicator #0008)
This indicator will measure populations of introduced trout and salmon populations and
indirectly measure the potential impacts on native trout and salmon populations and the
preyfish populations that support them.
Walleye and Hexagenia (Indicator #0009)
This indicator will measure status and trends in walleye and Hexagenia populations, and
indirectly assess the basic structure of warm-coolwater predator and prey communities;
the health of percid populations; and the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Preyfish Populations (Indicator #0017)
This indicator will measure abundance and diversity of preyfish populations and
indirectly measure the stability of predator species necessary to maintain the biological
integrity of each lake.
Native Unionid Mussels (Indicator #0068)
This indicator will measure the population status of native Unionid populations and
indirectly measure the impact of the invading Dreissenid mussel on the Unionid mussel.
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi) (Indicator #0093)
This indicator will measure status and trends in lake trout and D. hoyi populations and
indirectly measure the basic structure of coldwater predator and prey communities and
the general health of the ecosystem.
10 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish (Indicator #0101)
This indicator will measure deformities, erosion, lesions and tumors (DELT) index (Ohio
EPA) in nearshore fish and indirectly measure degraded habitat within the Great Lakes.
Benthos Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #0104)
This indicator will measure species diversity and abundance in the aquatic oligochaete
community and indirectly measure the relative health of the benthic community.
Phytoplankton Populations (Indicator #0109)
This indicator will measure species and size composition of phytoplankton populations in
the Great Lakes and indirectly measure the impact of nutrient enrichment, contamination
and invasive exotic predators on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Zooplankton Populations as Indicators of Ecosystem Health (Indicator #0116)
This indicator will measure changes in community composition, mean individual size,
biomass and production of zooplankton populations in the Great Lakes basin, and
indirectly measure changes in food-web dynamics due to changes in vertebrate or
invertebrate predation, and changes in system productivity; the type and intensity of
predation; and energy transfer within a system.
PRESSURE
Sea Lamprey (Indicator #0018)
This indicator will estimate sea lamprey abundance and assess their impact on other
fish populations in the Great Lakes.
Fish Entrainment (Indicator #0072)
This indicator will measure water withdrawal rates at once-through cooling at steam-
electric and pumped-storage power plants in the Great Lakes and connecting channels,
and indirectly measure site-specific entrainment mortality of fishes by using water
withdrawal rates to calculate an annual, aggregated, basin-wide estimate.
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (Indicator #0111)
This indicator will measure total phosphorus levels in the Great Lakes and indirectly
measure degradation of the aquatic ecosystem and the loss of beneficial uses and to
indirectly measure human-induced causes of phosphorus loadings.
Contaminants in Recreational Fish (Indicator #0113)
This indicator will measure levels of PBT chemicals in fish and indirectly measure the
potential harm to human health through consumption of contaminated fish.
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners (Indicator #0114)
This indicator will measure levels of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners
and indirectly measure potential harm to fish-eating wildlife.
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (Indicator #0115)
To directly measure chemical concentration levels in colonial waterbirds and to indirectly
measure the impact of these contaminants on the colonial waterbird population and
other aquatic wildlife.
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 11
-------
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals (Indicator #0117)
This indicator will measure the annual average loadings of priority toxic chemicals from
the atmosphere to the Great Lakes and indirectly measure potential impacts of toxic
chemicals from atmospheric deposition on human health and the Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystem, as well as indirectly measure the progress of various Great Lakes programs
toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters (Indicator #0118)
This indicator will measure the concentration of priority toxic chemicals in offshore
waters and indirectly measure the potential impacts of toxic chemicals on human health
and the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as well as indirectly measure the progress of
various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores (Indicator #0119)
This indicator will measure concentrations of IJC priority toxic chemicals in sediments
and indirectly measure potential harm to aquatic ecosystems by contaminated
sediments, as well as indirectly measure the progress of various Great Lakes programs
toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Contaminant Exchanges between Media: Air to Water and Water to Sediment (Indicator #0120)
This indicator will measure loadings of IJC priority pollutants to the Great Lakes and
indirectly measure the potential harm these contaminants pose to human, animal and
aquatic life within the Great Lakes, as well as indirectly measure the progress of various
Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
4.2 Coastal Wetlands
Coastal Wetlands Definition
The extent of Great Lakes coastal wetlands fluctuates greatly with natural lake processes which
can particularly affect the lake-side boundary. For SOLEC, the inland boundary is the extent of
wetlands as far as the 100-year floodline of the Lakes (as described in the SOLEC 96
background paper "Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes").
Coastal wetlands differ from inland wetlands in that they are shaped by large-lake processes,
including waves, wind tides, seiches, and especially seasonal and long-term fluctuations in
water levels. They include emergent marshes, strand communities, wet meadows, submergent
communities, swamps, and peatlands. They occur in a number of geomorphological settings:
open shoreline, unrestricted bays, shallow sloping beaches, river deltas, restricted riverine
settings, Lake-connected inlands, barrier beaches, and diked wetlands. The SOLEC 96
background paper "Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes" provides a detailed description of the
types of coastal wetlands and the geomorphological settings in which they occur.
Indicating Health and Integrity
To select indicators of the health and integrity of coastal wetlands, the following definition of
coastal wetland health was used:
capability to self-maintain assemblages of organisms that have a composition and
functional organization comparable to natural habitat;
resiliency to natural disturbances; and
risk factors or human-induced pressures at an "acceptable level".
12 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Scale
For the purpose of SOLEC 98, the recommended indicators should be basin-wide. The IJC
suggests an understanding of a system at any scale requires indicators of at least three scales:
a) the level in question; b) the level above for context; and c) the level below for mechanisms.
In the case of coastal wetland indicators we are considering indicators at the following scales:
individual Lake basins, the Great Lakes basin, and a set of sites. Monitoring at sites will require
a choice of representative sites.
Representative Wetland Sites
Representative sites have yet to be chosen for monitoring the recommended indicators.
Ideally, sites should represent wetland distribution among the Lakes, and take into account
influencing pressures, wetland types, and geomorphological settings. In part the selection will
be based on the representative reaches identified through the "Coastal Wetlands Biodiversity
Investment Areas" paper. They should also include high quality (i.e., relatively pristine)
reference sites to serve as baselines for comparison to the more degraded sites. It should be
recognized, of course, that some parts of the Great Lakes basin no longer have any reference
sites of this quality, and reference sites themselves will be degraded to some degree. This is
particularly true of Lake Ontario, which has had regulated water levels for about 40 years.
4.2.1 The Indicator Selection Process
Potential coastal wetlands indicators were "mined" from eleven documents. Reviewing the
documents and listing information for indicators related to wetland health yielded 330 potential
indicators for further consideration. These were grouped into eleven categories: Area, Habitat,
Vegetation, Community/Diversity, Benthos, Fish, Contaminants, Nutrients, Human/Land
Use/Terrestrial, Species, and Physical Factor in order to identify and remove duplication.
Based on the SOLEC criteria (Appendix 4), the indicators were ranked by the Coastal Wetlands
expert panel and those that ranked low were no longer considered. The expert panel made
recommendations of the best indicators, but in some cases additional indicators were
suggested.
Because SOLEC primarily focuses on pressures and the state of the ecosystem, and does not
make recommendations on programs, the coastal wetlands group did not recommend human
activities indicators. The list was further refined and revised so that there were 15
recommended indicators in the coastal wetlands suite for SOLEC 98. However, since the
conference, a few indicators have been moved into the coastal wetlands suite, some have been
deleted and some have been combined with others, so that there are now 13 indicators in the
coastal wetlands suite.
4.2.2 Problems / Unresolved Issues
Difficulties Encountered with the Process
For SOLEC purposes, indicators need to have specific measures that can either utilize data
being provided by an existing monitoring program or provide sufficient detail that a new
monitoring program can be designed. However, few of the documents contained any
significant information beyond the name of the indicator, and most of the indicator names were
vague (e.g., quantity and quality of wetlands).
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 13
-------
However, indicators clearly could not have been developed without first reviewing what others
had done. With the indicators grouped into broad classes, they could be easily compared,
modified, or combined. Thus, the process involved an additional step, but produced a proposed
suite of indicators that the coastal wetlands group feels will allow an adequate assessment of
the ecological health of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Unresolved Issues
Protocols for monitoring several of the indicators still need to be refined. The wide natural
fluctuations associated with many features of Great Lakes coastal wetlands complicate the
setting of desired endpoints. Some may require modifications. The method to select
representative sites for monitoring also needs refinement.
The segregation of coastal wetlands from the other groups was necessary for a manageable
process. This organization, however, hindered some broader ecosystem considerations.
Positioned between the lakes and upland, and affected by processes in each, healthy coastal
wetlands depend on healthy lake and watershed ecosystems. As such, coastal wetlands could
be considered indicators of the health of the whole basin ecosystem (and so all that would be
needed); or conversely, the health of the Land Use, Nearshore Terrestrial and Open and
Nearshore Waters could indicate coastal wetland health
(and wetland indicators would not be needed). These links
and their implications for what is necessary and sufficient
could not be explored.
In general, if there is
broad agreement
among the Great Lakes
constituency on
SOLEC indicators for
coastal wetlands,
organizations at all
levels may be
responsive to sharing
monitoring expertise
among themselves
without any one
organization taking an
undue burden.
There are few existing monitoring programs for Great
Lakes coastal wetlands. Efforts were made in the coastal
wetlands group to select indicators for which there are
existing data and monitoring programs, particularly for the
pressure indicators. Many of the indicators will require new
or improved monitoring programs. For the new programs to
attain SOLEC's feasibility criterion, it is suggested that:
Monitoring be conducted by volunteers, where
possible. Volunteers would require training and
adherence to monitoring protocols and quality
assurance plans; however, this is true for
professionals as well.
Monitoring frequencies for each indicator will also
need to be determined. While some indicators may
need to be monitored several times a year, the more
intensive (and expensive) monitoring may only need
to be conducted every few years.
Different organizations may be able to incorporate
new protocols into their ongoing monitoring
programs, without an inordinate increase in costs.
14
. SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
4.2.3 Coastal Wetland Indicators
STATE
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health (Indicator #4501)
This indicator will measure the diversity of the invertebrate community, especially
aquatic insects, and indirectly measure habitat suitability and biological integrity of Great
Lakes coastal wetlands.
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (Indicator #4502)
This indicator will measure fish community diversity and indirectly measure habitat
suitability for Great Lakes coastal wetland fish communities.
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumours (DELT) in Coastal Wetland Fish (Indicator #4503)
This indicator will measure the incidence of DELT in fish of Great Lakes coastal
wetlands and to indirectly measure the ecosystem health of Great Lakes coastal
wetlands.
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #4504)
This indicator will measure the species composition and relative abundance of frogs and
toads and indirectly measure the condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to the
health of this ecologically important component of wetland communities.
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #4507)
This indicator will measure the wetland bird species composition and relative abundance
and indirectly measure the condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to the health
of this ecologically and culturally important component of wetland communities.
Coastal Wetland Area by Type (Indicator #4510)
To measure periodic changes in area (particularly losses) of coastal wetland types,
taking into account natural variations.
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type (Indicator #4511)
To measure the gain in restored wetland area and the success of conservation /
rehabilitation efforts.
Presence, Abundance and Expansion of Invasive Plants (Indicator #4513)
To measure the decline of vegetative diversity as characterized by the increase in the
presence, abundance, and expansion of invasive plants and to provide a surrogate
measure of coastal wetland quality because the presence of invasive plant species
generally indicates the level of coastal manipulation or input of sediments which cause
wetland degradation.
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #7055)
This indicator will measure the quality of adjoining upland habitat which can have a
major effect on wetland biota, many of which require upland habitat for part of their life
cycle.
PRESSURE
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (Indicator #4506)
This indicator will measure the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals and mercury
in Snapping Turtle eggs and indirectly measure the concentrations, as well as identify
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 15
-------
the source, of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in food webs of Great Lakes
coastal wetlands.
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4516)
To indicate sediment load to coastal wetlands and its potential impact on wetland health.
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4860)
This indicator will measure the amount of nitrate and total phosphorus affecting Great
Lakes coastal wetlands and indirectly measure the human influence on nutrient levels,
as excess nutrients can be detrimental to the health of coastal wetlands.
Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator #4861)
This indicator will measure lake level trends that may significantly affect components of
wetland ecosystems, and indirectly measure the effect of water level regulation on
emergent wetland extent.
4.3 Nearshore Terrestrial
4.3.1 The Indicator Selection Process
A process similar to the Coastal Wetlands group was followed to develop a proposed set of
indicators of the health of the nearshore environment.
First, potential indicators were mined from reports and documents, most of which related to the
Great Lakes, but a reports few had broader applications (see Appendix 7). With the help of an
expert panel the initial list of 145 indicators was winnowed down by assessing against the basic
criteria (necessary, sufficient and feasible), removing duplication, and combining or creating
new indicators where necessary. This reduced the list quite considerably. Then each of the
potential nearshore terrestrial indicators was described more fully. Sixteen indicators for the
nearshore terrestrial ecosystem and 3 basin-wide indicators were presented at SOLEC 98.
Since the conference, the nearshore terrestrial core group has revised many of the indicators
and has worked quite closely with most of the other core groups in order to integrate and
reduce duplication of indicators. Twelve indicators remain in the nearshore terrestrial suite, and
the identified basin-wide indicators have been integrated into the Land Use group.
The Indicator Framework
Indicators are provided to highlight physical, biological, and chemical stressors. Within the
state categories, indicators are proposed both for habitat status, and for the health and stability
of ecological communities/species. Human activities (responses) consider direct actions, such
as recovery plans written or habitats protected.
16 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Issues and Next Steps
A protocol will need to be developed for each of the selected indicators which will establish such
details as:
- whether monitoring should take place across the entire nearshore area or in "sentinal
sites" only;
- whether indicator results should be reported as trends over time, or in comparison to
historical conditions or a defined target (such as RAP habitat targets);
- the degree to which existing monitoring programs and databases can be adapted to
each indicator.
4.3.2 Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators (within 1 kilometer of shore)
STATE
Indicators related to habitats:
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover (Indicator #8136)
This indicator will measure the amount of natural land cover that falls within 1 km of the
shoreline and indirectly measure the impact of artificial coastal structures and
primary/secondary home development on the extent and quality of nearshore terrestrial
ecosystems in the Great Lakes.
Indicators related to health and stability of ecological communities/species:
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities (Indicator #8129)
This indicator will measure changes in area and quality of the twelve special lakeshore
communities and indirectly identify the sources of threats to some of the most
ecologically significant habitats in the Great Lakes terrestrial nearshore, as well as
indirectly measure the success of management activities associated with the protection
status.
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
(Indicator #8137)
This indicator will measure the composition
and abundance of plant and wildlife
species over time within the nearshore
area and indirectly measure adverse
effects on the nearshore terrestrial
ecosystem due to stresses such as climate
change and/or increasing land use
intensity.
For the purposes of applying
these indicators, the
nearshore terrestrial
environment was defined as
those lands within
approximately one kilometer
of the Great Lakes shoreline.
PRESSURE
Indicators related to physical stressors:
Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator #4861) - this is also a Coastal Wetland indicator
This indicator will measure lake level trends that may significantly affect components of
wetland ecosystems, and indirectly measure the effect of water level regulation on
emergent wetland extent.
Extent of Hardened Shoreline (Indicator #8131)
This indicator will measure the amount of shoreline habitat altered by the construction of
shore protection, and indirectly measure the potential harm to aquatic life in the
nearshore as a result of conditions (i.e., shoreline erosion) created by habitat alteration.
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators.
17
-------
Nearshore Land Use Intensity (Indicator #8132)
This indicator will measure the types and extent of major land uses and indirectly
measure the effects of land use on significant natural features or processes, particularly
on the twelve special lakeshore communities as defined in "Land by the Lakes," a paper
from the SOLEC '96.
Artificial Coastal Structures (Indicator #8146)
This indicator will measure the number of artificial coastal structures on the Great Lakes
and indirectly measure potential harm to coastal habitat by sand transport disruption.
Indicators related to biological stressors:
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species (Indicator #8134)
This indicator will measure the type and abundance of plant and wildlife problem species
in landscapes bordering the Great Lakes and indirectly measure the potential threat to
the health of nearshore ecological processes and communities.
Indicators related to chemical stressors:
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles (Indicator #8135)
This indicator will measure the concentrations of organic and heavy metal contamination
in Bald Eagle eggs, blood, and feathers and indirectly measure the concentrations, as
well as identify the source, of these contaminants in the food web. Also, it will directly
measure injury to wildlife from organic and heavy metal contaminants, and provide an
indirect measure of the potential harm to human health through the consumption of
contaminated fish.
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter (Indicator #8147)
This indicator will measure the contaminant concentrations found in American otter
populations within the Great Lakes basin and indirectly measure the health of Great
Lakes habitat, progress in Great Lakes ecosystem management, and/or concentrations
of contaminants present in the Great Lakes.
HUMAN ACTIVITIES (RESPONSE)
Community / Species Plans (Indicator #8139)
This indicator will measure the number of plans that are needed, developed, and
implemented to maintain or restore high quality, natural nearshore communities and
federally / nationally listed endangered, threatened, and vulnerable species, and will
measure the type and number of communities and species that require protection. This
indicator will also indirectly measure the type and number of communities that will
potentially be maintained / recovered through plan development and implementation.
Shoreline Management Under Integrated Management Plans (Indicator #8141)
This indicator will measure the amount of Great Lakes shoreline managed under an
integrated management plan, and indirectly measure the degree of stewardship of
shoreline processes and habitat.
Nearshore Protected Areas (Indicator #8149)
This indicator will measure the kilometers/miles of shoreline in protective status and the
kind of protection in place and indirectly measure the preservation and restoration of
habitat and biodiversity; the protection of adjacent nearshore waters from physical
disturbance and undesirable inputs (nutrients and toxics); and the preservation of
18 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
essential links in the migration (lifecycle) of birds and butterflies which migrate
continentally.
4.5 Land Use
4.5.1 The Indicator Selection Process
Poor land use by humans is the predominant cause of environmental problems in the
ecosystems of the Great Lakes basin. In spite of considerable of evidence of the significant
disadvantages of urban sprawl, this development form
continues to be the most commonly applied approach to
new development. Clearly, as was concluded in SOLEC
96, there is a need for better ways of influencing
decision-makers in the Great Lakes basin to make
environmentally informed development decisions. The
land use indicators are intended to meet that need. . • .
basin ecosystem.
Several documents and reports were consulted to
develop an initial list of Land Use indicators (see
Appendix 7). Using the basic criteria of necessary, sufficient and feasible, the list was then
shortened. An expert panel was formed to review, revise and add further detail to these
indicators. Sixteen Land Use indicators were presented at SOLEC 98. This group generated a
lot of interest at the conference and substantial comments and suggestions were made. In
response to this, the two societal indicators have been moved to the new Societal core group.
The remaining Land Use indicators have undergone major revisions - some have been deleted,
some split into two or more indicators, and indicators from other core groups have been added
to the Land Use group. Fourteen indicators remain in the Land Use core group.
Poor land use is a major
source of environmental
stress in the Great Lakes
4.5.2 Land Use Indicators
STATE
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #8150)
This indicator will measure the status of breeding bird populations and communities and
indirectly measure the health of breeding bird habitat in the Great Lakes basin.
Threatened Species (Indicator #8161)
This indicator will measure the number, extent and viability of threatened species, key
components of biodiversity in the Great Lakes basin, and indirectly measure the
ecological integrity of processes and systems (e.g., sand accretion, hydrologic regime)
within Great Lakes habitats.
PRESSURE
Urban Density (Indicator #7000)
This indicator will measure human population density and indirectly measure the degree
of inefficient land use and urban sprawl for communities in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 19
-------
Land Conversion (Indicator #7002)
This indicator will measure changes in land use within the Great Lakes basin and
indirectly measure the potential impact of land conversion on Great Lakes ecosystem
health.
Mass Transportation (Indicator #7012)
This indicator will measure the percentage of commuters using public transportation and
indirectly measure the stress to the Great Lakes ecosystem caused by the use of the
private motor vehicle and its resulting high resource utilization and pollution creation.
Habitat Fragmentation (Indicator #8114)
This indicator will measure the amount and distribution of natural habitat remaining
within Great Lakes ecoregions and indirectly measure the effect of human land uses
such as housing, agriculture, flood control, and recreation on habitat needed to support
fish and wildlife species.
Stream Flow and Sediment Discharge (Indicator #8142)
This indicator will measure the amount of water entering the Great Lakes through major
tributaries and connecting channels, and indirectly measure the amount of sediment
available for transport to nourish coastal ecosystems.
HUMAN ACTIVITIES (Response)
Brownfield Redevelopment (Indicator #7006)
This indicator will measure the acreage of redeveloped brownfields and indirectly
measure the rate at which society responds to the opportunity to rehabilitate and reuse
former developed land sites that have been degraded by poor use.
Use of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (Indicator #7028)
This indicator will measure the number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans
and indirectly measure environmentally friendly practices in place; such as, integrated
pest management to reduce the unnecessary use of pesticides, zero tillage and other
soil preservation practices and measures to reduce energy consumption, and prevention
of ground and surface water contamination.
Green Planning Process (Indicator #7053)
This indicator will measure the number of municipalities with environmental and
resource conservation management plans in place and indirectly measure the extent to
which municipalities utilize environmental standards to guide their management
decisions with respect to land planning, resource conservation and natural area
preservation.
Water Consumption (Indicator #7056)
This indicator will measure the amount of water used in the Great Lakes basin and
indirectly measure the amount of wastewater generated and the demand for resources
to pump and treat water.
Energy Consumption (Indicator #7057)
This indicator will measure the amount of energy consumed in the Great Lakes basin
and indirectly measure the demand for resources from the ecosystem, as well as the
levels of pollution and other associated negative impacts on the ecosystem. Energy
20 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
consumption is a good proxy for resource use, waste and pollution creation, and
ecosystem stress.
Wastewater Pollution (Indicator #7059)
This indicator will measure loadings of wastewater pollutants discharged into the Great
Lakes basin and indirectly measure inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e.,
wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health.
Solid Waste Generation (Indicator #7060)
This indicator will measure the amount of solid waste generated per capita per capita in
the Great Lakes basin and indirectly measure inefficiencies in human economic activity
(i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem
health.
4.4 Human Health
4.4.1 The Indicator Selection Process
There is interest in having indices or indicators for monitoring progress or changes in human
health as it relates to the Great Lakes environment. These can be either changes over time or
comparisons between geographic regions. The premise is that as environmental conditions
change in the Great Lakes basin, so does the state of the health of the population in that
region. Such indicators are also needed to assess the effectiveness of health and environment
policies and actions in protecting or improving the health of the Great Lakes basin population.
With our present knowledge, it is clear that no
single indicator is adequate to establish
associations and trends between human health
and the environment. Consequently, indicators
...it is clear that no single
indicator is adequate to
establish associations and
were chosen which, as a whole, serve to monitor . . . , , ..,
human health as it relates to the Great Lakes trends between human health
environment. The indicators chosen are by no and the environment.
means exhaustive but represent an initial effort
at establishing health-related indicators for the
Great Lakes population. As research progresses in this area, other indicators can be added to
the current suite of indicators, or may replace them altogether.
For practical purposes, this effort to develop health indicators for SOLEC has focused primarily
on indicators of human exposure to environmental contaminants along with some geographic
patterns and trends in disease incidence. The indicators of exposure are either contaminant
levels measured in human tissues, such as breast milk or blood, estimates of daily intake of
persistent contaminants by the Great Lakes population, or contaminant levels in air, drinking
water and recreational water. The contribution of these exposures as causative factors in
disease, such as cancer and birth defects, can be difficult to identify. However, the analysis of
geographic patterns and trends in incidence rates can serve to identify potential areas of
concern and may lead to testable hypotheses regarding the correlation of environmental
exposure with human disease.
The extensive initial list of indicators identified by the Human Health Core Group was reduced
by eliminating those indicators that were thought not to be informative, either because 1)
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 21
-------
specific exposure media were unlikely to make a relatively significant contribution to overall
contamination exposure levels, 2) some contaminants were unlikely to be detected in specific
media, or 3) difficulties in obtaining information in a comprehensive manner. A greater weight
was given to those indicators that represented data available from current monitoring programs,
to those indicators that were supported by an existing database, and to those indicators that
were more likely to provide information that could be used to evaluate the relationships between
contaminant exposures and health. The final eight indicators have been revised, based on
comments and suggestions given at the SOLEC 98 workshops.
Although there exist many other indicators of health such as life expectancy, birth weight and
well being, these were not included in the final list because the impact of current environmental
conditions on these indicators is either not well understood or not well developed. In many
cases, improvements in these indicators have occurred even during times of changing
environmental quality due to population growth and industrialization in the Great Lakes basin.
Advances in public health, medicine, access to health care, education, and economy
contributed greatly to improvements in the health of the population. However, as we gain more
information on the relationships between these parameters and the environment, their inclusion
as future indicators may be warranted.
4.4.2 Human Health Indicators
STATE
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence (Indicator #4179)
This indicator will measure the disease incidences in the Great Lakes basin population
and also will assess areas in the Great Lakes basin where further investigation of the
exposure and effects of environmental pollutants on human health is needed.
PRESSURE (Indicators of Exposure)
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters (Indicator #4081)
This indicator will measure coliform contaminant levels in nearshore recreational waters,
and act as a surrogate indicator for other pathogen types, to indirectly measure potential
harm to human health through body contact with nearshore recreational waters.
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue (Indicator #4083)
This indicator will measure the concentration of PBT chemicals in Great Lakes fish and
indirectly measure the exposure of humans to PBT chemicals through consumption of
Great Lakes fish caught via sport and subsistence fishing.
Chemical Contaminant Intake From Air, Water Soil and Food (Indicator #4088)
This indicator will estimate the daily intake of PBT chemicals from all sources and
indirectly estimate the potential harm to human health and the efficacy of policies and
technology intended to reduce PBT chemicals.
Drinking Water Quality (Indicator #4175)
This indicator will measure chemical and microbial contaminant levels in drinking water
and indirectly measure potential for human exposure to drinking water contaminants, as
well as indirectly measure the efficacy of policies and technologies to ensure safe
drinking water.
22 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Air Quality (Indicator #4176)
This indicator will monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem and indirectly
measure the potential impact of air quality on human health in the Great Lakes basin.
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue (Indicator #4177)
This indicator will measure the concentration of PBT chemicals in human tissues and
indirectly measure the efficacy of policies and technology to reduce PBT chemicals in
the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Radionuclides (Indicator #4178)
This indicator will measure concentrations of artificial radionuclides in cow's milk,
surface water, drinking water, and air, and indirectly estimate the potential for human
exposure to artificial radionuclides.
4.6 Societal
In the period between SOLEC 98 and Spring 1999 the decision was made to broaden the
scope of the Stewardship Core Group to include socio-economic and other societal indicators.
Since this group now housed the indicators of society, it was renamed "Societal" in order to
reflect this change. In the future, it is hoped that an indicator of social well-being will also be
included in this group.
Stewardship and Sustainability
A "steward" is someone who manages the affairs of a household or estate on behalf of an
employer, owner, or beneficiary. "Stewardship" is a process requiring competence, vigilance,
and an ethic of responsibility for the condition of that which is being looked after.
Stewardship is not sustainability, but sustainability provides the conceptual structure for which
the process of stewardship is pursued. That is, stewardship activities are intended to achieve a
sustainable future — a balance between environmental integrity, economic viability, and social
well being. In this regard, stewardship is closely related to ecosystem-based management
which seeks to sustain ecosystem integrity across time. Thus, sustainability is the expression
of the overall "desirable end state" and ecosystem management describes the basic strategy
employed in the process of stewardship.
...stewardship activities are
intended to achieve a sustainable
future — a balance between
environmental integrity, economic
viability, and social well-being.
For SOLEC, sustainability is implicit within
the entire set of proposed indicators, and a
separate set of indicators for sustainability
would be redundant. A comprehensive set of
indicators to assess human activities, or
"program responses," however, would reflect
our collective stewardship of the Great Lakes
ecosystem - our individual and collective
actions to halt, mitigate, adapt to, or prevent
damage to the environment.
The initial process to identify indicators of stewardship for SOLEC 98 was similar to that for the
other groups, but with inconclusive results. Few documents were found that contained
indicators for stewardship in the Great Lakes. Although many ideas had been generated, there
were very few appropriate stewardship indicators, and they were quite general.
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 23
-------
The approach described in Section 4.6.1 was developed just prior to SOLEC 98. Due to the
late change in emphasis, neither the approach nor the proposed indicators had received
extensive review from an expert panel or other stakeholders prior to SOLEC 98. In the
period since SOLEC 98, the Stewardship indicators have had little additional attention.
Suggestions for improving this approach and for identifying SOLEC stewardship
indicators are welcomed and encouraged.
Socio-Economics and Other Aspects of Society
The health of the environment is closely tied to a regions' economy and societal values. In the
case of the Great Lakes region, an international border separates distinct political traditions and
national cultures, but despite this, an integrated economy has developed - with a strong
resource base and manufacturing complex. However, increased competition from both
domestic and global economies, a maturing industrial infrastructure, continued urbanization and
the environmental impacts of economic and social activity are forcing a new development path -
one that both supports the economy and preserves the environment.
Integrated management of society as part of the ecosystem reguires organization of human
activities consistent with the need to respect other ecosystem components. For example the
callous creation and discharge of waste materials may impact on the habitat of other species,
result in contamination and other health problems. From an aesthetic viewpoint, trash is easily
noticed and offensive to a well developed and organized society.
4.6.1 The Indicator Selection Process
This approach assumes that the existence of these partnerships, their coverage of the Great
Lakes basin, their organizational capacities, and the "richness" of their memberships, will lead
to improvements in the state of the environment and to reductions of environmental pressures
or threats. In addition, local partnerships are framed and supported by citizen interest and
involvement in stewardship initiatives, as well as governmental adoption and endorsement of
ecosystem management and sustainability principles. These proposed stewardship indicators
would track the development and capacities of partnerships engaged in ecosystem
management activities in the Great Lakes basin, but not the underlying motivations or other
reasons for actions and responses, nor the actual environmental changes brought about by
these actions.
Socio-Economic and Other Society Indicators
Some of the indicators (such as economic prosperity, dollars allocated to Great Lakes
programs and societal values (like aesthetics)) did not fit very well in their original core group. It
was recognized that these indicators should be retained in the suite of Great Lakes basin
ecosystem health indicators. This resulted in the expansion of the Stewardship group to a
Societal group. The socio-economic section of the suite of Great Lakes indicators is in the
early stages of development and further work is needed. It is hoped that in the future an
indicator for social well being can be included here.
24 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
4.6.2 Societal Indicators
STATE
Aesthetics (Indicator #7042)
This indicator will measure the amount of waste and decay around human activities in
the Great Lakes basin and indirectly measure the degree to which human activities are
conducted in an efficient and ordered fashion consistent with ecosystem harmony and
integrity.
Economic Prosperity (Indicator #7043)
This indicator will measure unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin and
indirectly measure the capacity of the Great Lakes region to make decisions that will
benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem.
HUMAN ACTIVITIES (Response)
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships (Indicator #3509) - unchanged from SOLEC
98
This indicator assesses the organizational capacities required of local coalitions to act
as full partners in ecosystem management initiatives. It includes the enumeration of
public-private partnerships relating to the pursuit of sustainable ecosystems through
environmental management, staff, and annual budgets.
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships (Indicator #3510) - unchanged
from SOLEC 98
This indicator assesses the diversity of membership and expertise included in
partnerships. Horizontal integration is a description of the diversity of partnerships
required to address local issues, and vertical integration is the description of federal and
state/provincial involvement in place-based initiatives as full partners.
Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles Across Landscapes (Indicator #3511) -
unchanged from SOLEC 98
This indicator describes the extent to which federal, state/provincial, and regional
governments and agencies have endorsed and adopted ecosystem management
guiding principles in place-based resource management programs.
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes (Indicator #3512) - unchanged from
SOLEC 98
This indicator describes the extent to which federal, state/provincial, and regional
governments and agencies have endorsed and adopted sustainability guiding principles
in place-based resource management programs.
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities (Indicator #3513) - unchanged from
SOLEC 98
Community activities that focus on local landscapes/ecosystems provide a fertile context
for the growth of the stewardship ethic and the establishment of a "a sense of place."
This indicator, or suite of indicators, will reflect the number, vitality and effectiveness of
citizen and community stewardship activities.
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs (Indicator #8140)
This indicator will measure the amount of dollars spent annually on Great Lakes
programs and indirectly measure the responsiveness of Great Lakes programs by
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 25
-------
determining the adequacy of annual funding focused on research, monitoring,
restoration, and protection of Great Lakes ecosystems by federal and state/provincial
agencies and non-governmental organizations.
4.7 Unbounded Indicators
Several proposed indicators do not fit neatly into any of the seven SOLEC ecological categories
(open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, land use, human
health, and societal). These categories were selected to be consistent with the themes and
papers of the two previous SOLECs, and they provide an organizing framework for selecting
and reviewing indicators. The indicators could have been organized differently (for example,
"fish, fauna, flora, water, land, air" - and, in fact, they have been sorted this way in Appendix 3
(Relevancies)), however, it is likely that some indicators would still transcend the group
boundaries. For example, indicators related to issues such as climate change will affect all the
groups yet truly belong in none of them.
Throughout the selection process these indicators were recognized and discussed. In some
cases they were kept with the Core Group that originally nominated them, but in other cases
they were transferred to another group that appeared to be more relevant. The Indicators
Group avoided the creation of the category "miscellaneous" so that each indicator would
receive the attention of at least one group, and none would become orphans.
However, for clarity of organization and presentation of the proposed indicators, the creation of
an additional category called "Unbounded" was found to be useful. These indicators may have
application to more than one of the organizing categories, or they may reflect issues that affect
the Great Lakes but have global origins or implications.
Reviewers please note that the indicators in the Unbounded group have yet to receive an
intensive review. We welcome your comments and suggested improvements for these
indicators.
STATE
Atmospheric Visibility (Indicator #9001)
This indicator will measure the percentage of daylight hours with reduced visibility per
year and indirectly measure the efficacy of policies and technologies developed to
improve visibility in the Great Lakes basin.
PRESSURE
Acid Rain (Indicator #9000)
This indicator will measure pH levels in precipitation and critical loadings of sulphate to
the Great Lakes basin, and indirectly measure the potential stress to the Great Lakes
ecosystem due to acid rain, as well as to indirectly measure the efficacy of policies to
reduce sulphur and nitrogen acidic compounds.
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms (Indicator #4519)
This indicator will measure the number "extreme storms" each year and indirectly
measure the impact of climate change on ecological components of coastal wetlands.
26 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Global Warming: First Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4857)
This indicator will measure change in first emergence dates of water lilies as an
indicator of climate change affecting wetlands.
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes (Indicator #4858)
This indicator will measure temperature and accompanying physical changes to each
lake and indirectly measure the impact of climate change on wetlands.
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 27
-------
Appendix 1 — Descriptor Information for Each Entry in the
SOLEC Indicator List
The following pages include more detailed information on each of the proposed indicators.
Listing of Indicators
Indicator
Code
Indicator Name
Page
Nearshore and Open Waters
6
8
9
17
18
68
72
93
101
104
109
111
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Aquatic Habitat
Salmon and Trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Fish Entrainment
Lake Trout and Scud (Diporeia hoyi)
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Zooplankton Populations as Indicators of Ecosystem Health
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Contaminant Exchanges Between Media: Air to Water, and Water to Sediment
1-4
1-6
1-8
1-10
1-12
1-14
1-16
1-18
1-20
1-22
1-23
1-25
1-26
1-27
1-28
1-30
1-32
1-35
1-36
1-38
Coastal Wetlands
4501
4502
4503
4504
4506
4507
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Coastal Wetland Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
1-40
1-42
1-43
1-44
1-46
1-48
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
1-1
-------
Indicator
Code
4510
4511
4513
4516
4860
4861
7055
Indicator Name
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
Sediment Flowing Into Coastal Wetlands
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Page
1-50
1-51
1-53
1-54
1-55
1-57
1-59
Nearshore Terrestrial
4861
8129
8131
8132
8134
8135
8136
8137
8139
8141
8146
8147
8149
Water Level Fluctuations
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Community / Species Plans
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
Artificial Coastal Structures
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Nearshore Protected Areas
1-57
1-61
1-63
1-64
1-66
1-68
1-69
1-71
1-73
1-74
1-75
1-76
1-78
Land Use
7000
7002
7006
7012
7028
7053
7056
7057
7059
7060
8114
8142
8150
Urban Density
Land Conversion
Brownfield Redevelopment
Transportation Efficiency
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Green Planning Process
Water Consumption
Energy Consumption
Waste Water Pollutant Loading
Solid Waste Generation
Habitat Fragmentation
Streamflow
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
1-80
1-81
1-82
1-83
1-85
1-86
1-87
1-88
1-89
1-90
1-91
1-92
1-93
1-2
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Indicator
Code
8161
Indicator Name
Threatened Species
Page
1-95
Human Health
4081
4083
4088
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake From Air, Water, Soil and Food
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Radionuclides
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
1-97
1-98
1-99
1-100
1-101
1-103
1-104
1-106
Societal Indicators
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
7042
7043
8140
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles Across Landscapes
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes
Citizen / Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
1-107
1-108
1-109
1-110
1-111
1-112
1-113
1-114
Unbounded
4519
4857
4858
9000
9001
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
Global Warming: First Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Acid Rain
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
1-116
1-118
1-119
1-121
1-122
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
1-3
-------
Aquatic Habitat
Indicator ID: 6
Measure
1) Quality and area of aquatic habitat (e.g., shore, spawning shoals, tributaries, wetlands, etc.) and 2) population of sentinal
fish species. For example, the measures for tributary quality could include the number of dams, number of miles of river
channel that is impounded, number of miles of (formerly) high-gradient stream channel that is impounded, and the number of
miles between the river mouth and the first dam. The number and location offish passage facilities (up- and downstream) that
could be used successfully by species or communities of concern (for example, lake sturgeon, or other anadromous fishes
listed in FCGO) could also serve as measures.
Purpose
To directly measure the quality and amount of aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes ecosystem and to indirectly measure
progress in rehabilitating degraded habitat and associated aquatic communities.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator addresses the general FCGO to protect and enhance fish habitat, achieve no net loss of the productive
capacity of habitat supporting fish communities, and restore damaged habitats. Annex 2 of the 1987 Protocol to the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement calls for the restoration of lost or damaged habitat. The indicator also supports the policy
position of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Habitat Advisory Board, presented in their 1998 Draft Binational Policy and
Action Plan for the Protection and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat in the Great Lakes.
Endpoint
The end points will need to be specific to habitat types and FCGO. In the Great Lakes and connecting channels, for example,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Ontario Ministry of the Environment numerical guidelines for dumping of
contaminated dredged sediments can be used to protect aquatic habitat quality.
Features
This indicator will measure/calculate changes in aquatic habitat by area, by type, by location, by Lake, and by Biodiversity
Investment Areas as classified by the Biodiversity Investment Area Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems paper from SOLEC '96.
Significant losses and degradation of aquatic habitat have occurred in the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem since the late
1800s when European settlement of the region was completed. Logging, navigation projects, dam construction, shoreline
development, agriculture, urbanization, and municipal and industrial waste disposal have all acted to reduce the amount and
quality of aquatic habitat in the system. These affected habitats include the Great Lakes proper, their connecting channels
and coastal wetlands, and the tributaries that provide linkages with inland aquatic habitats and terrestrial habitats via the
surface water continuum. Each of these aquatic habitat types supports one or more aquatic communities. Wetland losses in
the region have been reasonably well documented and quantified, but losses of the other major habitat types have not.
Recent efforts to relicense hydropower dams in the United States have led to a reconsideration of the habitat losses
associated with these dams and a useful picture is emerging which allows an assessment of the adverse impacts of habitat
fragmentation on anadromous and resident stream-fish communities. Data for tributary habitat are being developed in
connection with FERC dam relicensing procedures in the United States. Data are presently available for Michigan, New York
State, and Wisconsin.
Illustration
Limitations
Restoration ecology is an emerging scientific discipline requiring an understanding of multiple disciplines and partnerships.
Comprehensive, detailed habitat inventory, classification, and mapping of Great Lakes aquatic habitats has not been
undertaken.
Interpretation
Dam removal, switching from peak-power generating flow mode to run-of-the-river flow mode, and provision of fully functional
upstream and downstream fish passage facilities consistent with state management strategies or FCGO would be considered
to be rehabilitation of habitat and beneficial to the riverine and anadromous fish communities using dammed tributaries.
Comments
Further development and ratification of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Habitat Advisory Board, 1998 Draft Binational
Policy and Action Plan for the Protection and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat in the Great Lakes should contribute
significantly to furthering the goals of aquatic habitat protection and restoration in the Great Lakes basin.
Indicators 4510 & 4511 contribute to this indicator, as does indicator 72. Sentinal species should be the same for each of
these indicators.
1-4 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Unfinished Business
Need to develop a list of sentinal fish species.
Quantifiable endpoints and/or reference values need further development work.
The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined, will bar graphs or maps be used to
depict trends over time? What will appear on the graphs or maps?
There needs to be more information added to help better understand the trends presented by this indicator.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-5
-------
Salmon and Trout
Indicator ID: 8
Measure
1) Productivity, yield, or harvest using abundance (e.g., catch of each species in a given unit of sampling effort), or biomass
metrics; and 2) population of stocked and naturally produced fish.
Purpose
To directly measure populations of introduced trout and salmon populations and to indirectly measure the potential impacts
on native trout and salmon populations and the preyfish populations that support them.
Ecosystem Objective
Meet FCGO for introduced trout and salmon species, consistent with FCGO for lake trout restoration and, in Lake Ontario, for
Atlantic salmon restoration.
Endpoint
Population is 100 % self-sustaining and meets FCGO harvest or yield targets. The following index targets for introduced trout
and salmon species were provided in the FCGO for the upper three lakes:
Lake Huron: Annual Harvest of 2.4 million kg
Lake Ontario: Average Annual Yield of 2.4 kg/ha
Lake Michigan: Annual yields of chinook salmon - 3.1 million kg; coho salmon - 0.7 million kg; rainbow trout- 0.3 million kg;
brown trout - 0.2 million kg.
Salmonine abundance should be great enough to keep alewife abundance below levels associated with the suppression of
native fishes, but should also be below levels where predatory demand threatens the forage base and the integrity of the
system.
Features
This indicator will assess trends of Pacific salmon and rainbow and brown trout populations over time. These species were
introduced into the Great Lakes ecosystem, are reproducing successfully in portions of the system, and can be considered to
be permanent, "naturalized" components of the system. Stocking of these species continues to augment natural reproduction
and enhance fishing opportunities, which is generally viewed favorably by the angling public. However, diversification of the
salmonine component of the fish community is a significant departure from the historic dominance by lake trout; the impacts
of diversification on native species and ecosystem function is not yet fully understood.
Illustration
Limitations
The data for this indicator are routinely collected and can be easily summarized on an annual basis. However, there will
continue to be fisheries reliant on hatchery inputs so that this fraction will not reach 100 % in the immediate future. More
analysis of existing data and evaluation of management alternatives through mathematical modeling is needed before more
detailed species-by-species harvest can be defined.
Interpretation
Comments
Pacific salmon and Rainbow and Brown trout are introduced species. Some of these are now naturalized but stocking still
occurs. These introduced species need to be treated differently than the lake trout. Atlantic salmon, which were native to
Lake Ontario, have been introduced to the other four Great Lakes. If Atlantic salmon are introduced to the upper 4 Great
lakes, they should be treated as exotics.
The salmonine community will consist of both wild and planted salmonines and exhibit increasing growth of, and reliance on,
natural reproduction. Short-term restrictions of harvest may be required to achieve long-term goals of natural reproduction.
Manipulation of the mix of salmonines should, in theory, result in higher catches than those produced solely by lake trout. The
lake trout historically inhabited the whole water column, but its use of the pelagic food web (although substantial) could not
have been as efficient as the contemporary species mix of lake trout and of pelagic piscivores-Pacific salmon, brown trout,
and rainbow trout.
With finite prey and habitat resources for salmonine production, each species will exist at some expense to the others.
Fin clips used in past, nasal insert tags currently used in all larger fish released. Otolith, scale, and fin ray abnormalities used
for fish smaller at release and for F2 and later recoveries.
1-6 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Unfinished Business
There needs to be more information on the spatial and temporal trends this indicator will describe, as well as
potential variability in the data.
The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined. For example, will bar graphs or maps be
used to depict trends over time? What will appear on the graphs or maps?
There needs to be more information added to help better understand the trends presented by this indicator.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):Ontario, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-7
-------
Walleye and Hexagenia
Indicator ID: 9
Measure
Abundance, biomass, or annual production of walleye and burrowing mayflies Hexagenia spp. populations in historical, warm-
coolwater, mesotrophic habitats of the Great Lakes. Presence or absence of a Hexagenia mating flight (emergence) in late
June- July in areas of historical abundance.
Purpose
To directly measure status and trends in walleye and Hexagenia populations, and to indirectly assess the basic structure of
warm-coolwater predator and prey communities; the health of percid populations; and the health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Historical mesotrophic habitats should be maintained as balanced, stable, and productive elements of the Great Lakes
ecosystem with walleye as the top aquatic predator of the warm-coolwater community and Hexagenia as a key benthic
invertebrate organism in the food chain.
Endpoint
Appropriate quantitative measures of abundance, yield, or biomass should be established as reference values for self-
sustaining populations of walleye in mesotrophic habitats in each lake. The indicator for walleye can be based on the
following index target abundances provided in the FCGOs):
Lake Huron—Annual harvest: 0.7 million kg
Lake Michigan-Expected annual yield: 0.1-0.2 million kg
No reference values available for Lakes Superior, Erie, and Ontario.
The walleye is a highly valued species that is usually heavily exploited by recreational and (where permitted) commercial
fisheries, and harvest or yield reference values established for self-sustaining populations probably represent an attempt to
fully utilize annual production; as a result, harvest or yield reference values for these populations can be taken as surrogates
for production reference values.
Target reference values for the indicator have not been developed for all major Great Lakes mesotrophic habitats.
Features
The historical dominance of walleye and Hexagenia in mesotrophic habitats in the Great Lakes provides a good basis for a
basin-wide evaluation of ecosystem health. Maintaining or reestablishing historical levels of abundance, biomass, or
production and reestablishing self-sustaining populations of walleye and Hexagenia throughout their native range in the basin
will help ensure dominance of these two species in the ecosystem and the maintenance of a desirable and balanced aquatic
community in warm-coolwater mesotrophic habitats. Hexagenia area major integrator between detrital and higher levels in
food web. Hexagenia are highly visible during emergence in June-July and the public can easily use the species as an
indicator to judge ecosystem health in areas where it is now abundant or was historically abundant but now is absent.
Historical data can be used to develop status and trend information on walleye and Hexagenia populations. Commercial
catch records for walleye in the Great Lakes extend back to the late 1800s; recreational catch data and assessment fishing
data supplement these commercial catch records in some areas in recent years and are especially useful in areas where the
commercial fishery for the species has been closed. Sediment cores from Lake Erie show major trends in abundance of
Hexagenia extending back to about 1740 and other data are available to document more recent and present levels of
abundance in Lake Erie and other parts of the basin.
Illustration
Limitations
Walleye abundance can be easily reduced by overfishing; harvest restrictions designed to promote sustained use are
required if the species is to be used as an indicator of ecosystem health. The walleye element of the indicator cannot reliably
diagnose causes of degraded ecosystem health. Hexagenia are extirpated at moderate levels of pollution, thus do not show
graded response to severe levels of pollution. Target reference values for the indicator have not been developed for all major
Great Lakes mesotrophic habitats.
Interpretation
The desired trend is increasing dominance to historical levels of the indicator species in mesotrophic habitats throughout the
basin. If the target values are met, the system can be assumed to be healthy; if the values are not met there is health
impairment. The presence of an annual Hexagenia mating flight (emergence) in late June-early July can also be used by the
public and other non-technical observers as a specific indicator of good habitat quality, whereas the lack of a mating flight in
areas where the species was historically abundant can be used as an indicator of degraded habitat. High Hexagenia
1-8 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
abundance is strongly indicative of uncontaminated surficial sediments with adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in the
overlying water columns. Probable causative agents of impairment for Hexagenia include excess nutrients and pollution of
surficial sediments with metals and oil.
Comments
Hexagenia were abundant in major mesotrophic Great Lakes habitats including Green Bay (Lake Michigan), Saginaw Bay
(Lake Huron), Lake St. Clair, western and central basins of Lake Erie, Bay of Quinte (Lake Ontario), and portions of the Great
Lakes connecting channels. Eutrophication and pollution with persistent toxic contaminants virtually extinguished Hexagenia
populations throughout much of this habitat by the 1950s. Controls on phosphorus loadings resulted in a major recovery of
Hexagenia in western Lake Erie in the 1990s. Reduction in pollutant loadings to Saginaw Bay has resulted in limited recovery
of Hexagenia in portions of the Bay. Hexagenia production in upper Great Lakes connecting channels shows a graded
response to heavy metals and oil pollution of surficial sediments.
Hexagenia should be used as a benthic indicator in all mesotrophic habitats with percid communities and percid FCGOs.
Contaminant levels in sediment that meet USEPA and MOE guidelines for "clean dredged sediment" and IJC criterion for
sediment not polluted by oil and petrocarbons will not impair Hexagenia populations. There will be a graded response to
concentrations of metals and oil in sediment exceeding these guidelines for clean sediment. Reductions in phosphorus levels
in formerly eutrophic habitats are usually accompanied by recolonisation Hexagenia, if surficial sediments are otherwise
uncontaminated.
Unfinished Business
A reference for the ecosystem objective is needed.
Has a quantitative endpoint for Hexagenia populations been developed? If not, then further development work is
necessary for this indicator.
The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined. For example, will bar graphs or maps be
used to depict trends in walleye and Hexagenia populations over time?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of benthos
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-9
-------
Preyfish Populations
Indicator ID: 17
Measure
Abundance and diversity, as well as age and size distribution, of preyfish species (i.e., deepwater ciscoes, sculpins, lake
herring, rainbow smelt, and alewives) in each lake.
Purpose
To directly measure abundance and diversity of preyfish populations and to indirectly measure the stability of predator
species necessary to maintain the biological integrity of each lake.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain a diverse array of preyfish populations to support healthy, productive populations of predator fishes as stated in
the FCGOs for each lake. For Lake Michigan, the Planktivore Objective (GLFC, 1995) states: Maintain a diversity of prey
(planktivore) species at population levels matched to primary production and to predator demands. This indicator also relates
to the 1997 Strategic Great Lakes Fisheries Management Plan Common Goal Statement for Great Lakes Fisheries Agencies.
Endpoint
This indicator will refer to index target abundances for preyfish — the values used to regulate the amount of predator fish
stocked in each lake — provided in the FCGO for each lake as quantitative reference values that represent the necessary
diversity and structure of the preyfish community. Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior provide general guidelines for prey
species prioritizing species diversity and a return to historical population levels. Lake Michigan FCGO proposed a lakewide
preyfish biomass of 0.5 to 0.8 billion kg (1.2 to 1.7 million Ibs.). Lake Ontario FCGO proposed an average annual biomass of
110 kilogram/hectare for the production of top predators.
Features
An inadequate preyfish base might signal the need for reduction in predator species abundance by increasing harvest or
reducing number of predator fish stocked. If preyfish populations also support a major recreational or commercial fishery, or
are reduced significantly by entrainment mortality at water withdrawal sites in the Great Lakes, curtailment of these losses
would be appropriate. Maintaining species diversity in the preyfish base may also require more detailed consideration and
management of the predator species mix in the lake. Preyfish populations in each of the lakes is currently monitored on an
annual basis. Changes in species composition, as well as changes in size and age composition of the major preyfish
species, are available for review from long-term databases.
Illustration
Lake-wide annual trends are displayed for each lake in barchart format. A GIS-based reporting system is under development
that will show annual trends at multiple sampling locations within each lake.
Limitations
Index target abundances, the quantitative reference values for this indicator, have not been established for all preyfish
species in each lake.
Interpretation
Comments
Diversity in preyfish species imparts some overall stability to the forage base by minimizing the effects of year-to-year
variations typically experienced by a single species; therefore, managing the preyfish resource for the exclusive benefit of a
single preyfish species, such as alewife, is not recommended. A substantial component of native preyfish species should be
maintained, especially if new research implicates thiaminase in introduced preyfish species, such as alewives and rainbow
smelt, as a major factor contributing to reproductive failure in lake trout and Atlantic salmon in the Great Lakes. There is
interest expressed in some FGGOs in protecting or reestablishing rare or extirpated deepwater cisco preyfish species in their
historic habitats in the Great Lakes. This should be reflected in future reference values for affected lakes.
Unfinished Business
A discussion on how this indicator will be interpreted using the endpoint(s) is needed. For example, this indicator
may need to be analyzed in conjunction with an indicator on primary production and/or predator species abundance
and diversity.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
1-10 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-11
-------
Sea Lamprey
Indicator ID: 18
Measure
Number of spawning run adult sea lampreys; wounding rates on large salmonids.
Purpose
To estimate sea lamprey abundance and assess their impact on other fish populations in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator relates to the 1997 Strategic Great Lakes Fisheries Management Plan Common Goal Statement for Great
Lakes Fisheries Agencies.
Endpoint
This indicator will refer to the following index target abundances for sea lamprey populations provided in the Fish Community
Goals and Objectives (FCGO) for each lake: Lake Huron: 75 % reduction by 2000; 90 % reduction by 2010. Lake Ontario:
Limit population size to level that will not cause mortality in excess of 90,000 lake trout. Lake Michigan: Suppress population
to achieve other FCGO. Lake Erie: Unspecified Objective. Lake Superior: 50 % reduction by 2000; 90 % reduction by 2010.
Features
Control of sea lamprey populations is necessary to achieve other fish-community objectives because of the high mortality
rates inflicted by lampreys on other fish. Spawning-run data are collected annually in selected streams; wounding data are
collected annually in each lake. Long-term status and trend data are available.
Illustration
Annual status and trend data on sea lamprey abundance and wounding rates are displayed in bar charts and tables by
geographic area of interest.
Limitations
Spawning-run estimates of parasitic populations must be based on a representative sampling of streams and must include
large rivers. Reliable trapping and run estimates are often difficult or impossible to make for large rivers. Direct mark and
recapture data for parasitic or larval phase sea lampreys is needed to provide better estimates and error terms, but these
reliable, direct estimates may only be obtained in areas of high population abundance where large numbers of individuals can
be marked and recaptured. Explicit estimates of variance is critical. Relating estimates of the spawning population to the
resulting parasitic population assumes insignificant or at least constant mortality between the parasitic and spawning phases.
Wounding rates may be influenced by the abundance of prey in the suitable size range and may vary among major prey
species depending on the mix of these fishes in an area. The season of data collection (e.g., spring or fall) affects the
interpretation of the measure and must be kept constant. Classification of sea lamprey wounds (i.e., wounds or scars, Type A
or Type B) is subjective and may vary among individuals and agencies making the observation.
Interpretation
Increasing trap catches of spawning-run sea lampreys, numbers of streams with larval populations, and overall abundance of
larvae in streams may indicate an expanding sea lamprey population. Increasing wounding rates in the presence of stable
prey populations indicates an increase in sea lamprey abundance and in the amount of damage to prey populations. Data
regarding total mortality in trout and salmon is also needed to properly interpret this indicator, since increasing total mortality
in trout and salmon populations reduces the number of older fishes and the reproductive potential of these populations.
Comments
Efforts are underway to improve the precision and accuracy of the measures of sea lamprey abundance and of the damage
they inflict on trout and salmon populations in the Great Lakes. Improved measures will allow more precise interpretation of
status and trend data and will help determine appropriate control measure responses.
Unfinished Business
Need a more quantifiable endpoint for Lake Michigan.
Can an endpoint for wounding rates be developed?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): exotics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
1-12 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-13
-------
Native Unionid Mussels
Indicator ID: 68
Measure
Distribution and abundance, reported as number of individuals per unit of sampling effort; soft tissue weight; and reproductive
output of the Native Unionid mussel.
Purpose
To directly measure the population status of native Unionid populations and to indirectly measure the impact of the invading
Dreissenid mussel on the Unionid mussel.
Ecosystem Objective
The diversity of native invertebrate fauna should be maintained in order to stabilize ecosystem habitats throughout the Great
Lakes and their tributaries and connecting channels. Relates to IJC Desired Outcome 6: Biological community integrity and
diversity.
Endpoint
Reestablish diverse, self-sustaining populations of native mussels in all historical habitats in the Great Lakes where they have
been extirpated by the zebra mussel. Population characteristics should be equivalent to those in reference populations in
these or similar habitats prior to the establishment of zebra mussels or where zebra mussels do not occur.
Features
Native Unionids are the largest and longest-lived invertebrates in the Great Lakes basin and are key players in the movement
of organic and inorganic particulate matter between the sediment layer and overlying water column. Native Unionid
populations are generally highly vulnerable to extinction by invading Dreissenids. Unionid mortality results both from
attachment of Dreissenids to Unionid shells (biofouling) and from food competition with Dreissenids. Mortality can occur within
two years of the initial Dreissenid invasion and extinction rate generally varies directly with Dreissenid population density. The
type of habitat occupied by the Unionids also strongly influences their risk of extinction. For example, Unionids may be able to
escape extinction in soft-bottomed habitats where they can burrow deeply and suffocate Dreissenids that attach to their
shells. Unionids may also survive better in free-flowing streams than in streams with dams. In streams with dams, Dreissenids
are most abundant in impoundments and tailrace areas. In free-flowing stream reaches and in streams without dams,
Dreissenid populations rarely reach densities high enough to adversely affect Unionid populations.
Illustration
This indicator will be presented as a map showing population locations and population metrics throughout the Great Lakes
basin.
Limitations
There is very little historical data on the distribution and abundance of Unionids in the Great Lakes basin and the available
information (mainly from inland surveys conducted in the 1930s-1950s) is not quantitative. The highly clumped distributions
typical of most Unionid populations makes sampling and population estimates problematic, and the difficulty in locating young
animals impedes assessment of reproductive output.
Interpretation
Distribution and abundance of each Unionid species, reported as number of individuals per unit of sampling effort, provide a
simple and direct measure of population status. Because Unionids tend to have clustered distributions, stratified, quadrat-
timed searches or extinction search patterns performed by SCUBA divers offer the most promise for developing good
population estimates. Soft tissue weight of individuals can be used as a measure of individual and population health. Tissue
dry weight varies with season and reproductive status, but simple regressions comparing body weight to shell length can
reliably reflect population health under each of these conditions. Individuals are considered at risk when tissue weight is less
than 10% of the total (shell plus tissue) weight. Reproductive output can also be used as a measure of population health.
Quantitative estimates of reproductive output are difficult to develop because young Unionids are traditionally very difficult to
locate even in good habitat. However, the simple presence of young Unionids seems to be a reliable indicator of a healthy,
reproducing population.
Additional data including total organic particulate matter in the water column and data about Dreissenid mussel populations
are needed to interpret this indicator. Sites without Dreissenid mussels, with >12 species of Unionids, and with young
Unionids present would be considered healthy sites where Dreissenids were having negligible impact. Sites where the
Unionids are biofouled and the weight of attached zebra mussels is equal to or greater than the weight of the Unionid are
sites where the Unionids can be expected to become extirpated shortly. Sites where total organic particulate matter in the
water column averages less than 2 mg/L are sites where food resources are too limited to support remaining Unionid
populations.
1-14 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Comments
The first step is to document where Unionids are located and what species are present. The second step is to determine if
young Unionids of any species are present at a site. Secondary sampling efforts can focus on species of concern. The
number of Unionid species at a given site in the Great Lakes basin varied widely. Most Unionid communities historically
supported >12 species, depending on locality. Lake Huron probably never had more than 6-7 species, but Lake Erie and the
connecting channels had 16-18, and the Unionid communities in inland waters in Michigan typically had about 16 species.
The northern riffleshell mussel, which occurred in Great Lakes connecting channels and perhaps in western Lake Erie, is
listed by the U.S. government as "threatened" and action is being taken to change that listing to "endangered". That species
is state-listed as "endangered". The Dreissenid mussel has probably exterminated northern riffleshell mussel populations in
the connecting channels.
The species diversity and density of Unionids has severely declined in Lake Erie, the Detroit River, and Lake St. Clair since
the arrival of Dreissenid mussels there in the mid-1980s. Species diversity of Unionids there has dropped from an average of
16 to less than 1. Many sites that historically supported Unionids now contain no live Unionids and no young (<5 years of age)
have been found at these sites since about 1989.
Unfinished Business
Although there may not be an endpoint for population, as well as reproductive output, can an endpoint be provided
for soft tissue weight? Can any goal for population and reproductive output be stated?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): exotics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 6: Degradation of benthos
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-15
-------
Fish Entrainment
Indicator ID: 72
Measure
1) Water withdrawal rates in m3/sec (gal/min) at once-through cooling at steam-electric and pumped-storage power plants in
the Great Lakes; and 2) calculated total annual mortalities (losses) of sentinal species at each plant in each lake.
Purpose
To directly measure water withdrawal rates at once-through cooling at steam-electric and pumped-storage power plants in the
Great Lakes and connecting channels, and to indirectly measure site-specific entrainment mortality of fishes by using water
withdrawal rates to calculate an annual, aggregated, basin-wide estimate.
Ecosystem Objective
Endpoint
Reduced total annual losses of sentinal species to levels where compensatory survival can accommodate losses.
Features
This indicator will establish reference or baseline values for water withdrawal rates at once-through cooling at steam-electric
and pumped-storage power plants in the Great Lakes and connecting channels, for use as surrogates to estimate site-
specific entrainment mortality of fishes and provide annual, aggregated, basin-wide status and trends information on those
losses. Large volumes of water are withdrawn from the Great Lakes and their connecting channels for use by industry and
municipalities. Steam-electric power plant using once-through cooling, and pumped-storage hydropower plants withdraw the
greatest volumes of water. Fish of all sizes are entrained with this water and substantial mortality occurs basin-wide among
the entrained population. Larger fish can sometimes be excluded and mortality kept low if proper screening devices are
employed. Small fish are virtually impossible to exclude and their entrainment and mortality can generally be calculated as the
product of their density in the water being withdrawn and the water withdrawal rate. Rates of water withdrawal and associated
fish mortality rates are known for existing steam-electric power plants using once-through cooling and for pumped-storage
hydropower plants. Data are collected for all existing sites as part of the licensing process; water use rates are monitored
routinely and can be easily reported. Review changes in water use biennially in conjunction with SOLEC.
Illustration
This indicator will display water withdrawal rates and associated entrainment mortality for years of record. It will also present
water withdrawal rates for subsequent years when entrainment mortality data are lacking.
Limitations
Entrainment mortality factors vary from site to site requiring site-specific reporting, which is not readily available in Canada.
Interpretation
Reduction in water withdrawal rates or the addition of effective screening devices at existing facilities would reflect a reduction
in fish entrainment mortality.
Comments
The purpose of the indicator is to minimize or reduce entrainment mortality in the Great Lakes and connecting channels by
limiting the withdrawal of water or effectively screening water intakes, or both, at pumped-storage power plants and steam-
electric using once-through cooling.
Aggregation, by lake or connecting channel, will provide useful information on waterbody-wide losses that can be used to
assess impact and develop remediation strategies.
Remediation settlement recently paid for fish entrainment at one pumped-storage facility in the basin with a screened intake
was valued at $172 million.
Indicators 4510 & 4511 contribute to this indicator, as does indicators. Sentinal species should be the same for each of these
indicators.
Unfinished Business
Need to develop a list of sentinal fish species.
Need to provide an ecosystem objective.
Quantifiable endpoints and/or reference values need further development work.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
1-16 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-17
-------
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi)
Indicator ID: 93
Measure
Abundance, yield, or biomass, and self-sustainability of lake trout and D. hoyi in coldwater, oligotrophic habitats of the Great
Lakes.
Purpose
To directly measure status and trends in lake trout and D. hoyi populations and to indirectly measure the basic structure of
coldwater predator and prey communities and the general health of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Lake Superior should be maintained as a balanced, stable, and productive oligotrophic ecosystem with lake trout as the top
aquatic predator of the coldwater community and D. hoyi as a key organism in the food chain. Oligotrophic waters in the other
Great Lakes should be similarly maintained. Relates to Annex 1 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
In Lake Superior, lake trout stocks should be self-sustaining with a productivity >0.38 kg/ha/y; Diaporeia hoyi should be
maintained throughout the lake at abundances of 220-320/m2 at depths <100m and 30-160/m2 at depths >100m.
Self-sustainability and appropriate lake-specific quantitative measures of abundance, yield, or biomass should be established
as reference values in the other lakes. The reference values for lake trout in Lakes Michigan and Ontario can perhaps be
based on target values provided in the FCGO for each lake:
Lake Michigan-Annual yield of 1.1 million kg
Lake Ontario-Adult population 0.5-1 million fish, average age of adult females of 7.5 yrs; annual recruitment of 100,000
juveniles.
No reference values are yet available for Lakes Huron and Erie. The lake trout is a highly valued species that is usually
heavily exploited by recreational and (where permitted) commercial fisheries, and harvest or yield reference values
established for self-sustaining populations probably represent an attempt to fully utilize annual production; as a result, harvest
or yield reference values for these populations can be taken as surrogates for production reference values.
Features
Self-sustainability of lake trout is measured in lakewide assessment programs carried out annually in each lake. The historical
dominance of lake trout in oligotrophic waters in all of the Great Lakes provides a good basis for a basin-wide evaluation of
ecosystem health. Maintaining or reestablishing historical levels of abundance, biomass, or production and reestablishing
self-sustaining populations of lake trout throughout their native range in the basin will help ensure dominance of these two
species in the ecosystem and the maintenance of a desirable aquatic community in oligotrophic, coldwater habitats. The
desired trend is increasing dominance of the indicator species to historical levels in coldwater, oligotrophic habitats
throughout the basin.
Illustration
For each lake, a graph with lake trout and D. hoyi metrics on the x-axis and year on the y-axis will be presented.
Limitations
The indicator is of greatest value in assessing ecosystem health in the oligotrophic, open-water portions of Lake Superior; it
may be less useful in nearshore areas of the lake and the quantitative reference values for Lake Superior may not apply
closely to oligotrophic areas of the other lakes. Target reference values for D. hoyi abundance have not been developed for
all five lakes. Because the indicator includes only two species, it may not reliably diagnose causes of degraded ecosystem
health. Also, because lake trout abundance can be easily reduced by overfishing, harvest restrictions designed to promote
sustained use are required if the species is to be used as an indicator of ecosystem health. A number of lakewide surveys
and assessments of benthic invertebrates communities have been made over the past several decades in the Great Lakes
and the current status of D. hoyi populations is generally known, and an understanding of the changes related to the
Dreissenid mussel invasion is emerging.
Interpretation
Interpretation is direct and simple. If the target values are met, the system can be assumed to be healthy; if the values are not
met there is health impairment. Causative agents of impairment are not addressed by the indicator.
Comments
Stocked lake trout are tagged or marked so that the performance of different strains being tested can be evaluated.
Unmarked lake trout that are captured are examined in various ways to determine if they were produced by natural spawning.
When the number of naturally spawned fish in the lake is judged to be sufficient to meet abundance or production or yield
1-18 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
goals outlined above or in Fish Community Goals and Objectives for lake trout, the population in the lake is judged to be self-
sustaining. The lake trout populations in Lake Superior have recently been declared recovered and self-sustaining. Lake trout
are reproducing successfully in portions of Lake Huron and Ontario, but the number of young produced annually and
surviving to reproductive age is not yet sufficient to support numerical population goals established in the Fish Community
Goals and Objectives (FCGO) for lake trout in these lakes. Lake trout abundance, yield, or biomass reference values are now
generally met throughout the lower four Great Lakes by stocking lake trout.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of benthos
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-19
-------
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish
Indicator ID: 101
Measure
Frequency of tumors and other related anomalies in nearshore fish.
Purpose
To directly measure the deformities, erosion, lesions and tumors (DELT) index (Ohio EPA) in nearshore fish and to indirectly
measure degraded habitat within the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Beneficial use impairment (IJC 1989).
Endpoint
The Great Lakes shall be free of DELT above predetermined background levels (Annex 2, GLWQA).
Features
Epizootics (sudden outbreaks) or elevated frequencies of tumors (neoplasms, including cancer) have become more frequent
in the past three decades and have gained profile as indicators of beneficial use impairment of Great Lakes aquatic habitat
and also as "early warnings" of potential impact on humans. Some tumors are genetically induced, others are virally induced,
and a third group is considered to be chemically induced. There is a substantial body of evidence from field and laboratory
studies showing that chemical carcinogens can cause tumors of the type included in this third group. These tumors typically
affect the liver. External deformities other than external tumors, must be carefully evaluated if they are used to assess
beneficial use impairment. The DELT anomaly index provides a tool for assessing the impact of such deformities.
A decline in PAH in river sediment in a Great Lakes tributary was accompanied with a decline in liver tumors in brown
bullhead, suggesting restoration of Great Lakes aquatic habitats polluted with chemical carcinogens may be possible.
This indicator is similar to 4503, but applied to nearshore and offshore fish species rather than to coastal wetland species.
Illustration
For each lake, a graph will be presented showing the DELT metric in a species or local population over time. The x-axis will
show years and the y-axis will show the DELT metric.
Limitations
The indicator is most useful in defining habitats that are heavily polluted and largely occupied by pollution tolerant fishes.
Joint U.S.-Canada studies of benthic fishes in a gradient of polluted to pristine Great Lakes habitats using standardized
methodology would greatly enhance our knowledge of the causes of tumors and their usefulness as indicators of ecosystem
health.
Interpretation
Tumor production is generally believed to be a response to a degraded habitat and toxic exposure to carcinogens, but may
also be due to viral and bacterial agents. Incidences of tumor prevalence should be cross-correlated with location to
determine trends. Impairment determinations will be based on a comparison of rates of occurrence offish tumors or related
anomalies at sites of interest with rates at unimpacted or least-impacted (reference) sites. Impairment occurs when:
1. An intestinal or liver tumor prevalence of >5% (rate at reference site exceeded by >5%) occurs in common native
nearshore species of benthic dwelling fishes ( e.g., brown bullhead, black bullhead, white sucker, and several species of
redhorse) or in walleye, yellow perch, or salmonid species offshore. Tumors are neoplasms of intestinal, bile duct, or liver
cells, as determined by histopathology.
2. A prevalence of lip tumors >10%, or of overall external tumors >15% in any of the benthic species listed in 1 above.
Tumors are papillomas or other neoplasms, as determined by histopathology.
3. A DELT (deformities, erosion, lesions, and tumors) Index (Ohio EPA) of > 0.5%. The fish species used in compiling the
index is not limited to the species listed in 1 above.
Comments
This indicator was prepared using information from:
Edsall, T., and M. Charlton. 1997. Nearshore waters of the Great Lakes. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference '96
Background Paper. ISBN 0-662-26031-7.
1-20 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
IJC. 1996. Indicators to evaluate progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Indicators for Evaluation Task
Force. ISBN 1-895058-85-3.
Unfinished Business
A discussion of the potential limitations associated with this indicator (e.g., data collection, cost, etc.) Needs to be
included.
On what basis can the subjective tags of "good" and "poor" be applied towards progress of the Beneficial Use
Impairment.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12:
Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 4: Fish tumors and other deformities
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-21
-------
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Indicator ID: 104
Measure
Species diversity and abundance in the aquatic oligochaete community.
Purpose
To directly measure species diversity and abundance in the aquatic oligochaete community and to indirectly measure the
relative health of the benthic community.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator addresses the general FCGO to protect and enhance fish habitat, achieve no net loss of the productive
capacity of habitat supporting fish communities, and restore damaged habitats.
Endpoint
Appropriate quantitative measures of species abundance and diversity should be established as reference values for a
healthy, diverse benthic community.
Features
Aquatic oligochaete community has been used as one index to assess the relative health of the benthic community.
Oligochaetes are widespread and their abundances vary directly with the degree of organic enrichment. In addition,
oligochaete species differ in their tolerances to polluted conditions; as organic enrichment declines, species composition
shifts from pollution-tolerant to pollution-sensitive species. The desired trend is toward a diverse oligachaete community with
inclusion of pollution-sensitive species.
Illustration
For each lake, a graph showing the species composition and abundance of the oligochaete community on the y-axis and
years on the x-axis will be presented to illustrate the changes in species metrics over time. A map will be used to show the
major, within-lake, spatio-temporal differences.
Limitations
Identifying oligochaete taxonomy is a highly specialized and time consuming activity that requires training and experience.
Also, historical data is not housed in a data base and an endpoint for this indicator has not been established.
Interpretation
Abundant, pollution-tolerant oligochaete species indicate degraded habitats. Increasing species diversity and decreasing
abundance of oligochaetes indicate return to healthy habitats.
Comments
This indicator covers benthic areas in which other indicators (Hexagenia and Diaporia) may be absent. Water depth has a
strong effect on benthic community composition and should be standardized in any sampling design. Studies of benthic
communities in Lake Erie, the Bay of Quinte, and the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers conducted in the early 1980s found changes
in community structure of oligochaetes. In areas of western Lake Erie nearest major river mouths, and in the Bay of Quinte, a
significant decline in oligochaete numbers suggests that a decline in organic enrichment occurred over the period. Near
Cleveland Harbor, there was an increase in number of taxa, a reduction in the proportion of oligochaetes, and widespread
distribution of pollution-sensitive forms not observed in the 1970s.
Unfinished Business
May want to consider identifying specific species of interest to measure.
Need to quantify "abundant" and "diverse".
What will be the baseline to determine if species diversity is increasing or decreasing?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 6: Degradation of benthos
1-22 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Phytoplankton Populations
Indicator ID: 109
Measure
Phytoplankton biomass (species and size composition) and size-fractionated primary productivity (Carbon-14 uptake or
photosynthesis) as indicator of microbial food-web structure and function.
Purpose
To directly measure microscopically species and size composition of phytoplankton biomass in the Great Lakes and to
indirectly assess the impact of nutrient/contaminant enrichment and invasive exotic predators on the microbial food-web of
the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Mesotrophicto oligotrophic conditions are needed to maintain healthy food-web dynamics and habitat integrity of the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Endpoint
An endpoint needs to be established, based on an international literature search of current and historical data of temperate
ecosystems to determine a range of biomass concentrations, species and size structure, as well as fractionated primary
productivity (Carbon-14 uptake) for various size fractions as being indicative of healthy and mesotrophic to oligotrophic
trophic status.
Features
It is well known that the phytoplankton population and its productivity changes with anthropogenic pollution, both nutrients and
contaminants. The ecosystem changes are reflected by the change of phytoplankton composition and productivity. For
example, Lake Superior represents a pristine, healthy and ultra-oligotrophic ecosystem harboring a unique collection of
phytoplankton species. Similarly, it is common knowledge that Lake Erie's phytoplankton composition, which was once
eutrophic, has dramatically changed to meso-oligotrophic status due to phosphorous abatement and the invasion of zebra
mussels. A great deal of data are available globally (temperate region) and in the Great Lakes about phytoplankton biomass,
composition and primary productivity which will reflect the overall ecosystem health including grazing pressures of the exotic
predators.
Illustration
A table with list of species or a diagram can be given as an illustration.
Limitations
Phytoplankton taxonomy (microscopic identification and enuneartion) is a highly specialized and time consuming activity that
requires intensive training and experience which is generally lacking in the Great Lakes. However, if properly done the
phytoplankton analysis generates scientific, precise, and reliable species data that reflects the sensitivity of phytoplankton to
anthropogenic stressors.
Interpretation
Comments
The study of lower trophic levels and their use as indicators have been largely ignored in the Great Lakes. There is an
immediate need to evaluate the microbial loop -the base of the food chain ranging from bacteria, heterotrophic
nanoflagellates, autotrophic picoplankton, ciliates to phytoplankton (nanoplankton and microplankton-netplankton).
This indicator was prepared using information from:
M. Munawar, I.F. Munawar, P. Ross & R. Dermott. 1992. Exploring aquatic ecosystem health: A multi-trophic and an
ecosystemic approach. Jour. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health. 1:237-252
M. Munawar, I.F. Munawar, L.R. Gulp and G. Dupuis. 1978. Relative importance of nannoplankton in Lake Superior
phytoplankton biomass and community metabolism. Jour. Great Lakes Research. 4:462-480
Unfinished Business
Need a reference for the ecosystem objective.
An endpoint needs to be established.
The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined.
Additional information is needed to interpret the data as well as a range of "good" or "poor" (e.g., an oligotrophic
ecosystem that harbors phytoplankton populations that are diverse in species and size would indicate a healthy
ecosystem.)
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-23
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 8: Absence of excess phosphorus
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 13: Degradation of phyto/zooplankton populations
1-24 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Indicator ID: 111
Measure
Total phosphorus levels (ug/L).
Purpose
To directly measure total phosphorus levels in the Great Lakes and to indirectly measure degradation of the aquatic
ecosystem and the loss of beneficial uses and to indirectly measure human-induced causes of phosphorus loadings.
Ecosystem Objective
Annex 3 of the GLWQA outlines specific goals in phosphorus reduction and provides objectives for each lake. The IJC
developed the following delisting guideline for eutrophication or undesirable algae: 'no persistent water quality problems (e.g.,
dissolved oxygen, depletion of bottom waters, nuisance algal blooms or accumulations, and decreased water clarity)
attributed to cultural eutrophication.'
Endpoint
To meet GLWQA target of 10 ug/L for Lake Ontario, and the Central and Eastern basins of Lake Erie and 15 ugP/L for
western Lake Erie. Target endpoints need to be established for Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Ontario that will
manage loadings to prevent noxious algal blooms, scums, taste and odor clarity problems, beach accumulations of
Cladophora and yield 50-60 million Ibs good fish/yr.
Features
Analysis of phosphorus loadings and concentrations to the Great Lakes is ongoing and reliable. Current methodology used
for analysis is adequate. This indicator provides information on the baseline productivity of the lake, and linkages to future
biological problems related to return to excess nutrient loads. Also, the filtering effects of new colonizing species - zebra and
quagga mussels - appear to exacerbate the effects of declining phosphorus loading (hence declining lake productivity).
Measurements and reporting must reliably reflect spatio-temporal differences on scales needed to effectively address the
ecosystem objective. Particular emphasis should be placed on open-lake data collected in the spring of the year, and
comparison should be made with the proposed GLWQA objectives. Remote sensing and satellite imagery can be used to
identify blooms, as can reports of nuisance algal growth, especially along shorelines. Monthly surveillance data are available
for the years 1976 -1981. Biannual survey data available for 1982 to present are also available.
Illustration
For each lake, a graph will be presented showing total phosphorus on the y-axis and years on the x-axis. A map will be
presented showing major, within-lake, spatio-temporal distributions.
Limitations
Lakewide surveys to measure total phosphorus are not conducted biannually in all five lakes.
Interpretation
Desirable outcomes are a decrease in frequency or the absence of blooms of undesirable algae and a decrease in total
phosphorus toward target levels specified in the GLWQA.
Comments
This indicator was prepared using information in:
Edsall, T., and M. Charleton. 1997. Nearshore waters of the Great Lakes. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference '96
Background Paper. ISBN 0-662-26031-7.
Charleton, M., and R. LeSage. 1999. Lake Erie in Transition: the 1990s. In State of Lake Erie (SOLE). M. Munawar, T.
Edsall, and I. F. Munawar (eds.) Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands (In Press).
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control of
phosphorus, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 8: Absence of excess phosphorus
GLFC Objective(s): Erie
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-25
-------
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Indicator ID: 113
Measure
Concentration of PBT chemicals in the catch-weighted average, edible tissue of recreational fish.
Purpose
To directly measure levels of PBT chemicals in fish and to indirectly measure the potential harm to human health through
consumption of contaminated fish.
Ecosystem Objective
Fish should be safe to eat.
Endpoint
Features
This indicator will be used to monitor fluctuations in the concentration of contaminants in the average fish from each Great
Lake. The average fish concentration is defined as the average PBT concentration for each fish-species weighted by the
proportion of that species' mass caught in each Great Lake. Estimation of this index entails no new sampling or analytical
costs. Catch records, by species, are available from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Concentrations of contaminants
in dominant fish species are collected by several of the States and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. This
index will be calculated every two years based on best available data and appropriate statistical methods. To make
calculation of the index manageable, uncommon species - those making up less than 5% of the total catch by weight — will
not be considered. To account for cooking losses and the fact that most consumers skin their fish or do not eat skins, final
PBT concentrations (except for mercury) in fillets with skins will be multiplied by 50%.
Illustration
The calculated average will be depicted on simple bar graphs showing the fluctuation of PBT concentrations in the average
fish overtime and space. As reduction in chemical concentrations is an exponential process, time trends should be depicted
on a logarithmic Y-axis. Average concentrations will be depicted with tissue guidelines for consumption advisories to illustrate
the average consumability, according to existing advisory standards, of the recreational fish from each Great Lake.
Limitations
This indicator pertains to the representative fish catch of recreational anglers from the Great Lakes. This index specifically
should not be used to assess risk to populations that consume fish species that have PBT concentrations that are higher or
lower than average.
Interpretation
Comments
To understand the magnitude of a risk, citizens and regulatory personnel need to know risks posed to the average consumer
as well as those pertaining to the most-exposed, most sensitive sub-groups. As opposed to estimators of worst-case
exposure, average fish concentrations are unbiased indicators. As indicators of central tendency, average concentrations are
necessary to estimate likely risks and risks to the population as a whole.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine the specific PBT chemicals that will be measured.
Need to define the ecosystem objective to be referenced.
Need to define/develop endpoints. Will action levels be used as reference?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 1: Fishability, 4: Healthy human populations, 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7:
Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 1: Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
1-26 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Contaminants in Young-of-the Year Spottail Shiners
Indicator ID: 114
Measure
Concentration of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners.
Purpose
To directly measure levels of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners and to indirectly measure potential harm to
fish-eating wildlife.
Ecosystem Objective
Forage fish concentrations of PBT chemicals should not pose risk to fish-eating wildlife.
Endpoint
Features
This indicator will be used to monitor long-term fluctuations in the concentration of measured contaminants and the risk they
pose to fish-eating wildlife. Shiner collections have been ongoing for almost two decades and represent one of the best long-
term data bases on chemicals in the Great Lakes. Because young-of-the-year spottail shiners are small and stay close to
their natal area, their chemical concentrations provide information on local chemical inventories as well as the variability and
distribution of the chemicals throughout the lakes. The shiners are captured from several spots on each Lake; therefore, the
data can be used to illustrate both variability and average levels of PBT chemical exposure to fish-eating wildlife throughout
the lakes
Illustration
Results of raw data will be used to construct simple bar graphs showing the fluctuation of contaminants over time and space.
As decline of chemicals is an exponential decline, these graphs will be depicted on an logarithmic Y axis versus time.
Limitations
Trends of chemical contaminants in spottail shiners are confounded by other factors including: food chain effects, potential
weather effects, analytical and sampling variability. These factors limit the usefulness of the shiner data as an indicator of
short-term trends of PBTs in the Great Lakes. Larger, older forage fish may have higher PBT concentrations than young-of-
the year spottail shiners, and therefore, shiner data may underestimate risk to fish-eating wildlife.
Interpretation
Comments
Concentrations of contaminants in young-of-the-year spottail shiners represent a good indicator of local concentrations of
chemicals and potential risk to fish-eating wildlife.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide the names of the PBT chemicals will be measured by this indicator.
Need to provide a reference for the ecosystem objective.
An endpoint, or frame of reference in which to interpret the data, needs to be defined.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic
substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-27
-------
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Indicator ID: 115
Measure
1) Annual concentrations of DDT complex, PCBs/PCDFs/PCDDs and other organic contaminants and Hg and other metals in
Herring Gull eggs from 15 sites from throughout the Great Lakes (U.S. and Canada).
2) Periodic measurement of biological features of gulls and other colonial waterbirds known to be directly or indirectly
impacted by contaminants and other stressors. These include (but are not limited to): clutch size, eggshell thickness, hatching
and fledging success, size and trends in breeding population, various physiological biomarkers including vitamin A, immune
and thyroid function, stress hormone levels, liver enzyme induction, PAH levels in bile and porphyrins and genetic and
chromsomal abnormalities.
Purpose
To directly measure chemical concentration levels in colonial waterbirds and to indirectly measure the impact of these
contaminants on the colonial waterbird population and other aquatic wildlife.
Ecosystem Objective
Endpoint
Chemical levels and biological measures in colonial nesting waterbirds are not different from those from reference sites in
Atlantic Canada or from the Prairies.
Features
Although there are Great Lakes wildlife species that are more sensitive to contaminants than Herring Gulls, and colonial
nesting waterbird species in general, there is no other species which has the historical dataset that the Herring Gull does. As
contaminant levels continue to decline (if they do), the usefulness of the Herring Gull as a biological indicator species may
lessen (due to its reduced sensitivity to low levels of contamination) but its value as a chemical indicator will remain and
probably increase - as levels become harder and harder to measure in other media. As well, it is an excellent accumulator.
Adult Herring Gulls nest on all the Great Lakes and the connecting channels and remain on the Great Lakes year-round.
Because their diet is usually made up primarily of fish, they are an excellent terrestrially nesting indicator of the aquatic
community. Historical data on levels of chemical contamination in gull eggs are available, on an annual basis, for most sites
in both the Canadian and U.S. Great Lakes dating back to the early 1970s. An immense database of chemical levels and
biological measures from the Great Lakes, as well as many off-Lakes sites, is available from CWS. For Herring Gulls, many of
the above biological measures are correlated with contaminant levels in their eggs. In other colonial waterbirds there are
similar correlations between contaminant levels in eggs and various biological measures. Contaminant levels in eggs of other
colonial waterbirds are usually correlated with those in Herring Gulls.
Illustration
1) Temporal trends, portrayed as annual contaminant levels overtime, for 1974-present in most instances, are available for
each site and each compound, for example, DDE, 1974-1997, for Toronto Harbour and could be displayed graphically. 2)
Geographical patterns in contaminant levels, showing all sites relative to one another, are available for most years 1974-
present and for most compounds, for example, PCBs, 1997, at 15 Great Lakes sites from Lake Superior to the St. Lawrence
River (including U.S. sites) and could be displayed on both maps and graphs.
Limitations
Herring Gulls are highly tolerant of persistent contamination and may underestimate biological effects occurring in other less
monitored, more sensitive species. Also, some adult Herring Gulls from the upper Lakes, especially Lake Superior, move to
the lower Lakes, especially Lake Michigan, during harsh winters. This has the potential to confound the contaminant profile of
a bird from the upper Lakes. Most of the gull's time is still spent on its home lake and this has not been noted as a serious
limitation up to this point. Using contaminant accumulation by young, flightless gulls would eliminate this problem but their
contaminant levels and effects would be less due to the much reduced contaminant exposure/intake.
Interpretation
Other tissues and species analyzed as necessary to confirm findings in Herring Gulls.
Comments
Contaminant concentrations in most colonial-nesting, fish-eating birds are at levels where gross ecological effects, such as
eggshell thinning, reduced hatching and fledging success, and population declines, are no longer apparent. Greater reliance
for detecting biological effects of contaminants is being put upon physiological and genetic biomarkers. These are not as well
characterized, nor are they understood as easily by the public. Other complementary species include: Double-crested
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) and Black-crowned Night-
Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). The Herring Gull egg contaminants dataset is the longest running continuous contaminants
dataset for wildlife in the world.
1-28 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
1) Chemical levels and trends: Contaminant levels in almost all Great Lakes colonial waterbirds are significantly and
substantially reduced from what they were 25 years ago. However, now, in the 1990s, year to year differences in contaminant
levels are quite small and without statistical analysis it is often difficult to tell if a compound has stabilized" and is undergoing
only year to year, non-significant, fluctuations or if it is still declining. Our analyses show that most contaminants at most sites
are continuing to decline at a rate similar to what they have over the last decade or two. However, some compounds, at some
sites, have stabilized. Geographical differences for a given compound among sites on the Great Lakes are not as dramatic
as they once were. There is greater similarity in contaminant concentration among Great Lakes sites now than there was in
the past. However, differences in contaminant levels between sites on and off the Great Lakes are still fairly evident.
2) It is difficult to show consistent differences in biological effects among colony sites within the Great Lakes. This is
probably due to the great overall reduction in contaminant levels as well as the lessening in differences among Great Lakes
sites. The comparisons which show the greatest differences for biological effects of contaminants are between sites on and
off the Great Lakes.
Unfinished Business
Need to an ecosystem objective that this indicator addresses and provide a reference.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic
substances
GLFC Objective(s): Erie
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 5: Bird or animal deformities or reproductive
problems
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-29
-------
Zooplankton Populations
Indicator ID: 116
Measure
1) Community Composition; 2) Mean Individual Size; and 3) Biomass and Production.
Purpose
To directly measure changes in community composition, mean individual size, biomass and production of zooplankton
populations in the Great Lakes basin, and to indirectly measure changes in food-web dynamics due to changes in vertebrate
or invertebrate predation, and changes in system productivity; the type and intensity of predation; and energy transfer within a
system.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain the biological integrity of the Great Lakes and to support a healthy and diverse fishery as outlined by the Goals and
Objectives of the LaMPs and Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Endpoint
For mean individual size, Mills et al. (1987) suggest 0.8 mm as an optimal size when the water column is sampled with a 153-
• m mesh net. Endpoints for community composition and biomass and productivity depend on the desired trophic state and
type offish community. Zooplankton as indicators of plankton and ecosystem community health are still in the early stages of
development. Some information on the variability in zooplankton mean length is presented in Mills et al. (1987), and
Johannsson et al. (1999b,c). Empirical relationships can be found in the literature relating zooplankton biomass and
production to other state variables, such as total phosphorus, chlorophyll a concentration, primary production and
zooplankton mean length (Makarewicz and Likens 1979 (if rotifers are measured), (McCauley et al. 1980), Hanson and Peters
1984, Van 1985, McQueen et al. 1986, Johannsson et al. 1999a). End points for community structure are not clear now that
new exotic zooplankton (Bythotrephes and Cercopagus) have entered the lakes.
Features
This indicator tracks trends in zooplankton populations, including community composition, mean individual size, and biomass
and production, overtime. Some data are available for Lake Ontario from 1967, 1970, 1972 on composition and abundance.
Composition, density, biomass and production data are available for 1981-1995 from the DFO Lake Ontario Long-Term
Biological Monitoring (Bioindex) Program (Johannsson et al. 1998). Mean individual size was not measured for the community
during these years, but could be obtained from archived samples. Zooplankton work on Lake Erie has been reviewed by
Johannsson et al. (1999c).
Illustration
Zooplankton mean length, ratio of calanoids to cladocerans + cyclopoids and biomass can be presented as line graphs if
trend data is available. Shifts in composition might be better tracked using factor analysis followed by multi-dimensional
scaling to show how the community structure moves in a two-dimensional space.
Limitations
At this point, it is not possible to rate mean individual size of zooplankton if they do not equal 0.8 mm. It is unclear how
different energy flow is if the mean size is 0.6 mm or 1.0 mm, and if 0.6 mm is equivalent to 1.0 mm.
Interpretation
Some of the other measures which would help with the interpretation of the zooplankton data would include, total phosphorus,
chlorophyll a, temperature, oxygen (in some regions), and if possible primary production and phytoplankton composition and
biomass.
Comments
Composition: Changes in composition indicate changes in food-web dynamics due to changes in vertebrate or invertebrate
predation, and changes in system productivity. Ratios such as calanoids to cladocerans + cyclopoids have been used to
track changes in trophy. This particular ratio may NOT work in dreissenid systems (Johannsson et al. 1999c).
Mean Individual Size: The mean individual size of the zooplankton indicates the type and intensity of predation. When the
ratio of piscivores to planktivores is approximately 0.2, the mean size of the zooplankton is near 0.8 mm. These conditions
are characteristic of a balanced fish community (Mills et al. 1987). There is a high degree of variability about this relationship
and further work needs to be done to strengthen this indicator. Total biomass and possibly production decrease with
decreases in the mean size of the zooplankton (Johannsson et al. 1999b).
Biomass and Productivity: Biomass can be used to calculate production using size and temperature dependent P/B ratios for
each of the major zooplankton groups. Production is a much better indicator of energy transfer within a system than
abundance or biomass.
1-30 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Of these measures, composition and mean size are the most important. However, these factors provide the information
needed to calculate biomass and production.
References:
Hanson, J.M. and R.H. Peters. 1984. Empirical prediciton of crustacean zooplankton biomass and profundal macrobenthos
biomass in lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41: 439-445.
Johannsson, O.E., R. Dermott, D.M. Graham, J.A. Dahl, E.S. Millard, and D.D. Myles.1999a Benthic and Pelagic Secondary
Production in Lake Erie after the Invasion of Dreissena spp. with Implications for Fish Production J. Great Lakes
Res. (accepted)
Johannsson, O.E., C. Dumitru, and D.M. Graham. 1999b Examination of zooplankton mean length for use in an index offish
community structure and its application in Lake Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. (in press).
Johannsson, O.E., D.M. Graham, D.W.E. Einhouse and E.L. Mills. 1999c. Historical and recent changes in the Lake Erie
zooplankton community and their relationship to ecosystem function. In: The State of Lake Erie Ecosystem (SOLE) -
past, present and future. Eds. M. Munawar and T. Edsall. Backhuys Publishers, The Netherlands (in press)
Johannsson, O.E., Millard E.S., K.M. Ralph, D.D. Myles, D.M. Graham, W.D. Taylor, B.C. Giles, and R.E. Allen. 1998. The
Changing Pelagia of Lake Ontario (1981 to1995): A Report of the DFO Long-Term Biomonitoring (Bioindex)
Program. Can. Tech. Rept. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2243: l-ix + 278 pp.
Makarewicz, J.C. 1979. Structure and function of the zooplankton community of Mirror Lake, New Hampshire. Ecological
Monographs: 109-127.
McCauley, E. and J. Kalff. 1980. Empirical relationships between phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass in lakes. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 458-463.
McQueen, D.J., J.R. Post, and E.L. Mills. 1986. Trophic relationships in freshwater pelagic ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 43: 1571-1581.
Mills, E.L., D.M. Green & A. Schiavone Jr. 1987. Use of zooplankton size to assess the community structure offish
populations in freshwater lakes. North Am. J. Fish. Man. 7: 369-378.
Van, N.D. 1985. Empirical predicaiton of crustacean zooplankton biomass in nutrient-poor Canadian shield lakes Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 43: 788-796.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 13: Degradation of phyto/zooplankton populations
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-31
-------
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Indicator ID: 117
Measure
Annual average loadings of IJC priority toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to the Great Lakes, based on measured
atmospheric concentrations of the chemicals, as well as wet and dry deposition rates.
Purpose
To directly measure the annual average loadings of priority toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to the Great Lakes and to
indirectly measure potential impacts of toxic chemicals from atmospheric deposition on human health and the Great Lakes
aquatic ecosystem, as well as to indirectly measure the progress of various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination
of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The GLWQA and the Binational Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic substances to Great Lakes as an objective.
Additionally, GLWQA General Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a
result of human activity that will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life.
Endpoint
Atmospheric concentrations of IJC priority toxic chemicals are no longer measurable by current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentrations of the IJC priority toxic chemicals are, as a group, decreasing, staying the
same, or increasing in open waters over time. Loadings will be calculated based on 1) measured atmospheric concentrations
of the chemicals and 2) wet and dry deposition rates using techniques described in the "Chemicals of Concern" chapter of the
Lake Superior Stage II LaMP. The indicator data will also demonstrate the magnitudes of the trends in the loadings of toxic
chemicals from the air to the water. The magnitudes of the trends are expressed as a "half-fold time," or time to which the
concentration of the chemical is decreased by a factor of two. The time which is most relevant to virtual elimination is the
longest half-fold time of the measured chemicals.
Illustration
Limitations
There is concern that some of the features of the loadings calculations (see Comments field) are poorly known at present.
The trends in the atmospheric concentrations of toxic chemicals, however, are much better known and a much better indicator
of progress towards virtual elimination. Errors in these trends should be clearly stated and tested against the null hypothesis
(things are not changing).
Interpretation
Progress will be determined based on whether trends of the IJC priority toxic chemicals are positive (i.e., increasing pollutant
concentrations) or negative (decreasing pollutant concentrations)and by the number of chemicals which reach the virtual
elimination goal.
To understand the pollutant concentration trends related to atmospheric deposition, additional information is needed in
interpreting pollutant load estimates derived using the suggested calculation (see Comments field). For example, information
on the yearly variations in the rain rate (dry years versus wet years) is needed to understand the pollutant concentrations
associated with wet deposition. Also, since it is known that the pollutant loads associated with atmospheric deposition have
seasonality for some components, the data should be statistically deseasonalized to properly determine the trend.
Comments
Estimates of atmospheric deposition have been made since 1988 (Strachan and Eisenreich, 1988; Eisenreich and Strachan,
1992). More recently atmospheric deposition fluxes and loads have been measured by the Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Network (IADN) (Hoffet al., 1996; IADN Steering Committee, 1997). The indicator follows procedures set out in
the IADN Quality Assurance Program Plan (1994). Several primary indicators of progress towards virtual elimination are
found in the estimation of loading to the lakes, L, where L = W + D + G, below.
Wet deposition (W) is calculated as:
where Cp (ng/l) is the volume-weighted mean precipitation concentration averaged over a year period, Rp is the precipitation
rate in m y~1 (water equivalent for snow), and the factor of 1000 converts litres to cubic metres.
1-32 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
The magnitude of W and its change with time is an indicator of progress towards virtual elimination. It should be noted,
however, that yearly variations in the rain rate (dry years versus wet years) will complicate the interpretation of the indicator.
Therefore, the concentration of the chemical in precipitation should also be evaluated as an indicator.
Dry deposition of particles is calculated from:
where vd (m y"1) is the dry deposition velocity of the species in question (a function of particle size and hygroscopic nature of
the particles) and Capart (ng m"3) is the particulate phase concentration of the chemical in air. Since the dry deposition velocity
of particles is not well known, it has been specified as 0.2 cm s"1 in previous work (Strachan and Eisenreich, 1 988; Hoff et al.
1 996). Since the deposition velocity is not expected to be a determining factor in the long-term trend of dry deposition
(particle sizes will not change much with time), the air concentration of chemicals on the particles will be a primary indicator
which can be tracked for trends.
Gas exchange is computed from the knowledge of both the gas phase species concentration in air (Cagas, ng m"3)
and the concentration of the chemical in water (Cw, ng/l) through the formula:
, . RT
G(ngm-2y-l) = koL (Cfl>ga, — -1000CJ
where koL (m y1) is the air-water mass transfer coefficient, H is the temperature dependent Henry's Law constant, R is the gas
constant and T is the surface water skin temperature (Schwarzenbach et al., 1993). As expressed above if G>0 then the
lakes are being loaded from the atmosphere and if G<0 then the lakes are a source of the chemical to the atmosphere.
There is uncertainty (see below) in some of the chemical and physical properties which are part of the gas phase flux. A
more precise indicator of trends in this flux are the air and water concentrations of the chemical themselves.
The rate of change of the loading, L = W + D + G, is dL/dt. Since it is known that the loads have seasonality for some
components, in order to properly determine the trend, the data should be statistically deseasonalized (i.e, using a Rank-
Kendall statistic, standard temperature correction, or equivalent).
Even after deasonalizing the trend data, there may be considerable error in the magnitude of the gas phase exchange. In
order not to overstate the loading indicator precision, a secondary measure of the indicator will be the sign of the change in L,
in the above equation. If the indicator is positive, the trends in the loadings are increasing and the objective is not being
approached. If the indicator is negative, the loadings are decreasing and the objective is being approached. It is likely that if
the sign of dL/dt is negative, the change in the atmospheric contributions to the tributary loadings is likely to be of the same
sign.
A third component of the indicator is the relative rate of change of the loading with time. The more negative this indicator
becomes the faster the goal of virtual elimination will be reached.
Hoff, R. M. W. M. J. Strachan, C.W. Sweet, C. H. Chan.M. Shackleton, T.F. Bidleman, K. A. Brice, D. A. Burniston, S.
Cussion, D.F.Gatz, K. Harlin, and W.H. Schroeder. 1996. Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals to the Great Lakes: A
Review of Data through 1994, Atmos. Environ. 30, 3505-3527.
IADN Quality Assurance Program Plan. 1994. Environment Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4.
IADN Steering Committee. 1997. Technical Summary of Progress Under the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program
1990-1996. R. M. Hoff, ed., Environment Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T4, 101 p.
(URL: http://airquality.tor.ec.gc.ca/IADN/IP2.htm)
Eisenreich, S. J. and W.M.J. Strachan. 1992. Estimating Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances to the Great Lakes -An
Update. Report 6-1992. Gray Freshwater Biological Institute, University of Minnesota, P. O. Box 100, Navarre, MN 55392
Strachan, W.M. J. and S. J. Eisenreich. 1988. Mass Balancing of Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes: The Role of
Atmospheric Deposition. Publ. International Joint Commission, Windsor, Canada, July, 113 p.
Schwarzenbach, R. P., Gschwend.P.M., and D.M. Imboden. 1993. Environmental Organic Chemistry, Wiley Interscience
Publishers, New York.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide the list of the specific IJC priority toxic chemicals that will be monitored for this indicator.
Need to provide a detailed description of how data will be displayed graphically. For example, will the illustration
consist of various colored plottings on a map or a bar chart to convey the relative abundance?
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators _ 1-33
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, water
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 15: Airborne toxic substances, 17:
Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-34 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Indicator ID: 118
Measure
The concentration of IJC priority toxic chemicals in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes.
Purpose
To directly measure the concentration of priority toxic chemicals in offshore waters and to indirectly measure the potential
impacts of toxic chemicals on human health and the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as well as to indirectly measure the
progress of various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The GLWQA and the Binational Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic substances to Great Lakes as an objective.
Additionally, GLWQA General Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a
result of human activity that will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life.
Endpoint
Concentrations of I JC priority toxic chemicals in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes are no longer measurable by current
technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentrations of the IJC priority toxic chemicals are, as a group, decreasing, staying the
same, or increasing in open waters over time. The indicator data will also demonstrate the magnitudes of the trends of the
various chemicals. The magnitudes of the trends are expressed as a "half-fold time," or time to which the concentration of the
chemical is decreased by a factor of two. The time which is most relevant to virtual elimination is the longest half-fold time of
the measured chemicals. Monitoring for this indicator will occur during the two year periods between SOLEC. Every two
years, water concentrations of zero discharge and lakewide remediation chemicals should be monitored throughout the
offshore waters of Lake Superior, for comparison with an appropriate baseline. Sampling should be conducted during spring,
isothermal conditions, as maximum concentrations have been reported during this time.
Illustration
Water concentrations of the zero discharge and lakewide remediation chemicals should be presented in a table which provides both
the 95th percentile (see Interpretation field) and the appropriate baseline, for comparison. Spatial distribution maps, showing raw
concentration data, should also be provided to indicate spatial gradients and to discern any problem areas.
Limitations
Although measurements exist for many priority chemicals in the Great Lakes system, these measurements are not all
obtained on a time scale that would allow for significant reinterpretation every two years. As new information is available,
and the indicator is updated, trends will become more discernable and progress toward virtual elimination can be assessed.
Errors in these trends should be clearly stated and tested against the null hypothesis (i.e., things are not changing).
Interpretation
Pollutant concentrations will be considered positive only if 95-100% of the available data indicate concentration levels below
the lake-specific baseline. Progress will be determined based on whether trends of the IJC priority toxic chemicals are
positive (i.e., increasing pollutant concentrations) or negative (decreasing pollutant concentrations)and by the number of
chemicals which reach the virtual elimination goal.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Need to provide the list of the specific IJC priority toxic chemicals that will be monitored for this indicator.
Need to provide a detailed description of how data will be displayed graphically. For example, will the illustration
consist of various colored plottings on a map or a bar chart to convey the relative abundance?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-35
-------
Concentration of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Indicator ID: 119
Measure
The concentrations of IJC priority toxic chemicals in sediment cores at selected sites within the Great Lakes at ten year
intervals.
Purpose
To directly measure concentrations of IJC priority toxic chemicals in sediments and to indirectly measure potential harm to
aquatic ecosystems by contaminated sediments, as well as to indirectly measure the progress of various Great Lakes
programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The GLWQA and the Binational Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic substances to Great Lakes as an objective.
Additionally, GLWQA General Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a
result of human activity that will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life. And, GLWQA
Annex 14 Objective asks to identify the nature and extent of sediment pollution of the Great Lakes System.
Endpoint
Sediment concentrations of IJC priority toxic chemicals are no longer measurable by current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentrations of the IJC priority toxic chemicals are, as a group, decreasing, staying the
same, or increasing in open waters over time. The indicator data will also demonstrate the magnitudes of the trends of the
various chemicals. The magnitudes of the trends are expressed as a "half-fold time," or time to which the concentration of the
chemical is decreased by a factor of two. The time which is most relevant to virtual elimination is the longest half-fold time of
the measured chemicals.
In the nearshore areas and harbours and bays, cores would be collected every 10 years from sites selected for index
monitoring. Index sites should include areas where sediment sampling would provide added value to contaminant
investigations, for example, sites previously monitored for contaminants in scuipin (DeVault et al., 1998). Sites would also be
chosen based on sediment type, expected sedimentation rates, and proximity to potential sources. Cores would be
sectioned, dated and analyzed for the zero discharge1 and lakewide remediation2 chemicals. Sediment concentrations for
recent years (i.e., last 10 years) would be compared against the Smith and Smith (1993) yardsticks.
Certain estuaries, bays, and harbours on the lakes, are designated as Areas of Concern because of past or on-going pollution
problems. Sediment contamination in these areas, taken together, represent cumulative impacts to productive habitat areas.
In addition, Areas of Concern can serve as contaminant source areas to the rest of the Lakes. Application of the sediment
indicator at Areas of Concern is intended to integrate the information gathered by RAP monitoring efforts to give a lakewide
picture for these important habitat areas. In the Areas of Concern, sediment concentrations of zero discharge and lakewide
remediation chemicals would be compared to Smith and Smith yardsticks and evaluated on a lakewide basis. Data for local
remediation chemicals would be compared to appropriate standards or guidelines used by the jurisdiction (i.e. "local
standards"). Additional index sampling in these areas would be proposed if the RAP data are not adequate for the lakewide
tracking purposes of this indicator. Sites would be chosen based on Remedial Action Plan information, including the nature
of the use impairment, type of sediment and proximity to historical or ongoing sources of local remediation chemicals3.
DeVault, D.S, D.D. Helwig, G. Flom, D.L. Swackhammer and P. McCann. 1998 (in print). Contaminant Concentrations in
Lake Trout and Scuipin from Lake Superior.
Smith, J. and I.R. Smith. 1993. Yardsticks for assessing the water quality of Lake Superior. For the Superior Work Group.
1. The nine designated zero discharge chemicals include chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, mercury,
octachlorostyrene, PCBs, and toxaphene
2. PAHs, alpha-BHC, cadmium, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
3. Local Remediation Chemicals: concentrations in sediments from Lake Superior's Areas of Concern would be compared to
the applicable local standards to ensure restoration of impaired uses.
Illustration
The sediment concentrations would be depicted using the standard tables and figures showing the change in concentration at
different depths. Only the upper segment of the core would be compared to the yardstick or local standard. In addition, a set
1-36 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
of maps showing locations and concentrations of sediments in the nearshore areas and a set of maps showing sediment
chemical concentrations in the Areas of Concern would serve to illustrate the indicator.
Limitations
An update of this indicator with new data every two years for SOLEC may not be feasible because sediment cores may only
be obtained every decade or so. However, the updates of the indicator when new information arise is applicable to past years
(i.e., sediment cores will fill in the history for the previous decade). Errors in these trends should be clearly stated and tested
against the null hypothesis (i.e., things are not changing).
Interpretation
Progress will be determined based on whether trends of the IJC priority toxic chemicals are positive (i.e., increasing pollutant
concentrations) or negative (decreasing pollutant concentrations) and by the number of chemicals which reach the virtual
elimination goal.
Comments
Measurements exist for many priority chemicals in the sediments of the Great Lakes system.
The desired outcome of the indicator is that the trends are negative in sign and that the concentrations reach levels which are
no longer measurable by current technology.
The specific measure of the indicator is whether, as a group, the IJC priority toxic chemicals are decreasing, staying the
same, or increasing in sediments at selected sites of the Great Lakes.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide a list of the applicable IJC/PBT chemicals.
Need to determine if some of the IJC priority chemicals are found naturally in the environment (certain metals, etc.) If
so, should the endpoint be that they are not detected above natural background levels?
For the presentation of the indicator "standard tables and figures" should be defined or the text modified to be more
descriptive (e.g., Sediment concentrations at each site, by depth, will be displayed on a bar graph. Current detection
limits will be clearly marked).
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): sediments
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 14: Contaminated sediment
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-37
-------
Contaminant Exchanges Between Media: Air to Water, and Water to Sediment
Indicator ID: 120
Measure
Estimates of air to water and water to sediment loadings of IJC priority toxic chemicals using fugacity based approaches of
intermedia transport.
Purpose
To measure loadings of IJC priority pollutants to the Great Lakes and to indirectly measure the potential harm these
contaminants pose to human, animal and aquatic life within the Great Lakes, as well as to indirectly measure the progress of
various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes..
Ecosystem Objective
The GLWQA and the Binational Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic substances to Great Lakes as an objective.
Additionally, GLWQA General Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a
result of human activity that will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life.
Endpoint
Concentrations of IJC priority chemicals within the Great Lakes are no longer measurable by current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentration trends of the IJC priority toxic chemicals between media are, as a group,
decreasing, staying the same, or increasing in open waters over time. It combines the concentration trends in air (from
indicator #117), water (from indicator #118), and sediments (from indicator #119) towards an assessment of overall trend in
the loadings of these chemicals to the system. The indicator data will also demonstrate the magnitudes of the trends of the
various chemicals. The magnitudes of the trends are expressed as a "half-fold time," or time to which the concentration of the
chemical is decreased by a factor of two. The time which is most relevant to virtual elimination is the longest half-fold time of
the measured chemicals.
Illustration
Limitations
Though measurements of concentrations of IJC priority toxic chemicals exist for all compartments in the Great Lakes system
to compute the measures of this indicator, they are not all obtained on a time scale which would allow for significant
re interpretation every two years (e.g., sediment cores may only be obtained every decade or so). However, the updates of
the indicator when new information arise is applicable to past years (for example, sediment cores will fill in the history for the
previous decade).
There is concern that some of the features of the loadings calculations are poorly known at present (see Comments field).
This problem also exists for indicator #117, Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals. It is important that the measures of
the mass of chemical in air and in water be made at the same time.
Interpretation
Comments
Loadings are computed using techniques described in the "Chemicals of Concern" chapter of the Lake Superior Stage II
LaMP. Intramedia transfers are computed using a fugacity based approach developed by Mackay and his co-workers (1992).
The loadings approach for air to water is already expressed in a fugacity framework where the fugacity of a chemical in a
medium is:
f=IW- V,Z,
where V is the medium volume, Z is the fugacity capacity and M is the mass of chemical in the medium (Mackay et al., 1992).
The fugacity capacities for air, water and sediments are:
Zair = 1/RT (R= gas constant, T= temperature in Kelvin)
Zwater= 1/H (H = Henry's law constant)
^sediment ~~ ''-water * sediment * sediment "\x/ ' UUU
where
• sediment = density of the sediment
1-38 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
• sediment = mass fraction in organic phase in the sediment
Koc = octanol-carbon partition coefficient = 0.41 K^, (K^, is the octanol water partition coefficient).
These fugacities are used to predict the air/water, water/sediment loadings. For some chemicals, the knowledge of variables
such as Zwater and Koc or K^, may be limited.
Mackay, D., W. Y. Shiu and K. C. Ma. 1992. Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate
for Organic Chemicals, Vol. 1, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fl.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide an example of how the data will be presented (e.g., maps that identify sites and loadings of
pollutants).
Need to provide information on the baseline that will be used to determine if trends are positive or negative.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): air, water, sediments
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 15: Airborne
toxic substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-39
-------
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Indicator ID: 4501
Measure
Relative abundance of sensitive taxa (e.g., mayflies, caddisflies), tolerant taxa (e.g., Chironomini as a proportion of total
Chironomidae abundance, Isopoda), richness of specific taxa, functional feeding groups (e.g., herbivores, detritivores,
carnivores)/lndex of Biotic Integrity (IBI).
Purpose
To directly measure the diversity of the invertebrate community, especially aquatic insects, and to indirectly measure habitat
suitability and biological integrity of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the diversity of the invertebrate community of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. (GLWQA Annexes 2, 11
and 13; IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9).
Endpoint
The endpoint for this indicator will need to be established, based on a literature search of current and historical data, if
available, or from data gathered from monitoring of this indicator. Data would be evaluated for patterns by lake, wetland type,
and ecoregion, and then calibrated against the monitoring objectives based on the professional judgement of those with
expertise in the field.
Features
To restore/maintain the overall biological integrity of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, the various ecological components need
to be adequately represented. The IBI will offer information on overall diversity of the invertebrate community and trends over
time. The IBI is a multi-indicator, developed from a composite of specific parameters, termed "metrics," used to describe the
invertebrate community, structure, function, and abundance. The IBI provides a rigorous approach that quantifies the
biological condition of the invertebrate community of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands based on data from least-impacted
sites that are representative of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, referred to as a reference condition.
Metrics used in the IBI to measure invertebrate community diversity will include relative abundance of sensitive and tolerant
taxa, richness of specific taxa, and functional feeding groups, primarily of aquatic insects. Metrics will be scored based on
how similar they are to the reference condition. The IBI will also provide a narrative characterization that provides a measure
of the environmental condition and will be calibrated for regional use. The cost of monitoring for this indicator may be
reduced because monitoring would apply only to the selected set of representative wetlands and may be conducted in
conjunction with monitoring for other indicators.
Illustration
For representative coastal wetlands, the IBI would be displayed on a map of each Lake or the basin. In addition, the
invertebrate IBI score can be plotted based on a given shoreline distance to reflect patterns in Lake quality. Color-coded
symbols could be used to reflect site scores for each representative Great Lakes coastal wetland. As sufficient IBI data
becomes available, graphs showing trends over time would be included. A narrative explanation and analysis would also be
critical to reporting on this indicator.
Limitations
An invertebrate IBI is being developed for coastal wetlands that are directly connected to the Great Lakes, not for those
wetlands that are only connected hydrologically via groundwater. Until the IBI is developed and tested for adequacy, the
metrics to be used in developing the IBI (e.g., data on functional feeding groups) will be monitored with the intent that the IBI
can be calculated in the future using previously collected monitoring data.
Interpretation
This indicator would be evaluated as part of an overall analysis of biological communities of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Comments
The presence, diversity and abundance of invertebrates tend to correlate with factors such as water depth, vegetation, and
sediment type. Because such localized conditions influence the invertebrate community present in each wetland, a sufficient
number of representative wetlands will be needed to characterize each lake basin adequately.
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes.
The SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems identifies the ecoreaches from which
representative wetlands will be selected.
Unfinished Business
1-40 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-41
-------
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Indicator ID: 4502
Measure
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
Purpose
To directly measure fish community diversity and indirectly measure habitat suitability for Great Lakes coastal wetland fish
communities.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the diversity of the fish community of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. (GLWQA Annexes 2, 11, and 13;
IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9)
Endpoint
An endpoint for this indicator will need to be established, based on a literature search of current and historical data, if
available, or from data gathered from monitoring of this indicator. Data would be evaluated for patterns by lake, wetland type,
and ecoregion, and then calibrated against the monitoring objectives based on the professional judgement of those with
expertise in the field.
Features
The IBI provides a rigorous approach to quantify the biological condition offish communities within the Great Lakes. It is
based on reference conditions and is developed from a composite of specific measures used to describe fish community,
structure, function, individual health, and abundance. Specific parameters, termed "metrics," are scored based on how
similar they are to the reference condition. These parameters will include species richness and abundance, percent exotic
species, and percent phytophils. The IBI will also provide a narrative characterization that provides a measure of the
environmental condition and will be calibrated for regional use.
Illustration
For representative coastal wetlands, the IBI would be displayed on a map of each Lake or the basin. In addition, the IBI score
can be plotted based on a given shoreline distance to reflect patterns in Lake quality. Color-coded symbols could be used to
reflect site scores for each representative Great Lake coastal wetland. As sufficient IBI data becomes available, graphs
showing trends over time would be included. A narrative explanation and analysis would also be critical to reporting on this
indicator.
Limitations
Until the IBI is developed and tested for adequacy, the metrics to be used in developing the IBI will be monitored with the
intent that the IBI can be calculated in the future using previously collected monitoring data.
Interpretation
This indicator would be evaluated as part of an overall analysis of biological communities of Great Lakes coastal wetlands
and nearshore aquatic systems.
Comments
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes.
The SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems identifies the ecoreaches from which
representative wetlands will be selected.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
1-42 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Coastal Wetland Fish
Indicator ID: 4503
Measure
Numbers and percent of DELT in coastal wetland fish.
Purpose
To directly measure the incidence of DELT in fish of Great Lakes coastal wetlands and to indirectly measure the ecosystem
health of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore the health offish of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. (GLWQA Annexes 2, 11, 12, and 17; IJC Desired Outcome 7)
Endpoint
The incidence DELT should be less than 0.1% of site catch to attain reference conditions (Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L.
Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity and its rational. Illinois Natural History Survey
Publication 5).
Features
DELT anomalies reflect the lowest levels of biological integrity. High incidence of DELT is a reflection of degraded conditions.
Fish collected from a site would be inspected for gross external presence of DELT. Fish having DELT would be counted and
the percentage of DELT anomalies would be composited over all species and individuals in the total catch.
Illustration
For each Lake, a graph will display the percentage of DELT showing annual mean and 95% confidence intervals for total
catch. This indicator can be displayed as either a bar chart or box-and-whisker plot.
Limitations
There are almost no additional monitoring costs associated with this indicator. Field crews collecting fish community data
would be required to carefully inspect each fish for the presence of DELT anomalies, which will add handling time. The
indicator is closely linked to the overall level of contaminants that contribute either additively or synergistically to reduce
biological integrity. Presence of DELT does not always necessarily reflect site conditions since some fish species may be
mobile. However, the majority of species remain in select areas for portions of the life cycle and will show signs of any effects.
Interpretation
Where DELT exceeds the endpoint of 0.1 %, proximity to point source discharges and other contaminant sources can be
evaluated as a link to causes and effects.
Comments
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes.
The Biodiversity Investment Areas paper from SOLEC '98 identifies these sets of representative wetlands that adequately
characterizes each lake basin. This indicator may also apply to nearshore aquatic areas.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12:
Persistent toxic substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 5: Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-43
-------
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance in Coastal Wetlands
Indicator ID: 4504
Measure
Species composition and relative abundance of calling frogs and toads, based on evening surveys using protocol developed
for the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) or modification of MMP protocol.
Purpose
To directly measure the species composition and relative abundance of frogs and toads and to indirectly measure the
condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to the health of this ecologically important component of wetland
communities.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the diversity of Great Lakes coastal wetland amphibian communities. Breeding populations of
amphibian species across their historical range should be sufficient to ensure continued success of each species. (GLWQA
Annexes 11 and 13, IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9)
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of current and historical data, if available, or from data
gathered from monitoring of this indicator. Data on amphibian diversity and abundance would be evaluated for patterns by
lake, wetland type, and ecoregion, and then calibrated against the monitoring objectives based on the professional judgement
of those with expertise in the field.
Features
To restore/maintain the overall biological integrity of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, the various ecological components need
to be addressed adequately represented. This indicator will track trends in Great Lakes coastal wetland amphibian diversity
and relative abundance overtime.
Illustration
For representative coastal wetlands along each of the Lakes, the monitoring results could be graphically displayed. As
sufficient data become available, graphs showing trends overtime would be included. A narrative explanation and analysis
would also be critical to reporting on this indicator.
Limitations
This indicator focuses on frogs and toads because they are more readily censused than other amphibians. Other amphibian
species, such as salamanders, would not be censused at all. Nonetheless, monitoring results for the species surveyed (i.e.,
frogs and toads) may provide an indication of habitat suitability for other amphibians dependent on coastal wetlands. The
relationships among calling codes recorded during surveys, amphibian chorus size, and local population size need to be
studied. This validation work is necessary for extrapolations from call code surveys to population sizes.
Interpretation
Amphibian populations naturally fluctuate overtime; therefore, this indicator would be evaluated as part of an overall analysis
of biological communities of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Many amphibian species are associated with wetlands for only a
portion of their life cycle. Periodically, more rigorous studies may be needed at some sites to relate trends in species
occurrence or relative abundance to environmental factors. Adequate upland areas adjacent to coastal wetlands are
important to amphibians, and indicators of suitable, adjacent upland areas also need to be considered when assessing
amphibian population trends. Species of particular interest are Northern Leopard Frogs and Bullfrogs. Green Frogs seem to
be replacing Bullfrogs in many areas, therefore, the ratio of Green Frogs to Bullfrogs should be monitored.
Comments
Properly trained volunteers currently conduct monitoring and all data are subject to the quality assurance program. Additional
coastal wetlands could be selected if additional volunteers are available to conduct monitoring. Any additional wetlands
would have to be selected based on criteria to be established. Available data on historical and current presence/ abundance
of amphibians should be collected to supplement monitoring data. Monitoring programs/protocols other than the MMP exist,
such as backyard survey and road-call count, although they do not specifically focus on coastal wetlands.
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes.
The SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems identifies the ecoreaches from which
representative wetlands will be selected.
Any deformities should be noted and shared with the monitoring program for deformities.
Unfinished Business
1-44 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-45
-------
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Indicator ID: 4506
Measure
Concentrations of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in Snapping Turtle eggs.
Purpose
To directly measure the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in Snapping Turtle eggs in order to assess
the effects of contaminants on snapping turtle embryonic development. This information will indirectly measure the
contamination in the food web of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
Snapping Turtle populations in Great Lakes coastal wetlands and populations observed at a clean inland reference site, such
as Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, should not exhibit significant differences in hatching success and abnormality rates.
(GLWQA Annexes 1,2, 11, and 12; IJC Desired Outcome 5)
Endpoint
a) Mean wet weight concentrations in Snapping Turtle eggs should not exceed*:
Toxic Equivalents 158.3 ug/g
Total polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)= 0.338 ug/g
Total polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins (PCDD)= 1.0 pg/g
Total polychlorinated dibenzo furans (PCDF)= 3.0 pg/g
pp'DDE (metabolite of DDT)= 0.05 ug/g
mirex= 0.0014 ug/g
b) Mean wet weight concentrations in plasma from Snapping Turtle eggs should not exceed*:
Total PCB= 17.8 ng/g
Total PCDD= 7.0 pg/g
Total PCDF= 4.2 pg/g
pp'DDE= 1.0 ng/g
mirex= 0.4 ng/g
*See Comments" for information on the derivation of these tentative concentrations for use as endpoints.
Features
Snapping Turtles are long-lived, top predators that bioaccumulate contaminants. Their embryonic and sexual development
appear to be sensitive to organochlorine chemicals. Given these characteristics, the Snapping Turtle is useful in monitoring
trends in contaminants levels within specific wetlands. Variations in diet among Snapping Turtle populations can influence
the degree of contamination in the population. Where large contaminated carp are the predominant species in the fish
community, and a primary source of food, the contaminant exposure in Snapping Turtles will likely be higher and persist for
longer periods. Some Snapping Turtle populations consume smaller fish in a more diverse fish community where the
turnover rate of contaminants is faster in the fish population. Hence, some sites would show more rapid changes in
contaminant trends.
Illustration
Mean abnormality rate at the uncontaminated reference site (e.g., Algonquin Provincial Park) superimposed over rates at
representative sites from the Lakes and connecting channels. This would be presented as a bar graph showing sites and
abnormality rates, along with the mean abnormality rate for the reference site as a comparison.
Limitations
This indicator requires labor-intensive sampling (2 weeks in June) and expensive analyses. The monitoring for this indicator
focuses only on persistent chemicals, and therefore does not illustrate trends in other types of contaminants that may be
present in Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Interpretation
Contamination levels and developmental effects observed in Snapping Turtles at reference sites, and other sites throughout
the Great Lakes, would provide the context needed to interpret this indicator. Since variation in diet among Snapping Turtle
populations can influence contaminant levels, additional information on fish diversity at the study sites will help to interpret the
trends illustrated by this indicator.
1-46 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Comments
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes.
The SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems identifies the ecoreaches from which
representative wetlands will be selected.
The concentrations provided as endpoints for this indicator serve as tentative concentrations which should not be exceeded
to ensure that the hatching success and hatchling deformity rates do not significantly exceed those at the examined inland,
non-contaminated reference sites.
The mean wet weight concentration in Snapping Turtle eggs provided as endpoints are concentrations found in eggs from Big
Creek Marsh, Lake Erie which showed no significant difference in hatching rates and deformity rates as compared to Lake
Sasajewun, Algonquin Provincial Park, an inland lake in Ontario.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-47
-------
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Indicator ID: 4507
Measure
Species composition and relative abundance of wetland-dependent birds, based on evening surveys using protocol
developed for Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) or modification of the MMP protocol.
Purpose
To directly measure the wetland bird species composition and relative abundance and to indirectly measure the condition of
coastal wetland habitat as it relates to the health of this ecologically and culturally important component of wetland
communities.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the diversity of Great Lakes coastal wetland bird communities. Breeding populations of bird species
across their historical range should be sufficient to ensure continued success of each species. (GLWQA Annexes 2, 11, and
13; IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9)
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of current and historical data, if available, or from data
gathered from monitoring of this indicator. Data on the species composition and relative abundance of wetland-dependent
birds would be evaluated for patterns by lake, wetland type, and ecoregion, and then calibrated against the monitoring
objectives based on the professional judgement of those with expertise in the field.
Features
This indicator will offer information on wetland bird diversity and abundance trends over time. It will provide a temporal
measure of Great Lakes coastal wetland bird communities and may be made compatible with the Marsh Monitoring Program,
an ongoing wetland monitoring program initiated throughout the Great Lakes basin in 1995.
Illustration
For representative coastal wetlands along each of the Lakes, trends in relative abundance for individual species could be
graphically displayed. Indices, tables and diagrams will be used to depict community species composition characteristics.
Limitations
A rigorously tested index of the relationships between wetland bird community composition and critical environmental factors
(i.e. an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for birds) is the preferable approach to community-based indicators, but has not yet been
developed for wetland birds. The development of such an IBI should be an important priority. The IBI should be able to take
advantage of the information on species occurrence and relative abundance currently collected through the MMP.
Interpretation
Both regional and local populations naturally fluctuate overtime, therefore, several years of monitoring data will be required to
detect all but the most dramatic trends. Interpretation of this indicator will be most effective if coupled with patterns observed
in other indicators (e.g., indicator #4501, Invertebrate Community Health; indicator #4510, Wetland Area by Type).
Wetland birds are highly mobile and most are dependent on wetlands for only portions of their life cycle. Temporal trends in
local bird populations can be influenced by factors external to wetlands on the wintering grounds, during migration, or on the
breeding grounds. For this reason, intensive work will be required to identify site- and region-specific impacts to bird breeding
productivity and survivorship. These intensive studies are particularly important in the absence of a well-tested IBI.
Comments
With proper training and quality assurance, volunteers could conduct wetland bird surveys, allowing a relatively modest
investment in SOLEC monitoring and analysis. This indicator would apply most directly to the selected representative
wetland sites, but could be made to complement, and draw a regional context from, existing wetland monitoring efforts in both
coastal and inland sites in the Great Lakes basin. Wetland birds are important from both a cultural and ecological
perspective. Monitoring of wetland-dependent bird species of conservation concern (e.g. Black Tern, Least Bittern, King Rail)
should receive special attention during protocol development.
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes.
The SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems identifies the ecoreaches from which
representative wetlands will be selected.
Unfinished Business
1-48 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-49
-------
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Indicator ID: 4510
Measure
Areal extent of coastal wetlands by type as a range (e.g., dry year/low water level area versus wet year/ high water level
area).
Purpose
To measure periodic changes in area (particularly losses) of coastal wetland types, taking into account natural variations.
Ecosystem Objective
Reverse the trend toward loss of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, ensuring adequate representation of wetland types across
their historical range. (GLWQA Annexes 2,11, and 13; IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9)
Endpoint
No net loss of coastal wetlands due to human actions and, in the future, a net gain to coastal wetlands due to restoration activities.
Features
The wetland area should be reported as a basin total and by type (based on geomorphology, vegetation, water regime, size
class, degradation), putting the baseline numbers into a historical perspective. Monitoring of each specific wetland type
provides a baseline for other examples of that wetland type. The monitoring must be conducted over an entire Great Lakes
water level cycle to obtain meaningful baseline data.
Illustration
For each wetland type, graphs could show the areal extent of specific wetland types as they change relative to water level and over time.
Limitations
Although not inexpensive, remote sensing, with limited ground checking of zone width, would be the most cost-effective
method of monitoring this indicator. The costs might be partially offset if other SOLEC indicators are also monitored using
remote sensing.
The extent of each coastal wetland type varies with Great Lakes water level fluctuations. Monitoring must be repeated
throughout the Great Lakes water level fluctuation cycle. No one is currently doing this on a regular basis. Conducting the
monitoring and detecting human-induced change in an area may not be feasible in the two-year time frame of SOLEC.
Wetland area change caused by human actions may be difficult to measure because (a) natural water level fluctuation can have a
dramatic effect on area by type and (b) a historic 'original size' by type for each water level regime is difficult to establish.
Interpretation
This indicator needs to be evaluated in terms of both wetland quality and extent. For example, wetlands may decrease due to
lack of Great Lakes water level fluctuation, as on Lake Ontario, and the quality and value of the wetland to wildlife/fish may be
reduced tremendously. When interpreting the data, the other coastal wetland indicators that evaluate wetland quality need to
be considered. For measuring the variable in a most superficial way, the extent of the wetland remaining could be estimated
to the nearest 10% and then divided by 10, providing a score of 1-10. For example, a wetland type that remains at roughly
80% of its original size within a particular water level regime would have a score of 80/10=8.
Comments
The wetland area measured would include the data from indicator #4511, Gain in Restored Wetland Area by Type.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
1-50 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Indicator ID: 4511
Measure
Gain in restored wetland area by type.
Purpose
To measure the gain in restored wetland area and the success of conservation/rehabilitation efforts.
Ecosystem Objective
Sufficient gain in restored wetland area to ensure adequate representation of coastal wetlands by type across their historical
range. (GLWQA Annexes 2, 11, and 13; IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9)
Endpoint
The endpoint for this indicator needs to be defined and could be as simple as defining a certain amount of Great Lakes areas
that should be classified as wetland. There should be enough gain in wetland area to offset any losses to ensure no net loss;
however, opportunities for wetland gain may be limited by lack of available sites. Also, the endpoint should consider wetland
quality including zones of vegetation and desired species.
Features
This indicator measures additional restored wetland area, not enhancement of existing wetland area. When evaluating this
indicator, wetland quality, not just total restored area needs to be considered. High quality examples of each wetland type,
based on geomorphology and climatic setting, should be used to define the expected zones of vegetation, sediment
characteristics, and plant species in restored wetland. Also, wildlife use, based on baseline high quality wetlands, could be
used to evaluate the success of the wetland restoration. Other coastal wetland indicators should be used to help interpret
wetland quality.
Illustration
A graph displaying the amount of gained/restored wetland area by type over time.
Limitations
The gain in restored wetland area does not necessarily reflect the quality of the wetland. Also, lack of available sites for
restoration would be a limitation.
Data quality may vary because data will be submitted from a number of agencies. Also, because of multi-agency partnerships
in most restoration projects, it is crucial to ensure that restored areas are counted only once when agencies submit data from
the same project.
Wetland area change caused by human actions may be difficult to measure because (a) natural water level fluctuation can
have a dramatic effect on area by type and (b) a historic 'original size' by type for each water level regime is difficult to
establish.
Interpretation
By looking at both indicator #4510, Wetland Area by Type, and the gain in restored area within a particular water level regime,
it will be possible to determine whether the no net loss goal is being met, or being surpassed with additional gains. Further
investigation or incorporation of historical data could be important for Lakes Erie and Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. For
many of the wetland types characterizing the Great Lakes shoreline, baseline data for high quality examples exist for both the
typical zonation, relation to water depth, and typical plant species of each zone. Baseline data for Lakes Erie and Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River are less reliable because of the high level of wetland degradation. In Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River, water level control/manipulation has altered the species composition in even the least disturbed wetlands.
Comments
Gain in wetland area will be determined using data reported by agencies that track wetlands restoration, and confirmed by
remote sensing. This will allow gain, not just enhancement of existing wetland, to be tracked. Agencies will need to provide
documentation about the location of restoration projects and track restoration (i.e. true gain in area) versus enhancement (i.e.
modifications to existing area).
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-51
-------
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
1-52 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
Indicator ID: 4513
Measure
Presence, abundance, & expansion of invasive plants, such as flowering rush, great hairy willow-herb, common frogbit, yellow
iris, purple loosestrife, Eurasian water milfoil, curly pondweed, cattail, Phalaris, and Phragmites.
Purpose
To measure the decline of vegetative diversity as characterized by the increase in the presence, abundance, and expansion
of invasive plants and to provide a surrogate measure of coastal wetland quality because the presence of invasive plant
species generally indicates the level of coastal manipulation or input of sediments which cause wetland degradation.
Ecosystem Objective
Coastal wetlands throughout the Great Lakes basin should contain low numbers of invasive plant species with low levels of
coverage. (GLWQA Annexes 2, 11, and 13; IJC Desired Outcome 6)
Endpoint
Species of invasive plants and the degree of aerial coverage associated with each species, vary by wetland type, lake, region,
and latitude, due to differences in geomorphic and climatic conditions. Specific coverage values would have to be
established for each wetland type and for each invasive plant species.
Features
Two considerations in assessing the condition of coastal wetlands are quantity and quality. The areal extent of a wetland can
be large, but the same wetland can be highly degraded or modified by the dominance of invasive plant species. Similarly,
wetland restoration may result in extensive wetlands, but dominance by invasive plant species can reduce the value of such
wetlands considerably. This indicator will track the quality of coastal wetlands by assessing the biodiversity of wetland
vegetation overtime.
Illustration
Graphs will display the of number of invasive plant species and percent coverage over time. To illustrate this indicator, maps
will show how the range of invasive plant species has expanded over time.
Limitations
The presence, abundance, and expansion of most invasive plant species cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of aerial
photography or satellite imagery, thus requiring some field visits to locate certain species and monitor their expansion. Once
documented, aerial photography may be used to monitor the patch size of some invasive plant species. Certain invasive
plant species have been adequately studied, and their detrimental effect on the ecosystem and their ability to expand into
certain habitats has been documented. Other invasive plant species have not yet been adequately evaluated, therefore, little
is known about their effect on the ecosystem or their ability to expand into certain habitats.
Interpretation
A ranking could be developed based on a combined score of 1) the number of invasive plant species and 2) the coverage
value of coastal wetlands dominated by invasive plant species.
Comments
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes.
The SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems identifies these sets of representative
wetlands that adequately characterizes each lake basin.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-53
-------
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
Indicator ID: 4516
Measure
Suspended Sediment Unit Area Load (tonnes/km2 of upstream watershed) for a representative set of existing monitoring
sites just upstream of coastal wetlands.
Purpose
To indicate sediment load to coastal wetlands and its potential impact on wetland health.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain and restore healthy coastal wetlands which are highly dependent on appropriate sediment loads. (GLWQA
Annexes 1,2, 11, and 13; IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9)
Endpoint
Wetlands require some sediment to maintain barriers and elevation against scour etc., so the reference value is not zero. A
desired endpoint can be set from unit area loads of representative wetlands considered to have low sedimentation problems.
Features
Sediment load is critical to habitat health and is one of the major wetland stressors. Sites throughout the basin can be chosen
to represent inflow to individual wetlands and it is possible that there is enough existing monitoring to represent the basin. The
data are already collected, analyzed, and maintained comparably in both countries. There is fairly high variability among the
data because sediment loads are directly related to flow, which varies depending on precipitation events. Sediment loads are
also dependent upon agricultural land management practices and land use. This indicator links to other wetland stressor
indicators that have similar causes, including #4560, Nitrates and Total Phosphorus into Coastal Wetlands, and indicator
#4519, Number of Extreme Storms. Sediment load itself affects the Wetland State/Response Indicators including those
associated with area by type, invasive plants and wildlife.
Illustration
This indicator could be displayed graphically as tonnes/km2 (y axis) versus time (x axis). The desired reference point or
endpoint could be indicated on the y axis and across the graph.
Limitations
The indicator is developed from flow measurements using stream-specific and regularly updated relationships of flow and
sediments.
Interpretation
Interpretation will be based on the magnitude of the difference of the monitoring site loads from the reference load. The
reference load will be scored as 10. The greater the difference in the monitored load, the lower the score. Additional
information that could help interpret reasons for sediment load include: weather, conservation practices data, and upstream
reservoirs. Data for percentage of silt and clay are also available and can help interpret associated contaminants and whether
material is likely to settle out or not.
Comments
This is a clearly understood indicator to which both development and agriculture industries can relate. Excess sediment is of
concern not only for its physical smothering, in-filling and light obstruction properties but also for other harmful contaminants it
can carry.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, sediments
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
1-54 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands
Indicator ID: 4860
Measure
Concentration of nitrate and of total phosphorus just upstream from, or in, a set of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Purpose
To directly measure nitrate and total phosphorus levels in or flowing into Great Lakes coastal wetlands to determine instances
of non-excessive nutrient levels in the wetlands, and to indirectly measure trends resulting from human influence on nutrient
levels, as excess nutrients can be detrimental to the health of coastal wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintenance and restoration of more natural levels of nutrients to maximize: species and community diversity, wetland
integrity and wetland values. (GLWQA Annexes 3, 11, and 13; IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9)
Endpoint
In the growing season, at least one instance of < 0.5 mg/l nitrate and < 0.03 mg/l total phosphorus.
Features
This indicator will assess the concentrations of nitrate and total phosphorus found in and entering Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. These are the major nutrients affecting coastal wetlands. Data for this indicator will be collected from the following
locations: 1) existing closest stream monitoring sites within 5 km upstream of a coastal wetland (within 10 km upstream if on
the Canadian Shield); 2) existing monitoring for Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants (LRTAP) at stations nearest the
coastal wetland sites with stream monitoring stations; and 3) proposed in situ monitoring of a representative set of coastal
wetlands. Past trends can be constructed using historical stream data, which exists for many years.
The indicator will be updated on an annual basis, as new data are available. Stream sampling data are often collected on the
order of 1 sample per month. Concentrations may vary with seasons and events but choice of presence/absence type
indicator during the growing season greatly reduces variability. This indicator links to other coastal wetland indicators that
assess wildlife affected by eutrophication or reduced habitat diversity (e.g., #4501, Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community
Health; #4502, Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health; #4504, Amphibian Diversity and Abundance in Coastal Wetlands),
as well as indicator #4510, Coastal Wetland Area by Type, and indicator #4513, Presence, Abundance and Expansion of
Invasive Plants. The in situ sampling piggy-backed on wetland visits proposed for other indicators and will have relatively low
associated lab costs..
Illustration
This indicator will be presented using a graph with y axis as % of sites with at least 1 instance of both <0.5 mg/l nitrate and
<0.03 mg/l total phosphorus from May to July, and x axis as time in years. Percentage reaching the endpoint can also be
recorded for each of the set of upstream samples (with airborne contribution (LRTAP) concentrations added) and the set of in
situ samples in case their trends differ.
Limitations
Low incremental cost assumes (1) no major downsizing of the stream water quality monitoring network, and (2) on-site
wetland visits by biologists monitoring other indicators. Total phosphorus has an official standard; nitrate does not. Variation
within each wetland will require a general protocol for such factors as storm event avoidance and grab sample location.
Interpretation
The higher percentage of sampled wetlands and streams reaching the endpoint (at least one instance of both < 0.5 mg/l
nitrate and <0.03 mg/l total phosphorus from May through to July), the better. A ranking system of 0 to 10 can be used to
interpret this indicator, with 0 for no stations reaching the endpoint and 10 for all (100%) stations reaching the endpoint.
Analysis of this indicator must consider recent data from monitoring stations dropped since the previous year's monitoring.
For example, if dropped stations were all high water quality, then their omission, rather than just pollution levels, affects the
trend in percentage reaching the endpoint.
Comments
In nutrient over-enriched wetlands, a few species out-compete many others reducing biological and social values. One
instance of low concentration indicates the site is capable of non-excessive nutrient levels and allows the indicator to avoid
(1) the confusion imposed by the high variability in concentration which often occurs among monthly samples, and (2) the
need for many more samples to fully assess nutrient level regimes.
Unfinished Business
SOLEC98—Selection of Indicators 1-55
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 3: Control of phosphorus, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 8: Absence of excess phosphorus
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae
1-56 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Water Level Fluctuations
Indicator ID: 4861
Note: This indicator is both a Coastal Wetland and Nearshore Terrestrial indicator
Measure
For each lake: 1) Mean lake level; 2) Lake-wide annual range in monthly averages; 3) Lake-wide seasonal peak (days after
January 1); 4) Lake-wide seasonal minimum (days after September 1); and 5) Elevation Difference between Upper and
Lower Emergent Vegetation Extent based on Water Level model (Painter & Keddy, 1992).
Purpose
To directly measure lake level trends that significantly affect components of wetland ecosystems, and to indirectly measure
the effect of water level regulation on emergent wetland extent.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain and restore healthy coastal wetlands whose existence and integrity depend on naturally fluctuating water levels
(GLWQA Annexes 2, 11, and 17; IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9).
Endpoint
The endpoint for this indicator is based on four historic ranges (i.e., data exceeded 0-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, and 75-100% of
the years examined) for each measure per lake. All years of historical data from 1918 to 1959 for Lake Ontario, and from
1918 to 1980 for all other lakes, will be used to set the historic ranges. The endpoint is reached if in the previous 20 years,
distribution of data is fairly evenly distributed among the four historic ranges. The endpoint for water level regulation effects is
the elevation difference between upper and lower emergent vegetation extent, calculated by application of the Painter and
Keddy model to water levels in Lakes Ontario and Superior under a "no regulation" scenario.
Features
Lake levels have a major influence on undiked coastal wetlands and are basic to any analysis of wetland change trends. This
indicator uses existing annual summaries of lake and basin-wide water level fluctuations based on daily data. Natural
variability will occur in each measure, but will be accounted for in the interpretation method. Yearly data can vary and should
be reviewed whenever data for other wetland indicators are collected. Interpretation into the score of 10 (see Interpretation),
however, will show far less variability and may be required only every second or third SOLEC cycle. This indicator links to
indicator #4510 Coastal Wetland Area by Type, and all wildlife indicators. The data for this indicator are already collected,
standardized, easily available and analyzed.
Illustration
One graph per lake of "Correspondence of Previous 20 Years of Water Levels With Historical Distribution" on the y-axis with
the x-axis as time in years. Lakes Ontario and Superior will also have a graph of "Effect of Regulation on Extent of Emergent
Vegetation Elevation", which will be the difference between pre- and post-regulation modeled values each year. Lakes
Michigan and Huron will be illustrated on one graph.
Limitations
Some analysis is required to set historical reference ranges and to calculate emergent vegetation elevation difference. The
indicator shows changes from historic distribution of levels but cannot distinguish if changes are due to natural climatic
variability or human-induced climate change. The emergent elevations are based on a model using lake level data but not
direct field measurements of vegetation extent.
Interpretation
If previous 20 years of data are distributed evenly across the historical range for a measure (i.e., within historical high and low
values AND distributed reasonably evenly among the 4 historical ranges), the trend can be interpreted as "good." If a year is
beyond high or low historical value OR distribution is becoming highly skewed from a fairly even distribution among the 4
historical ranges, the trend can be interpreted as "bad."
A ranking system of 0 to 10 can be used to determine the trend of the overall indicator (i.e., an aggregate of all five
measures). Each of 5 parameters for each lake will receive a score of 0, 1, or 2, depending on how well the previous 20
years of data fit the historical ranges. The total of the scores for the 5 parameters identified under Measure above provides a
lake score (maximum of 10). An average of the 4 lakes scores could provide a basin-wide score. The four lakes are
Superior, Michigan/Huron, Erie and Ontario. The y axis of the "Effect of Regulation" graphs will be scaled so larger effects
score lower; no effect scores 10.
Lake St. Clair is omitted from the basin-wide score since ice jams in the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers can greatly affect ranges
and extreme levels. For the same reason St. Clair indicators are restricted to the average level and elevation differences.
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-57
-------
Comments
Water levels are important to the public. The importance to wetland integrity, however, of natural level fluctuations is less
widely appreciated and use of modeled elevations of emergents, historical ranges and one index for all parameters and lakes
may be difficult for public understanding.
Painter, Scott and Paul Keddy, 1992. Conceptual Emergent Marsh Response to Water Level Regulation. National Water
Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington Ontario.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land
Related Issue(s): habitat, climate change
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
1-58 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Indicator ID: 7055
Measure
Land use adjacent to a representative set of coastal wetlands, measured as a weighted score determined by multiplying the
wetland perimeter (km) in each land use by an associated weighting factor and dividing by the total upland perimeter (km) of
the wetland. Weighting factors depend on the width of habitat (wooded, idle or natural grassland cover) directly abutting the
wetland and on the land use adjacent to that habitat, as shown below:
Habitat Width Adjacent to Wetland Land Use Adjacent to Habitat_
Urban/Residential Row Crop Hay/Pasture
>750 m 111
250-750m 0.25 0.5 0.8
50-250m 0.1 0.2 0.5
20-50m 0.05 0.1 0.25
<20m -1.0 -0.5 -0.2
4
C,
2J) km
Purpose
To indirectly measure the quality of adjoining upland habitat which can have a major effect on wetland biota, many of which
require upland habitat for part of their life cycle.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain and restore healthy coastal wetlands and associated diverse wildlife populations which require adequate
adjoining upland habitat (GLWQA Annexes 11 and 13; IJC Desired Outcome 6 and 9).
Endpoint
SOLEC98—Selection of Indicators 1-59
-------
Score for Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands = 1 (corresponding to all wetlands with adjacent habitat >750 m).
Features
This is an indicator of off-site influence, and assesses the effects of land uses adjacent to coastal wetlands. It is potentially
linked to all of the Coastal Wetland State/Response indicators. Although related to indicator #8132, Nearshore Land Use
Intensity, and to indicator #8136, Nearshore Natural Land Cover, its specificity to wetlands makes it much more relevant to
wetland health. It will show steady trends rather than high variability.
Illustration
A graph will be displayed with x-axis as years and y-axis as adjacent habitat ranging from a worst case (all wetlands with
adjacent urban uses) of -1 to a best case (all wetlands with > 750 m of adjacent habitat) of 1.
Limitations
This indicator is a direct measure of habitat for only a subset of coastal wetlands. This subset should represent wetland
types, adjacent habitat, and land uses. Weighting factors are best estimates rather than based on precise science, but can
easily be amended and applied to past data. Like several wetland indicators, it depends on availability and utility of remote
sensing for the representative set. Interpretation, although straightforward, will take some time.
Interpretation
The lower the weighted average, the worse the ranking.
Comments
Among coastal ecosystems, the integrity of coastal wetlands is particularly dependent on adjoining habitat. Many wetland
biota need non-wetland habitat for part of their life cycle, with varying area and distance requirements. The quality (e.g.,
disturbance, surface water quality) of adjoining habitat is in turn influenced by its abutting land use. This indicator uses
simple scores to quantitatively rank these relationships.
This Indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes.
The SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems identifies the ecoreaches from which
representative wetlands will be selected. Also, each site can be individually scored for local interest.
Unfinished Business
Sorting
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environment integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-60 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
Indicator ID: 8129
Measure
Area, quality, and protected status of twelve special lakeshore communities occurring within 1 kilometre (km) of shoreline.
The twelve special lakeshore communities are sand beaches, sand dunes, bedrock and cobble beaches, unconsolidated
shore bluffs, coastal gneissic rocklands, limestone cliffs and talus slopes, lakeplain prairies, sand barrens, arctic-alpine
disjunct communities, Atlantic coastal plain disjunct communities, shoreline alvars, and islands.
Purpose
To directly measure changes in area and quality of the twelve special lakeshore communities and to indirectly identify the
sources of threats to some of the most ecologically significant habitats in the Great Lakes terrestrial nearshore, as well as to
indirectly measure the success of management activities associated with the protection status.
Ecosystem Objective
Relates to IJC Desired Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity.
Endpoint
No net loss in area or quality of the twelve special lakeshore communities.
Features
The twelve special lakeshore communities presented in this indicator are identified in "Land by the Lakes," a paper from
SOLEC '96, as some of the most ecologically significant habitats in the terrestrial nearshore. This indicator will map the
location and extent of these special lakeshore communities from existing studies (where available), Biological Conservation
Databases, remote sensing and aerial photos, and land use planning data. The quality of special lakeshore communities will
be ranked using criteria such as size, condition, and landscape context. In addition to location and quality, this indicator will
identify the protection status related to each identified special lakeshore community (e.g., public conservation ownership,
private conservation ownership, protective land use policies), as well as the severity of threats to the quality of each
community, such as the presence of invasive exotic species.
Illustration
Colour mapping could show the distribution of each special lakeshore community, ranked by quality or degree of protection
for each lake, ecoregion, or the basin. Bar charts could highlight changes over time for each community, or compare the
current area to estimates of the original area. A preliminary analysis of sand dune complexes across the Great Lakes basin
by The Nature Conservancy's Great Lakes Program provides an example of how the results could be portrayed. In addition to
charts showing the percentage of protective ownership, this model illustrates the severity of different types of stresses
affecting this community.
Limitations
Data collection may be difficult for many reasons. Collection of detailed data on a regular basis may be difficult due to the
large area and the number of different jurisdictions to be examined. Identification of special lakeshore communities using
aerial photography may prove easy for some communities and more difficult for others. Lastly, information on location and
quality for some special lakeshore communities is incomplete, therefore, this indicator will require some expense to establish
a reliable baseline.
Interpretation
A baseline of the area of each of the twelve special lakeshore communities will be established for comparison with periodic
monitoring every 3-5 years to identify changes. As more information becomes available, this indicator could provide a more
detailed analysis of changes in area and habitat quality within each of the communities, as well as a better understanding of
the threats to these communities. Quality rankings for each occurrence of a special lakeshore community can be based on
techniques developed by state/provincial Heritage Programs, which establishes classes for size, assesses condition based on
disturbance and the presence/absence of sensitive species, and rates the degree of connection and buffering provided by the
surrounding landscape context.
Comments
This indicator provides easily understood information on the ongoing loss of the best of Great Lakes shoreline communities.
The information conveyed by this indicator will help to focus attention and management efforts on the special communities
undergoing the greatest rate of change.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-61
-------
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
1-62 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Indicator ID: 8131
Measure
Kilometres of shoreline that have been hardened through construction of sheet piling, rip rap and other erosion control shore
protection structures. (Does not include artificial coastal structures such as jetties, groynes, breakwalls, piers, etc.)
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of shoreline habitat altered by the construction of shore protection, and to indirectly measure
the potential harm to aquatic life in the nearshore as a result of conditions (i.e., shoreline erosion) created by habitat
alteration.
Ecosystem Objective
Shoreline conditions should be healthy to support aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal life, including the rarest species.
Relates to the International Joint Commission (IJC) Desired Outcome 9: Physical Environment Integrity.
Endpoint
No net increase in the amount of hardened shoreline along any of the Great Lakes or connecting channels.
Features
There is limited historical data available on this indicator, but estimates of the extent of shore protection were made as part of
an IJC reference in 1992. Data collection for this indicator could include estimates based on aerial photography and limited
field studies, with a focus on Areas of Concern and sites identified from the 1992 IJC data where shoreline hardening appears
to be increasing.
Illustration
A bar chart for each lake, or reaches within lakes, could document the annual change in the amount of hardened shoreline.
Limitations
The field data needed to assess the actual length of new hardened shoreline each year would be costly. A commitment to
collect data within selected areas every 5 years might be more achievable.
Interpretation
The degree of negative impact to aquatic life in the nearshore will vary depending on the design of the protection and on the
antecedent conditions. Some types of hardened shoreline induce more severe impacts than do others. A classification
scheme that reflects the degree of impacts from different types of shore protection should be developed, based on a literature
review.
Comments
Some types of shore protection create conditions that are not hospitable to aquatic life in the nearshore. This indicator will
measure the extent to which this is occurring.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide a baseline year and a baseline amount of hardened shoreline for the endpoint.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-63
-------
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Indicator ID: 8132
Measure
Land use types, and associated area, within 1 kilometre (km) of shore. Land use types could include urban residential,
commercial, and industrial, non-urban residential, intensive agriculture, extensive agricultural, abandoned agricultural, closed-
canopy forest, harvested forest, wetland and other natural area.
Purpose
To directly measure the types and extent of major land uses and to indirectly measure the effects of land use on significant
natural features or processes, particularly on the twelve special lakeshore communities as defined in "Land by the Lakes," a
paper from the SOLEC '96. The twelve special lakeshore communities are sand beaches, sand dunes, bedrock and cobble
beaches, unconsolidated shore bluffs, coastal gneissic rocklands, limestone cliffs and talus slopes, lakeplain prairies, sand
barrens, arctic-alpine disjunct communities, Atlantic coastal plain disjunct communities, shoreline alvars, and islands.
Ecosystem Objective
Healthy nearshore terrestrial ecological communities will be maintained. Relates to IJC Desired Outcomes 6: Biological
Community Integrity and Diversity and 9: Physical Environment Integrity.
Endpoint
No net loss or alteration of significant natural features or processes from current conditions.
Features
This indicator will track trends in terrestrial nearshore land uses overtime (ideally 5 to 10 year periods) and focus on
identifying areas experiencing the greatest changes in land use intensity overtime. To identify and map terrestrial nearshore
land uses, this indicator will rely on a variety of methods, including remote sensing; aerial photography; available land use
planning data for areas identified as already experiencing rapid land use changes (e.g., urban areas and cottage
development); municipal data on building permits; and official plan/zoning bylaw amendments. Subsequent yearly monitoring
will establish an increase or decrease in the extent of major land use types. This indicator is related to indicator #8136,
Nearshore Natural Land Cover.
Illustration
For each lake basin, lake, jurisdiction, and ecoregion, a table or graph will display annual changes in the area and degree of
interspersion of each land use.
Limitations
Data collection may be difficult for many reasons. Collection of detailed data on a regular basis may be difficult due to the
large area and the number of different jurisdictions to be examined. Differences in types of land use planning data collected
by jurisdictions may also hamper the collection of consistent data to support this indicator. Some limited historical data are
available on land use types, but these data are focused on specific areas. A few basin-wide studies have been conducted
that would provide a basic description of land use trends (e.g., U.S. National Shoreline Inventory from the early 1970s and a
recent IJC water levels reference study) but it may be difficult to compare these data due to differences in methodology and
generalizations that may have been used.
Interpretation
Developing a baseline for this indicator will require both a review of existing data sources to determine their usability, and a
discussion among agencies to establish a common list of land use types and parameters. Computerized analysis of satellite
imagery may provide a cost-effective means of data collection for the overall nearshore area. A more detailed study and
ground-truthing of selected areas, however, will be needed to assess the relationship of land use changes to the loss or
alteration of significant natural features and processes. In particular, results from this indicator should be compared to results
from indicator #8129, Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities, to assist in identifying land use
change patterns that threaten natural habitats.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, land use
1-64 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-65
-------
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species
Indicator ID: 8134
Measure
Type and abundance of plant and wildlife problem species, including white sweet clover, leafy spurge, spotted knapweed,
garlic mustard, white-tailed deer, and Brown-headed Cowbird, within 1 kilometre (km) from shore.
Purpose
To directly measure the type and abundance of plant and wildlife problem species in landscapes bordering the Great Lakes
and to indirectly measure the potential threat to the health of nearshore ecological processes and communities.
Ecosystem Objective
Healthy nearshore ecological processes and communities in the Great Lakes should be free of disruptive problem species.
Healthy populations of grassland/forest interior bird species should be undisturbed by parasitic species. Preserve/restore
larger intact ecosystems to support healthy nearshore ecological processes and communities in the Great Lakes. Relates to
International Joint Commission (IJC) Desired Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity.
Endpoint
1) For problem plant species, the desired outcomes are a) eradication at key sites, defined as excellent examples of
representative communities or globally rare communities, and b) a downward trend from current levels in the abundance of
these species in other nearshore areas.
2) For deer, the desired outcomes are a) the successful regeneration of all native plant species that are browsed by deer,
including white cedar, Canada yew, northern red oak, Trillium grandiflorum; b) intact vegetation structures (e.g..canopy, sub-
canopy, shrub and forest floor layers) within areas browsed by deer; and c) the deer density is below a level defined
regionally as a sustainable population.
3) For cowbirds, the desired outcome is a decrease in parasitism to levels that allow recruitment by host bird species (e.g.,
Wood or Swainson's Thrush, Veery, Red-eyed Vireo, Black-and-white Warbler, Ovenbird, Savannah Sparrow, Bobolink) to
meet or exceed the replacement rate of at least 2.0 young fledged/nest/year.
Features
This indicator will track changes in presence and abundance of plant and wildlife problem species over time. Exotic plant
species are indicative of disrupted ecological processes in ecological communities. They tend to displace native species and
further disrupt the dynamics of plant communities. White sweet clover, leafy spurge and spotted knapweed are found in open
habitats while garlic mustard occurs in forests. White-tailed deer and Brown-headed Cowbirds are indicative of landscape
changes where there is much habitat fragmentation and a high proportion of early successional habitats. Population levels of
problem species and forest or grassland interior bird species that serve as host to cowbirds should be monitored at selected
sites along each of the Great Lakes in landscapes ranging from highly fragmented to unfragmented. Vegetation monitoring
within wintering areas for deer should also be carried out. Special attention should be paid to those areas experiencing
considerable change. For example, the indicator should communicate if the problem species are expanding or reducing their
influence in areas at the edge of their range and/or in areas undergoing restoration. Monitoring at reference sites scattered
along the shoreline will be critical.
Illustration
For each lake, this indicator will present changes in mean number/productivity per unit area per site for problem species or for
forest and grassland interior bird species that serve as host to cowbirds. This indicator will divide sites into fragmented and
unfragmented landscapes bordering each side of each Great Lake. The illustration for this indicator will display on a bar chart
trends by year for each site representing a fragmented and unfragmented landscape. This indicator will also display the
occurrence and recruitment for white cedar, northern red oak, Canada yew, Trillium grandiflorum, as well as the vegetation
structure at these same sites to show the effects of problem species on natural communities.
Limitations
Distributions of native and alien species within 1 km of Great Lakes shorelines are generally known, although densities are
poorly described. Densities of some species (deer, Swainson's Thrush, Red-eyed Vireo, Black-and-white Warbler) are known
at only a few locales, or not at all. Data on presence/absence of problem species are relatively easy to collect but would
require basin-wide coordination of botanists, deer biologists, and ornithologists to accomplish. Collection of data on the
densities of problem species requires training, standardized data collection techniques, and accounting for observer bias.
Data on the productivity of problem species are very costly to obtain, especially on a sustained basis. It would be best to
collect these data at longer intervals.
Interpretation
A number of other factors will need to be considered in interpreting this indicator. Changes in abundance, density, and
productivity of native nearshore ecological communities are caused by factors other than the degree of habitat fragmentation,
1-66 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
the amount of available habitat, and interactions with invasive exotic species. Factors such as connectivity and the
survivorship of birds on migration routes and wintering areas will influence abundance density and productivity, and therefore,
will affect the interpretation of this indicator. In general, increases in interior species and decreases in problem species,
compared to a baseline of current populations, should be interpreted as good.
Comments
The list of problem species to be monitored for this indicator needs to be narrowed down. The number and location of
monitoring sites for this indicator, as well as a definition of fragmented and unfragmented, need to be determined for this
indicator. If the interface between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems is addressed, purple loosestrife and Phragmites
australis should be added to the list. Changes in responses (e.g., management efforts) to problem species should also be
documented.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine the level of parasitism by the cowbird that will allow recruitment of host bird species to meet or
exceed the replacement rate of at least 2.0 young fledged/nest/year.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 17:
Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-67
-------
Contaminants affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Indicator ID: 8135
Measure
1) Concentrations of DDT Complex, PCS, PCDD, PCDF and other organic contaminants and mercury and other heavy metals
in Bald Eagle eggs, blood, and feathers; 2) number of fledged young produced; and 3) number of developmental deformities.
Purpose
To directly measure the concentrations of organic and heavy metal contamination in Bald Eagle eggs, blood, and feathers
and to indirectly measure the concentrations, as well as identify the source, of these contaminants in the food web. Also, to
directly measure injury to wildlife from organic and heavy metal contaminants, and an indirect measure of the potential harm
to human health through the consumption of contaminated fish.
Ecosystem Objective
Relates to IJC Desired Outcomes 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity and 7: Virtual Elimination of Inputs of
Persistent Toxic Substances.
Endpoint
1) Concentrations of organic and heavy metal contaminants less than the NOAEL in eggs, blood, and feathers; 2) productivity
rate of 1.0 young per occupied breeding area annually; and 3) no observed developmental deformities in nestlings.
Features
Annual productivity data exists for Bald Eagle breeding areas in the Great Lakes since early 1960s. Data exists on the
concentrations of contaminants in eggs and feathers since late 1960s. Annual inspection of nestlings during banding
provides rates of expressed deformities.
Illustration
For each lake, and subunits within each lake, the following trends will be shown graphically: concentrations of organic and
heavy metal contaminants; yearly productivity; and, areas where deformities have been documented. -Illustrations for this
indicator will also present territories and habitat suitability indices. The data from 1970-1998 will be displayed; data prior to
1970 may have inconsistencies.
Limitations
Eagles do not nest on every shoreline of every Great Lake. They are highly viewed by the public and not a good laboratory
animal. They can be linked with the presence of colonial waterbirds and osprey using conversion factors to generate a better
geographic representation.
Interpretation
Biological endpoints specifically related to persistent toxic substances addressed by the GLWQA are well known and are
published in the peer-reviewed literature on cause-effect linkages.
Comments
This indicator is one of few that has been tested in the field. It is one of the best indicators identified by the IJC in relation to
the GLWQA because long-term data are available and there are known reproductive effects.
Reproductive failure, depressed reproduction, increased incidence of teratogenic effects, and behavioral effects (related to food
gathering or parenting skills) are used as endpoints and related various PTS concentrations. Since different PTSs have different
effects, multiple endpoints are necessary. Also, since the effects change based on concentrations in the biological matrix measured
(blood, egg, feather), multiple endpoints are necessary so that progress toward recovery from PTSs can be measured.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12:
Persistent toxic substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 5: Bird or animal deformities or reproductive
problems
1-68 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Indicator ID: 8136
Measure
Percent of natural land cover types within 1 km of the shoreline that meet minimum standards of habitat quality.
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of natural land cover that falls within 1 km of the shoreline and to indirectly measure the
impact of artificial coastal structures and primary/secondary home development on the extent and quality of nearshore
terrestrial ecosystems in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain the health and function of a representative number of shoreline natural land cover types. Relates to IJC Desired
Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity.
Endpoint
Shoreline natural land cover types will be 1) well represented, and 2) healthy. To determine if natural land cover within 1 km
of the shoreline is well-represented and healthy, additional work is required to develop quantitative endpoints.
Features
This indicator will track changes in the number of hectares of coastal communities on the Great Lakes over time. Natural land
cover within 1 km of the shoreline generally includes areas that: provide important habitat to migrating birds; contribute
sediment and chemical loadings to streams and the lake; preserve the integrity of river-mouth wetlands; and sustain other
nearshore natural processes. Only cover type occurrences that meet minimum quality standards would be included. These
standards could be based on occurrence size (e.g., over 2 acres), condition, and landscape context, using similar criteria to
those in indicator #8129, Special Lakeshore Communities. It is not likely that the natural land cover within 1 km of the
shoreline has been assessed in many areas around the Great Lakes. A baseline should be established (i.e. 2000) with re-
mapping occurring every ten years (i.e., 2010, 2020) to track trends in land cover change. Data from this 1 km zone can be
linked with land cover analysis occurring further inland to report on the health of entire watersheds. Data collection for this
indicator should be done in conjunction with indicator #8132, Nearshore Land Use Intensity.
Illustration
The percentage of land cover within 1 km of the shoreline can be mapped using remote sensing products, such as satellite
imagery, and then displayed on geographic information systems (CIS). Different types of vegetation communities can be
analyzed and displayed for a particular area of shoreline, or for the entire shoreline of a Great Lake using the GIS. The
resulting information could be portrayed as bar charts for each area, showing both comparisons between cover types and
changes overtime.
Limitations
Information on historical vegetation communities is likely available in surveyors records, early journals, and old air photos and
will need to be assembled. Although this is a relatively inexpensive indicator, because much of the remote sensing mapping
and GIS software is likely already available, there will be costs involved in adapting existing data to report on the 1km
shoreline zone (i.e., joining maps, integrating data at different scales). Establishing a baseline should not be very costly.
Costs will rise as this indicator is related to other information (see Interpretation field).
Interpretation
This indicator will show whether the nearshore natural land cover is increasing or decreasing in comparison to the baseline,
and what kinds of changes are taking place. The information contained in this indicator will be more useful if coupled with
other indicators that measure changes in other components of the Great Lakes nearshore terrestrial ecosystems. For
example, information on changes in the presence and abundance of birds, reptiles, amphibians, plants and other nearshore
terrestrial species dependent on land cover within 1 km of the shoreline will provide a better understanding of how changes in
the percentage of natural land cover affects the ecosystem.
Comments
The information needed to develop endpoints for this indicator is likely available, but will require a literature search and
discussions with additional experts. Representatives from the Long Point and Whitefish Point Bird Observatories should be
consulted on the requirements of migratory birds in the shoreline zone. Assembling the historical and current vegetation
community information for the 1 km shoreline zone should be undertaken in partnership with other SOLEC groups who are
interested in adjacent watersheds because much of the baseline information will be common to both interests.
A more detailed definition of the types of natural land cover to be included in this indicator needs to be developed. Data
collection efforts should use satellite imagery at the best resolution available (i.e., 5 or 20 metres) and refine information for
specific areas of interest along the lakes using aerial photography.
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-69
-------
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13:
Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environment integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
1-70 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Indicator ID: 8137
Measure
The type and number of plant and wildlife species, and vegetation regeneration rates within the nearshore area, defined as
the area within 1 kilometer (km) of the shoreline.
Purpose
To directly measure the composition and abundance of plant and wildlife species over time within the nearshore area and to
indirectly measure of adverse effects on the nearshore terrestrial ecosystem due to stresses such as climate change and/or
increasing land use intensity.
Ecosystem Objective
Relates to the IJC Desired Outcomes 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, and 7: Virtual Elimination of Inputs of
Persistent Toxic Substances.
Endpoint
Naturally-regenerating nearshore plant and wildlife communities with a diversity of native species equivalent to historical
populations.
Features
This indicator will track changes in nearshore plant and wildlife species composition and abundance over time. Plant and
wildlife species in the nearshore area are sensitive to changes in environmental and habitat conditions. This indicator could
draw on several existing sources of information, as well as encourage new data collection. Ontario, Canada, and most States
have comprehensive data sets for breeding birds on a geo-referenced 10 km x 10 km grid that is periodically updated.
Similar data are available for herptiles, mammals, and trees, although they are less likely to be comprehensive. For some
sites along the shoreline, historical data are available on the regeneration of species such as White Cedar, White Pine, and
Canada Yew. Changes in regeneration rates of these species, or of other communities such as lichens, are indicative of
either local pressures such as deer browsing, or broader-scale environmental changes, such as air pollution. As new data
becomes available (on a 10-15 year cycle for comprehensive coverage), changes over time can be observed.
Illustration
Using existing breeding bird data, a map could be readily generated showing shoreline cells (i.e. the number of species within
their normal breeding range) with the number of breeding species within each as a percentage of the total number of species
within their breeding range.
Limitations
Comprehensive data is not available for all species groups, and data collection is laborious and largely volunteer-based.
Even for the best data sets, such as the data set on breeding birds, coverage is incomplete in more remote areas. Historical
data on regeneration rates is highly site-specific, and available for relatively few sites.
Interpretation
These data can be compared to the total number of species that could be expected within each shoreline cell. For some
species, population ratios could also be derived as well, as a comparative measure of stress - for example, classing the
population of a species within each cell as abundant, common, scarce, or rare. The nature of observed changes over time
can indicate different kinds of stresses. For example, a uniform decrease in the diversity of breeding species could indicate a
broad-scale stress such as climate change; decreases only on urban fringes while more remote areas stay the same would
more likely point to local habitat changes. It would be useful to divide the data between resident and long distance migrant
birds in order to separate local from broad impacts.
Comments
As part of the indicator development, priority species, which could be groups of birds, woodland frogs, etc., should be
selected.
In regional studies carried out in southern Ontario by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, this method showed a range in
values from 100% of expected species in good habitats to less than 70% in areas with degraded conditions.
Unfinished Business
Need to develop a more quantitative endpoint.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-71
-------
Related Issue(s): exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
1-72 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Community/Species Plans
Indicator ID: 8139
Measure
Number of plans that are needed, developed, and implemented to maintain or restore high quality, natural nearshore
communities — those within 1 kilometre (km) of the shoreline — and federally/nationally listed endangered, threatened, and
vulnerable species.
Purpose
To directly measure the number of plans that are needed, developed, and implemented to maintain or restore high quality,
natural nearshore communities and federally/nationally listed endangered, threatened, and vulnerable species, and to directly
measure the type and number of communities and species that require protection. This indicator will also indirectly measure
the type and number of communities that will potentially be maintained/recovered through plan development and
implementation.
Ecosystem Objective
Programs should be responsive to the degradation of shoreline communities and species. Relates to IJC Desired Outcome
6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity.
Endpoint
Implementation of plans that contained recommended action steps and associated timetables to maintain/recover all
significant nearshore natural communities and endangered/threatened/vulnerable species populations identified to date within
the nearshore area.
Features
This indicator will compare the number of plans that are needed, developed, and implemented over time. Plans are needed
for any species or community that is officially designated as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable (rare) at the
federal/national level. The plans will describe the existing community/species status by addressing natural quality, threats,
signs of disturbance; natural diversity; rare species (communities) and population size; reproductive success, threats, and
recovery needs (species); and recommended action steps. Well-crafted plans will enable monitoring and appropriate
conservation measures overtime. Implementation of these plans is defined as tangible, on-the-ground management
activities that can be shown to be making a measurable difference in the community/species status.
Illustration
To illustrate this indicator, a bar chart will be presented that summarizes the number of plans needed, developed, and
implemented for each lake, and tracks progress overtime.
Limitations
Tracking the communities/species needing plans and with plans developed should be relatively easy, in conjunction with the
federal/national agencies with responsibilities for endangered species. Collecting and analyzing data on implementation in a
consistent way may be more difficult.
Interpretation
This indicator should provide a relatively straightforward measure of the attention devoted to communities/species at risk.
However, the actual success of these measures will depend largely on the adequacy of the plans and their implementation.
Research should be encouraged to address the relationship between the number of plans implemented and the actual
maintenance/recovery of natural communities and endangered/threatened/vulnerable species populations.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Need to determine a reference value that will be used to quantify this endpoint. For example, the endpoint for this indicator
might be the implementation of a certain percentage of plans from a total number identified as needed during a baseline
year. Or the reference value could be implementation of all plans developed during the previous year.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, societal
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-73
-------
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
Indicator ID: 8141
Measure
Percent of shoreline managed under an integrated shoreline management plan. An integrated shoreline management plan is
one that includes consideration of coastal processes, aquatic habitat, and designates appropriate setbacks, etc. and is
incorporated into local planning documents (e.g. a municipal Official Plan).
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of Great Lakes shoreline managed under an integrated management plan, and to indirectly
measure the degree of stewardship of shoreline processes and habitat.
Ecosystem Objective
Programs should be responsive to the degradation of shoreline communities and species. Relates to IJC Desired Outcomes
6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, and 9: Physical Environment Integrity.
Endpoint
The target is 100% of shoreline under "good" pro-active management.
Features
This indicator will track trends in integrated shoreline management plans over time. It will point to areas of the Great Lakes
shoreline that are subject to poor or no coastal management. These trends can be used to direct future shoreline
management activities.
Illustration
For each of the lakes, this indicator will display a map of shorelines and highlight segments under poor, moderate and good
management. This indicator could also be displayed using a pie chart that illustrates the percent of shoreline under the three
types of management.
Limitations
Information on quality of shoreline management plans has not been measured across the Great Lakes basin. Existence of
shoreline management plans indicates an intent to manage the shoreline accordingly, but does not demonstrate actual
compliance or implementation. However, an integrative plan, one that is adopted/incorporated into land use planning
documents, does demonstrate serious intent. It is difficult to determine compliance with the plan, or calculate how many
zoning variances or amendments have been granted, and it would be too much effort to measure. By focusing on integrated
plans, this indicator addresses only part of shoreline planning efforts. Other management plans and programs, including
efforts of local municipalities, non-government agencies and the private sector could be considered as these are becoming
increasingly important and will continue into the future.
Interpretation
To determine the percentage of shoreline under "good" pro-active management, this indicator could use the following 3- tiered
ranking: "poor" = no plan at all; "moderate" = an old plan or a new one that has not actually been adopted; and "good" = an
integrated plan that has been incorporated into land use documents. This information could be collected through a survey of
shoreline management agencies. Results should be easy to present in an understandable format.
Comments
Some initial research on the potential for integrated shoreline management planning by province and states has been done
by Patrick Lawrence at University of Waterloo, along with a focus on continued research on the capacity of Ontario
municipalities to undertake Great Lakes shoreline management.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land, humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-74 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Artificial Coastal Structures
Indicator ID: 8146
Measure
The number and type of artificial coastal structures (including groynes, breakwalls, riprap, piers, etc) on the Great Lakes
shoreline. Artificial coastal structures include structures that extend into shallow waters at an angle from the shoreline, or are
placed offshore for the purpose of breaking the force of the waves. They are distinct from the hardened shoreline works
described in indicator #8131, Hardened Shoreline, which modify the shoreline edge itself.
Purpose
To directly measure the number of artificial coastal structures on the Great Lakes and to indirectly measure potential harm to
coastal habitat by sand transport disruption.
Ecosystem Objective
Limit impact to natural features and processes in the terrestrial nearshore and nearshore waters environments. Relates to
IJC Desired Outcome 9: Physical Environment Integrity.
Endpoint
Modification or removal of artificial coastal structures which are shown to negatively affect coastal sand transport, and
restoration of natural coastal transport and deposition processes.
Features
This indicator will present trends in the number of coastal structures overtime. From aerial photos and existing data sets, a
baseline of artificial shoreline structures will be established. Yearly monitoring will be performed to determine if there is an
increase or decrease in the structures. An increase will signify potential increased coastal sand transport disruption.
Illustration
A graph with the number of artificial structures on the y axis and the year on the x axis.
Limitations
It may be difficult to monitor the number of structures on a yearly basis and correlate with the degree of disruption of sand
transport in specific sites. Monitoring could be done every 3-5 years, or in periods directly following high lake levels, when
many of these structures tend to be built.
Interpretation
An increase in the number of artificial shoreline structures in comparison to the baseline will signal a disruption of the coastal
process of sand transport.
Comments
Refer to IJC water level reference study for a classification of shore protection types and summaries of the % length by lake
and shoreline reach.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): land use
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-75
-------
Contaminants affecting the American Otter
Indicator ID: 8147
Measure
1) Concentrations of heavy metals (e.g., Hg, Pb, Cd) found in hair, blood, liver, and brain of the American otter; and 2)
concentrations of DDT and metabolites, PCBs/ PCDFs/PCDDs, Dioxin, and other organic contaminants found in fatty tissues,
liver, and blood of the American otter.
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 concentrations
of contaminants present in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Relates to IJC Desired Outcomes 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, and 7: Virtual Elimination of Inputs of
Persistent Toxic Substances.
Endpoint
1) Maintenance of otter populations in the upper lakes, and restoration of sustainable otter populations to lower Lake
Michigan, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie watersheds and shorelines; 2) Great Lakes shoreline and watershed populations of
American otter should have an annual mean production > 2 young/adult female; and 3) concentrations of heavy metal and
organic contaminants should be less than the NOAEL found in tissue samples from mink as compared to otter tissue
samples.
Features
American otters are a direct link to organic and heavy metal concentrations in the food chain. The species has primarily a
piscivorous diet, but feeds on a wide array of other aquatic organisms. It is also more sedentary than avian species
associated with aquatic food chains and subsequently synthesizes contaminants from a smaller area. It has an appropriate
application to measure environmental contaminants on a Great Lakes level, but also on a localized scale. Changes in the
species population and range are also representative of anthropogenic riverine and lacustrine habitat alterations. Indications
of contaminant problems have been noted by decreased population levels, morphological measures (i.e. baculum length)
through necropsies and declines in fecundity. Most State resource management agencies perform necropsies to determine
an index of fecundity, deformities, growth rates, age and general health of a given population. Fecundity data from
necropsies should be expressed by county and provincial management district annually. Limited toxicological studies have
been conducted on Great Lakes otter. Trapping data has been intermittently available since 1835 in the Great Lakes region
as an index of species abundance. In Ontario and the Great Lake States, except Ohio, trapping success has been used to
model populations.
Illustration
Annual trapping success expressed by total killed and number of otter killed/trapper by county and provincial management
district adjacent to Great Lake shorelines from 1950 to the present. Contaminant concentrations and trapping success data
could be presented as bar charts showing trends over time, or on a map of the Great Lakes basin showing comparative data
among management districts.
Limitations
American otters are difficult to maintain for controlled experiments and are highly visible to the public. There is very little
toxicological data available on the species for the Great Lakes. Otters have limited populations in the lower Great Lakes. The
method of modeling otter populations by harvest success and using indices of fecundity does not accurately measure
population levels in the Great Lakes. Little published data exists on the ecology of otters in the Great Lakes region.
Interpretation
Interpretation of this indicator may prove difficult since the ecology of the species and toxicological profiles from the region
remain essentially unknown. No data are available on cause and effect linkages for otter in the Great Lakes. Otter are
usually compared to contaminant levels in mink because the end points of a toxicological effect are better understood.
Comments
The potential of the American otter as a Great Lakes Indicator makes intuitive sense. However, more information on its
ecology and cause and effect linkages to contaminant problems in the Great Lakes region need to be determined to increase
the utility of this indicator.
Resource management agencies should be encouraged to search for and monitor otter toilets on or near Great Lake
shorelines for activity annually to note changes in distribution and stability in populations in relationship to sub-units of the
Great Lakes that are known to be contaminated.
1-76 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
This proposed indicator was the most contentious of the nearshore terrestrial set, with some commenters suggesting that it
be dropped, or replaced with monitoring of otter reproduction. In their view, otter reproduction would provide a measure that
is more useful in assessing progress toward the GLWQA objectives versus evidence of reductions inferred from chemical
analyses and conservative benchmarks. There is also concern that otter contaminant monitoring duplicates the mink
indicator.
In response, other reviewers noted that mink are less common than otters in Lake Superior island environments (where they
could provide an indicator that would not be influenced by mainland anthropogenic influences), and that mink are extremely
problematic to study in the field. Otter differ entirely from mink in their habits and habitats. Otter are far more easy to trap
safely and study in the field, and transmitter durations of 3-5 years are possible. They are observable during the day, and
their sign is more obvious than that of mink. The territorial behavior of the American otter facilitates the determination of
population densities and assists in monitoring efforts. They also live longer than mink, therefore, they synthesize
environmental influences for a longer period. Study skins and furs up to 150 years old are available, allowing a historical
analysis of metal concentrations in hair. This historical information could not be collected using mink. Literature worldwide
documents anthropogenic toxins as one reason for otter populations declining in many parts of the world.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic
substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 5: Bird or animal deformities or reproductive
problems
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-77
-------
Protected Nearshore Areas
Indicator ID: 8149
Measure
The percentage of the Great Lakes shoreline under various levels of protection in six classes as defined by the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The six IUCN classes are 1) strict protection, such as nature reserves and
wilderness; 2) ecosystem conservation and recreation, such as national parks; 3) conservation of natural features, such as
natural monuments; 4) conservation through active management, such as wildlife management areas; 5) protected
landscapes/seascapes; and 6) managed resource protected areas, such as sustainable use areas.
IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
with the assistance of World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.
Purpose
To directly measure the kilometers/miles of shoreline in protective status and the kind of protection in place and to indirectly
measure the preservation and restoration of habitat and biodiversity; the protection of adjacent nearshore waters from
physical disturbance and undesirable inputs (nutrients and toxics); and the preservation of essential links in the migration
(lifecycle) of birds and butterflies which migrate continentally.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes shall be free of... net loss offish and wildlife habitat (GLWQA, Annex 2, item xiv). Relates to IJC Desired
Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity. Also relates to several of Lake Superior LaMP's Habitat Objectives
including: land and water uses should be designed and located in harmony with the protective and productive ecosystem
functions; degraded features should be rehabilitated or restored; and, land use planning and regulation should eliminate or
avoid destructive land-water linkages, and foster healthy land-water linkage.
Endpoint
Significant increase in extent of Great Lakes shoreline within formal protected areas.
Features
The reference values are the kilometers/miles of shoreline which are protected as a percent of the total shoreline and the
percent of increase or decrease over time as measured every two to four years.
Illustration
For each selected area (e.g., basin-wide, lake, special shoreline community, ecoregion, etc.) graphs will be displayed with the
percentage of protected area on the y axis and years on the x axis. Additionally, for each selected area, maps will be
displayed that show the protected shoreline and its class of protection.
Limitations
Data on national parks and RAMSAR sites should be relatively easy to obtain. However, data from other locations require the
cooperation of state/provincial and local authorities, who may not always have the resources to collect or maintain this
information. If baseline data is not readily available, collecting the data will be resource-intensive, and therefore expensive.
Subsequent data updates will require only moderate expense. This indicator is useless unless the data inventory is kept up
to date and there is consistency in data treatment (database management and CIS) which will require readily available
expertise, a continuing, low-level, effort in data management, and a consistent approach.
Interpretation
Once the baseline is established, the percent of the shoreline in protected status can be tracked. "Bad" or "good" trends will
be determined by how the percent of the shoreline in protected status is changing overtime. An increase in the percent of
shoreline in protected status would be considered "good;" a decrease would be considered "bad." The indicator may be
complemented by information on the status (ecological integrity, quality) of wetlands, natural land cover along the shoreline,
and information on special communities. It may be interesting to show where protected areas and AOC/RAP or Biodiversity
Investment Areas coincide, and where the information for this indicator is useful for the evaluation of RAPs or Biodiversity
Investment Areas.
Comments
A protected area database has been kept at Environment Canada; whether it is up-to-date or not is unknown. Precise spatial
information (precise location and extent, which part of the shoreline, how far inshore) is either not available or poor. In
Canada, data for RAMSAR sites, national parks, or MAS sites should be easy to locate. It is not known how often this data is
updated, or whether the sites are periodically monitored for their quality (ecological integrity). In the U.S., data on protected
areas would have to be compiled from federal and state agency sources. A useful starting point for relevant data can by
found in the Environmental Sensitivity Atlases for each of the lakes and connecting channels.
1-78 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
This indicator overlaps with coastal wetland indicators. It would be good to link the information with an indicator on the
location, extent and quality of wetlands; also, to what extent these wetlands are protected. The indicator may need some
refinement to express "representativeness" (proportion of special lakeshore habitat types included) or better links to
"Important Bird Areas", or conservation plans.
MAS Man and the Biosphere. Initiated by UNESCO to address problems relating to conservation of resources,
resources systems, and human settlement development.
RAMSAR The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which
provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use
of wetlands and their resources.
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-79
-------
Urban Density
Indicator ID: 7000
Measure
Human population per square kilometer of existing and proposed development areas. Total area is adjusted to exclude parks
and other designated greenspace.
Purpose
To directly measure human population density and to indirectly measure the degree of inefficient land use and urban sprawl
for communities in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Socio-economic viability and sustainable development are generally accepted goals for society. In addition, this indicator
supports Annex 13 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
There is no conceivable upper end to urban densities from an ecosystem perspective since higher densities are associated
with improved urban efficiency and reduced stress on the rest of the ecosystem. Thus higher densities are better.
Features
Urban density is a relative measure of efficiency. In general, and other things being equal, higher density land use is less energy and
resource consuming and thus is more efficient from an ecosystem perspective. For example, transportation in higher density areas is
less resource demanding since distances are shorter and public transportation is often more available and inexpensive. Consequently,
air pollution should be lower in more densely populated areas. In addition, since inefficient land use for urban development implies loss of
land use for natural and other purposes there are significant biodiversity dimensions to inefficient land use. In general, the less land used
for development, the greater the opportunities that exist for natural biodiversity goals to be met. Urban densities have been declining over
time as urban development has become much more sprawling with the vast majority of new development occurring on former agricultural
or natural lands. This has resulted in greater reliance for urban residents on the automobile as virtually the only method of public transit
for these widespread and low density new communities has become impractical. Information for this indicator needs to be collected
perhaps every 5 or 10 years as changes in density take place relatively slowly.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed by a numerical ratio of population to land area (population per square kilometer)
Limitations
This indicator is useful in comparing municipalities to each other, but would need to be aggregated into an index in order to be
represented as a basin wide measure. Identifying park space may be complicated and difficult in some cases because the
information most likely exists only at the local level and would require a survey to collect.
Interpretation
The indicator is a simple representation of urban efficiency since higher density communities typically are lower in cost and
less intrusive on the rest of the ecosystem. Thus, the higher the ratio of population per square kilometer of land the better in
achieving overall urban efficiency and a less stressed ecosystem.
Comments
The indicator is also a good proxy for commercial and industrial sprawl since development patterns for this sector typically
parallels that of residential development. The socio-economic paper of SOLEC '94 indicated the relative urban densities
between the City of Toronto, Ontario and Chicago, Illinois. The SOLEC '96 Land Use paper also discussed at length the
efficiency aspects of higher density through the report.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-80 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Land Conversion
Indicator ID: 7002
Measure
Percent change in land use type, including agriculture, urban development, and forest, marsh or other natural cover.
Purpose
To directly measure changes in land use within the Great Lakes basin and to indirectly measure the potential impact of land
conversion on Great Lakes ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted land use goal for Canadians and Americans. This indicator supports Annex
1, Sand 13oftheGLWQA.
Endpoint
Zero change would be sustainable but probably unrealistic, while reversion of other uses to the natural ecosystem would be
desirable.
Features
High rates of land conversion place stress on the natural ecosystem and are typically associated with inefficient land use,
such as urban sprawl. Population growth is a driver for more development which displaces both agricultural and natural lands.
Other things being constant, high conversion rates are associated with rapid rates of urban sprawl which is economically
inefficient and displaces natural land that serves other biological purposes in the ecosystem or agriculture which in turn may
convert land from natural uses. The conventional pattern of land conversion has been for urban growth to displace
agricultural lands which, in turn, expand into remaining lands. Urban development also expands into natural lands.
Illustration
The indicator allows easy and visual interpretation of land use changes and trends. Land conversion is an evolutionary
process and this indicator will be displayed as a graphical representation of land use by category in the basin.
Limitations
This indicator provides a measurement of the conversion of the land use type, but not of the change in quality of the land use.
For example, conversion of a highly intensive, chemical-intensive agriculture area to an urban area, particularly one that is
well-planned and utilizes environmental and resource conservation management plans, may result in less stress to the
ecosystem. Also, urban development on excavated, landfill or other contaminated sites may also be positive changes.
Interpretation
Generally, land that converts from natural to agricultural and from natural and agricultural uses to developed uses is
undesirable. Conversion back to natural uses would be desirable.
Comments
SOLEC '96 represented the rate of land converted from agriculture to developed urban uses. Clearly, loss of agricultural land
in the basin places pressure on other lands such as forests and wetlands to be placed into agricultural uses. Satellite
imagery might be useful in detailing the changes overtime of the urban frontier actually developed and this indicator.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-81
-------
Brownfield Redevelopment
Indicator ID: 7006
Measure
Total acreage of redeveloped brownfields.
Purpose
To directly measure the acreage of redeveloped brownfields and to indirectly measure the rate at which society responds to
the opportunity to rehabilitate and reuse former developed land sites that have been degraded by poor use.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal for North American society. In addition, this indicator supports Annex
1,2, 3, and 13 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Elimination of all brownfield sites.
Features
The indicator would describe trends in brownfields redevelopment and urban renewal, including areas that technically can not
be described as brownfields. The indicator is a measure of the rate at which society is employing former contaminated
(typically industrial) sites to new and more environmentally compatible uses. Brownfields reuse offers an opportunity to
reduce pressure on the ecosystem by slowing the rate of land conversion and typically increasing urban densities.
Brownfields have been a result of historically poor industrial land use practices, particularly on the more heavily and early
developed sited on the U.S. side of the basin. As time progresses pollution prevention has been utilized to reduce the
likelihood of even more brownfields into the future. An inventory of contaminated sites is maintained by most provincial and
state and federal governments, although a broader definition would require municipal involvement. The goal is to redeploy all
of these lands as soon as possible.
Illustration
The total number of identified acres of outstanding brownfield sites throughout the basin by state/province and lake basin.
Bar graphs could be used to demonstrate changes over time.
Limitations
The identification of brownfield sites is limited by the availability of information on vacant and redeveloped sites. Data for this
indicator may not reveal an accurate trend in brownfield redevelopment, particularly if redevelopment on brownfield sites
results in another use that causes further land contamination.
Interpretation
Reducing the number of acres/square kilometers of brownfield sites can be seen as a positive development in the basin.
Increasing brownfield inventories not only indicate challenges of dealing with contaminated sites but also opportunities for
redevelopment.
Comments
Numerous examples are available including one site in Detroit that has been converted to a public park. Others are typically
reduced as urban housing or clean industrial use.
The achievement of the end point will depend on the opportunities available for new land uses as an alternative to land
conversion.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-82 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Mass Transportation
Indicator ID: 7012
Measure
Percent of commuters using public transportation.
Purpose
To directly measure the percentage of commuters using public transportation and to indirectly measure the stress to the
Great Lakes ecosystem caused by the use of the private motor vehicle and its resulting high resource utilization and pollution
creation.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development as interpreted by Canada and the U.S. through ongoing efforts of agencies, such as the Canadian
National Roundtable on Environment and Economy, and more specifically pollution related as recognized in Annex 1, 3 and
15oftheGLWQA.
Endpoint
A ratio over 50% would be desirable.
Features
The indicator is a simple measure of the average number of commuters using public (mass) transit in urban centres
throughout the basin. It is valuable in recognizing the socio-economic costs associated with urban form that contributes to
highly energy intensive, highly polluting, non-productive and time wasting urban commuting. The indicator could be
aggregated and used as a basin wide indicator. Data are typically collected by survey and may vary from community to
community and with respect to periodicy.
Illustration
The indicator is represented graphically by a ratio of daily working commuters that use public transit options including rail and
road mass transit options.
Limitations
The indicator is a proxy for efficiency of an urban community. It focuses only on work commuters as data is not available for
other commuting purposes, such as recreation. Finally, not all public transit may be more efficient than the use of private
automobiles, for example, empty buses running on low density suburban streets.
Interpretation
Use of public transit for commuting in urban communities is typically more efficient than the private automobile. Less energy
is required, less pollution created, more land can be dedicated to living/working space and less to unproductive roads and
parking lots, less working and non-working time is wasted behind the wheel of a car, and the costs to the community are
reduced by higher levels of urban transit use.
Comments
Reducing the amount of time and the cost of travelling for work and pleasure will impact on total resource use in society as
well as reducing the amount of unproductive time spent commuting to work and increasing recreational time. Greater
adoption of mass transportation involves changes in urban development patterns as well as lifestyle.
The former City of Toronto, with a relatively dense and compact urban form had a relatively high level of mass transportation.
That level fell considerably when the City expanded its municipal boundaries to include more suburban areas.
It is only a proxy measure of the efficiency of goods transportation.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine the time-scale of indicator. For example, will the measurements provided for this indicator be
taken on an annual basis? A biennial basis?...
Need to determine how the indicator will be presented? For example, this indicator could show trends in use of
mass transit over time using a bar graph with percentage of commuters using public transportation on the y axis and
years on the x axis.
Need to add a discussion related to understanding the trends presented by the indicator. For example, what
baseline will be used to determine if 50 percent of commuters are using public transportation?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-83
-------
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-84 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Indicator ID: 7028
Measure
Number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans in place.
Purpose
To directly measure the number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans and indirectly measure environmentally
friendly practices in place; such as, integrated pest management to reduce the unnecessary use of pesticides, zero tillage
and other soil preservation practices and measures to reduce energy consumption, and prevention of ground and surface
water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator directly supports Annex 3 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Sustainable agriculture through non-polluting, energy efficient technology and best management practices for efficient and
high quality food production.
Features
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is important to track changes in agricultural practices that
can lead to better ecological integrity in the basin. The indicator identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming more
sustainable and has less potential to adversely impact the Great Lakes ecosystem. Integrated pest management and zero till
soil management are typically part of an environmental farm management plan. It is expected that more farmers will embrace
environmental planning overtime.
Illustration
The total number of farm environmental plans (or ecological plans) that are in place as a percentage of the total number of
farms in the basin.
Limitations
Plans vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and thus may lack consistency in terms of completeness of agricultural sustainable
practices. In addition there is no standard way of knowing the state of implementation of these plans.
Interpretation
Having an environmental management plan in place provides an incentive for farmers to commit to environmentally sound
land use practices. The more plans in place the better. In future there may be a way to grade plans by impacts on the
ecosystem. The first year in which this information is collected will serve as the base line year.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-85
-------
Green Planning Process
Indicator ID: 7053
Measure
Number of municipalities with environmental and resource conservation management plans.
Purpose
To directly measure the number of municipalities with environmental and resource conservation management plans in place
and to indirectly measure the extent to which municipalities utilize environmental standards to guide their management
decisions with respect to land planning, resource conservation and natural area preservation.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a goal of North American society. This indicator supports Annex 3 and 13 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
All municipalities should have an environmental and resource conservation plan.
Features
The indicator is an acknowledgment that municipalities with environmental and resource conservation management plans
require resource conservation as a mandatory part of the municipal land use decision process. Ideally all municipalities in the
basin will focus on limiting urban sprawl; incorporating a preference for high density, redevelopment and brownfield utilization;
conserving of natural features and resources, such as natural watercourse retention and woodlot preservation; and promoting
mass transit. Once a development plan (i.e., a plan submitted by developers for new development) has been approved, it is
safe to assume that it has taken account of environmental considerations.
Illustration
The indicator will be a numerical ratio of municipalities that do have plans out of the total number of municipalities in the
basin. This could be presented by maps or through simple numerical ratios.
Limitations
This indicator will provide a measurement of the number of green plans in place, but will not assess the quality of the plans or
if they are being implemented.
Interpretation
An increasing number of plans over time represent a positive trend. The indicator will be used to determine improvements
over time as more municipalities undertake to develop and implement these plans. Data collected during the first year will
serve as a baseline.
Comments
Oakland County Michigan has a detailed provision that all developers must follow in order to develop their lands.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land, humans
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-86 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Water Use
Indicator ID: 7056
Measure
Water use per capita in the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of water used in the Great Lakes basin and to indirectly measure the amount of wastewater
generated and the demand for resources to pump and treat water.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is societal goal for the Great Lakes basin. This indicator supports Annex 8 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Resource conservation means reducing the amount of water that is used and the amount of wastewater that results from that
water use. Current North American water use rates are in excess of 300 litres per
day - reducing that by 50% is desirable and consistent with some European countries.
Features
The indicator provides a quantitative measure of the rate at which natural resources are being used. For example, high levels
of water use results in considerable wastewater pollution, that results in degraded water quality, as well as increased demand
for energy to pump and treat water. The indicator is a gross measure of water supplied through water supply facilities in a
jurisdiction divided by the total number of people in the jurisdiction.
Illustration
The indicator will be displayed as the water use per capita in liters/capita within jurisdictions in the basin and the basin as a
whole.
Limitations
Data are readily abundant although it needs to be gathered in a consistent format. Ground water sources from private wells
are excluded.
Interpretation
Water use symbolizes societal regard to resource use. North Americans, including those in the Great Lakes region, have
very high rates of per capita water use compared with other developed nations, and reductions would result in reduced stress
on the ecosystem. Water use is high and growing in places such as Toronto, in spite of efforts over the years to encourage
water efficiency and conservation.
Comments
Canada and the United States are among the highest water using nations, per capita on the Earth.
Unfinished Business
Need to add a discussion related to understanding the trends presented by the indicator. For example, will a
baseline of "ideal" or "sustainable" water consumption rates need to be developed to determine if data collected on
an annual basis (or another regular interval) reveals positive or negative trends in the amount of water consumed.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 5: Economic viability
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-87
-------
Energy Use
Indicator ID: 7057
Measure
Energy use in kilowatt hours per capita
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of energy consumed in the Great Lakes basin and to indirectly measure the demand for
resources from the ecosystem, as well as the levels of pollution and other associated negative impacts on the ecosystem.
Energy consumption is a good proxy for resource use, waste and pollution creation, and ecosystem stress.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal in the Great Lakes basin. This indicator supports Annex 1 and 15 of
the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Resource conservation minimizing the unnecessary use of resources is an endpoint for ecosystem integrity and sustainable
development.
Features
The indicator is useful on a state/province/country basin basis. The trend for energy use has been increasing overtime,
which this indicator will depict as it tracks annual energy use.
Illustration
The indicator will be shown as a measure of kilowatt hours electrical energy used per capita.
Limitations
While the data are readily abundant for electrical energy, it will be more difficult to assess other energy sources such as
hydrocarbon used in transportation, wood burned in fireplaces, natural gas and furnace fuels. This will require considerable
effort.
Interpretation
Energy is a key aspect of ecosystem sustainability. The second law of thermodynamics is a starting point to understanding
the way in which energy plays a key role in long term sustainability. Reducing the use of energy of all kinds will reduce
'entropy' and ensure a more sustainable future. Although electrical energy is a good proxy for total energy use, a complete
accounting of all energy used is desirable. Although all forms of energy should be considered for conservation, electrical
energy is used as a proxy.
Comments
Canada and the United States are among the highest energy consuming nations on Earth.
The indicator provides a quantitative measure of the rate at which non-renewable natural resources are being used up and
that renewables are being consumed.
Unfinished Business
Need to develop a more quantitative endpoint.
Need to determine how this indicator will be presented - as a graph, on a map, etc?
Need to develop a baseline or reference value to be used in assessing whether energy use is increasing or
decreasing overtime.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 5: Economic viability
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-88 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Wastewater Pollutant Loading
Indicator ID: 7059
Measure
Loadings of metals, BOD and organic chemicals that are released by municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial direct
dischargers, into water courses in the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To directly measure loadings of wastewater pollutants discharged into the Great Lakes basin and to indirectly measure
inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem
health.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development and healthy ecosystems through support for Annexes 1 and 8 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
High quality wastewater discharges that approach the ambient quality of the 'sink' they are being discharged to (or the source
from which they originated) is a desired endpoint that can best be achieved through pollution prevention ad resource
conservation.
Features
Pollutant loadings in wastewater represent waste from land use activities that contaminate the Great Lakes. SOLEC '96 Land
Use Background paper discusses the levels of wastewater loading to the Great Lakes. This indicator is related to indicator
#7056 Water Use since the quality of wastewater effluent is generally improved in total loadings when the hydraulic volume of
wastewater is reduced.
Illustration
The indicator will be presented as graphs that display loadings overtime by jurisdiction, by lake basin and for the overall
basin.
Limitations
Although data are largely available, they are not collected on a necessarily comparable fashion for both the U.S. and Canada.
Some work is required to ensure that Ontario data is consistent with the U.S. Since much industrial wastewater flows to
municipal sewage treatment facilities the efficiency of these in reducing waste can be hidden.
Interpretation
Wastewater treatment is dependant on the quality of incoming wastewater sources, the state of the technology to process the
wastewater and other factors such as fugitive leaks that can increase volumes dramatically at certain times and result in
deterioration of the quality of wastewater. The number of hours of by-pass at wastewater plants may be added as another
measure, although this addresses the state of the treatment infrastructure more than waste reduction itself. A historical
reference of loadings will be used as a benchmark for the indicator.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Need to determine from where in the Great Lakes basin the information will be collected and how frequently.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-89
-------
Solid Waste Generation
Indicator ID: 7060
Measure
Amount of solid waste generated per capita (tons and cubic meters).
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of solid waste generated per capita per capita in the Great Lakes basin and to indirectly
measure inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and
ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal for Great Lakes basin society. This indicator supports Annex 1, 12 and
13oftheGLWQA.
Endpoint
The reduction of waste to levels achieved in some European and Asian nations.
Features
Solid waste is generated and deposited on land or is incinerated and the residue remains on the land while other
contaminants are redistributed by air and water sources. Solid waste represents a significant portion of all human land
activities that generate waste and pollution and is stressful to the ecosystem. The indicator represents waste that goes to
hazardous and non-hazardous landfills, as well as incinerators. Annual rates of waste generation will be presented by this
indicator and bi-annual reporting will be useful.
Illustration
The indicator will be displayed as tons (tonnes) and cubic meters per capita in jurisdictions and for the basin over time. The
indicator will be for all solid wastes overtime.
Limitations
Although data are available for all jurisdictions, this indicator will require data coordination and integration. Variability in waste
stream composition will result in the need for different types of measurement, such as weight versus volume, and may
produce conflicting indications of progress. Regardless of the manner of disposal, the measure should consider the total
volume of disposed solid waste. Therefore, important land contamination issues, such as acres of land fill space, will not be
dealt with in this indicator.
Interpretation
Solid waste provides a measure of the inefficiency of human land based activities and the degree to which resources are
wasted by the creation of waste. Reducing volumes of solid waste are indicative of a more efficient industrial ecology and a
more conserving society. Reduced waste volumes are also indicative of a reduction in contamination of land through
landfilling and incineration and thus reduced stress on the ecosystem.
Comments
Canada and the U.S. are among the highest waste producers on Earth. Reuse and recycling are opportunities to reduce
solid waste levels.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine a specific endpoint.
Need to determine a baseline value to use for assessing positive or negative trends in the amount of solid waste
generated?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 5: Economic viability
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-90 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Habitat Fragmentation
Indicator ID: 8114
Measure
The pattern of natural habitat remaining within ecoregions/subsections, as measured by 1) area to perimeter ratio; 2) habitat
patch size; and 3) percent intact cover.
Purpose
To directly measure the amount and distribution of natural habitat remaining within Great Lakes ecoregions and to indirectly
measure the effect of human land uses such as housing, agriculture, flood control, and recreation on habitat needed to
support fish and wildlife species.
Ecosystem Objective
Each LaMP is likely to contain objectives that address maximizing the amount of land cover adjacent to the lake. This
indicator also relates to the IJC Desired Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity.
Endpoint
The Framework on Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Environment Canada et al, 1998)
suggests specific marsh and forest patch sizes that are required to support various species. For example, 200 hectares of
forest patch is required for successful interior forest bird breeding. A total area with more than 70% intact cover is needed for
birds.
Features
This indicator will present trends in remaining natural habitat within ecoregions/subsections overtime. Sufficient parcels of
natural habitat are necessary to support wildlife activities such as breeding and migration. For example, lack of interior forest
habitat adversely impacts the reproduction of breeding birds. Loss of natural habitat also adversely impacts migrating birds
that need to touch down to refuel on their treks north and south. For some threatened species, there is insufficient habitat to
sustain populations.
Illustration
Using GIS, habitat patch size and percent intact cover can be graphically displayed on a map. Calculations to determine
area to perimeter ratio could be done on a GIS using a specially designed algorithm. Although illustrating area to perimeter
ratio is more difficult, it would be possible to highlight all patches with a desirable ratio on a GIS map once calculations are
complete.
Limitations
Although "intact cover" most likely means natural vegetation, primarily forest, there is a need to define this term. The
relationship, for example, between the three endpoints — percent intact cover, patch size and perimeter to area ratio — and
bird breeding is better understood than the relationship between the endpoints and bird migration. A better understanding of
how these endpoints affect bird migration is necessary.
Interpretation
Additional research is needed to understand how much habitat is required in a particular ecoregion for different species and
for different functions.
Comments
As suggested, the amount of habitat required for breeding birds is known, but less is known about the amount of natural
vegetation required for migrating birds. The requirements for other species will be just as challenging. Information for this
indicator can be collected using remote sensing products.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-91
-------
Streamflow
Indicator ID: 8142
Measure
Streamflow and suspended sediments at the mouth of major tributaries and connecting channels.
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of water entering the Great Lakes through major tributaries and connecting channels, and to
indirectly measure the amount of sediment available for transport to nourish coastal ecosystems.
Ecosystem Objective
Relates to IJC Desired Outcomes 6: Biological community Integrity and Diversity, and 9: Physical Environmental Integrity.
Endpoint
Functioning longshore transport process necessary for healthy coastal ecosystems.
Features
The role of Streamflow in sediment transport and nourishment of coastal ecosystems is needed to evaluate and predict the
health of the ecosystems. Data for the Streamflow and suspended sediments to the lakes from the largest tributaries and for
the total combined flow for each lake will be collected every three years. Trends will indicate a change in the amount of
sediments available for coastal nourishment. Monitoring of Streamflow and sediment load is one of the oldest and most well
established programs in both the United States and Canada.
Illustration
Data for the Streamflow and suspended sediments to the lakes from the largest tributaries and for the total combined flow for
each lake will be depicted as line graphs.
Limitations
Recent dramatic cuts in the Canadian budget may influence this monitoring. An evaluation is needed to prioritize the location
of monitoring locations.
Interpretation
Once baseline values are determined, Streamflow at the mouths of specified tributaries and concentration of suspended
sediments will be tracked.
Comments
Data may be eventually used to help evaluate the impacts of climate change.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide a unit of measurement to increase specificity.
Need to determine a quantifiable endpoint.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, sediments
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control of
phosphorus, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Pollution from non-point sources,
17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
1-92 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Indicator ID: 8150
Measure
Diversity and abundance of breeding bird populations and communities in selected habitat types, and an avian index of biotic
integrity.
Purpose
To directly measure the status of breeding bird populations and communities and to indirectly measure the health of breeding
bird habitat in the Great Lakes basin.
Ecosystem Objective
Relates to IJC Desired Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity.
Endpoint
For this indicator, the desired outcome would vary by species and habitat type. A target of no decline in area-sensitive bird
species (forest/grasslands/savannah) could be established for a select group of species within each habitat type being
sampled. A target of increasing populations of contaminant-sensitive bird species in coastal breeding territories could also be
established and monitoring protocols designed to assess attainment. A target of 90% of the monitoring stations achieving
species presence equal to 90% of the expected number based on habitat and range could be a third type of desired outcome.
Features
The Great Lakes Basin supports a rich diversity of breeding bird species. This region is one of the most important regions on
the North American continent for abundance and diversity of breeding birds. Long-term, comprehensive monitoring of the
status and trends of bird populations and communities can allow resource managers to determine the health of bird
communities and habitat conditions. Because breeding birds are strongly linked to habitat conditions, this indicator has
potential to have cross applications to other wildlife taxa and other indicators.
An "index of biotic integrity" has been used successfully in other areas and while its application to bird communities is in the
experimental stages, it should be considered. For this approach to be successful across the Great Lakes basin, reference
areas with healthy bird communities would be identified and compared with other, potentially less healthy areas. Commonly-
used indices of diversity (e.g., species richness, Shannon-Weiner, Simpson's) could be used to describe the health of the bird
community in selected habitat types and could be tracked overtime.
Illustration
Data from this indicator could be presented in a variety of ways. Population status and trends for bird species of interest
could be illustrated by simple line graphs representing selected geographic areas or the whole basin. Comparison graphs
showing area sensitive forest bird species and species pre-adapted to highly modified landscapes could be used to show
effects of land use changes across the basin. Indices of biotic integrity for areas surveyed would be presented in bar graph
form and compared to other areas for which the index has been calculated. Broader scaled biodiversity patterns across the
Great Lakes basin could be presented in map form that identify key habitat areas (biodiversity investment areas, protected
areas, biodiversity hot spots). These maps could also be used to illustrate changes in bird population patterns overtime.
Limitations
Confidence in using these data to express the health of a large-scale, diverse ecosystem, would depend on having site
specific data that adequately represented the range of habitat conditions in the region. For example, relying only on bird
monitoring activity in National Parks, where disturbance and fragmentation of habitat is likely low, could result in overly
optimistic pictures of population trends or ecosystem health. Conversely, reliance on data from easily accessible areas such
as road-side counts, could lead to indices threat suggest conditions are worse than they really are. Data gathering for this
indicator is personnel intensive during the short, early-summer breeding season. To adequately survey the Great Lakes
basin will require large numbers of trained staff and substantial travel expenses.
Interpretation
Changes in abundance, density, and productivity are caused by many factors both on and off the breeding territories. Care
must be used in determining the causes of these changes, especially for birds that spend much of each year on migration or
in distant wintering habitats. Utilizing information from ongoing research and management on migration routes and wintering
areas will be essential for interpreting these data.
Comments
Populations and communities of birds have been used to indicate a wide variety of ecological stressors and processes. Birds
are abundant in many habitat types. They make up about 70% of the terrestrial vertebrate species in Great Lakes forests for
example. Understanding population dynamics and habitat associations of breeding birds will aid in understanding major
elements of ecosystem health.
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-93
-------
By following a consistent protocol of 10 minute point counts by highly trained professional bird surveyors, stratifying points by
habitat, prioritizing habitats to be surveyed, and conducting surveys only on rain-free, calm days, compatible data can be
collected by many researchers and agency staff. Substantial agreement and consistency has already been achieved on
survey methodology by researchers across the Great Lakes basin.
Habitat analysis and landscape assessment of the Great Lakes Basin (see habitat cover indicators) would allow a monitoring
protocol to be developed that would identify priority habitat types. It would also allow a stratified, random sampling design,
based on relative area of habitat types to be developed. This would provide a more valid, robust and geographically
integrated monitoring program than what now exists. Monitoring efforts ongoing in several National Forest (Superior,
Chequamegon) and National Parks (Apostle Islands, Isle Royale) and the USF&W Service's Breeding Bird Survey can be
used to take model elements for developing this indicator. The Ontario Forest Bird Monitoring Program and Marsh Monitoring
Program also provide site-specific data which could be integrated into this indicator. A Great Lakes Basin-wide monitoring
protocol for gathering habitat-specific information on the status and trends of bird populations and communities, coordinated
with systematic, landscape-scale vegetation data will allow basin-wide biodiversity mapping based on bird populations. For
most habitat types and bird taxa, monitoring is most efficient when survey data on all singing birds are collected. Multiple
indices of ecosystem health can then be calculated based on data gathered.
This indicator allows interpretation at multiple scales. Population trends of an individual species within a limited geographic
area provides useful information to land managers and may suggest specific management activities that should be
undertaken. Comparisons of indices of biotic integrity among sites would provide a way to evaluate the variety of
management strategies employed in similar environmental settings. Analysis of broad patterns, using biodiversity maps
provide opportunities to identify landscape level activities that influence ecosystem health.
Expansion of ongoing monitoring and efforts to standardize data gathering and quality control would be one way to approach
the development of this indicator with the funds that might realistically be expected.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
1-94 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Threatened Species
Indicator ID: 8161
Measure
Number, extent, and viability of species ranked as GI-G3 or S1-S3 in the Biological Conservation Database. A global or "G"
rank is assigned on the basis of relative endangerment based primarily on the number of occurrences of the element globally.
A rank of G1 means critically imperiled globally due to extreme rarity or due to factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction.
A rank of G2 means imperiled globally due to rarity or due to some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout
its range. A rank of G3 means either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its
locations) in a restricted range or due to other factors making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. A state or "S"
rank focuses on the status of a species or ecosystem within the boundaries of a state. A rank of S1 means critically
endangered with less than five known occurrences. A rank of S2 means six to twenty occurrences which are to some extent
threatened. A rank of S3 means very rare or local throughout its range.
Purpose
To directly measure the number, extent and viability of threatened species, key components of biodiversity in the Great Lakes
basin, and to indirectly measure the ecological integrity of processes and systems (e.g., sand accretion, hydrologic regime)
within Great Lakes habitats.
Ecosystem Objective
Healthy populations of all vegetation and wildlife, including the rarest of species. Relates to IJC Desired Outcome 6:
Biological Community Integrity and Diversity.
Endpoint
Viable populations of G1-G3 or S1-S3 species that are stable and persistent over the long term, even though local
populations may fluctuate significantly in time and space.
Features
The rarest species of an ecosystem are indicators of the health of and stresses on the ecosystem. This indicator would
emphasize vascular plants for ease of sampling, and would include wildlife to the extent possible. Optimum sampling
methods would need to be determined. Representative areas of large size (e.g. 10 km x 10 km square with appropriate
habitat) would be selected with ecological subdivisions supporting the species, and sampled at 2-5 year intervals at coarse
and fine scales to document locations, aerial extent, and numbers target species. Sampling area size and timeline for trend
analysis might vary by species, depending on the habitat and life history. Comparison of successive sampling results would
be used to identify short and long term trends. It would be important to select sampling areas that are ecologically relatively
intact, as well as some with varying degrees of observable human impact.
Illustration
Graphs of population numbers for each target species over time per sampling site, ecoregion, and basin-wide.
Limitations
It would be costly to annually monitor all populations of all species. A subset could be sampled annually, to determine trends
that might be applicable to the entire set. Certain species are more sensitive to change than others.
Interpretation
Natural environments are dynamic by nature, therefore, local decreases or even extirpations of a threatened species may be
normal. On the other hand, local extirpations can also be linked to human alterations of habitats through activities such as
development. Measures will need to be interpreted with contextual information on anthropogenic disturbances, and need to
be taken over sufficient space and time to generate a "big picture" of metapopulations in contiguous or semi-contiguous
habitats. Overall stability or increases in viable populations indicates integrity of key supporting processes to which the
species are adapted. Overall decreases in population numbers and/or extent can signal deterioration of key processes that
maintain suitable habitat.
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-95
-------
Comments
Experts from the states/provinces should collectively decide which species would be the best indicators. Using the ranking
system from the Biological Conservation Database provides a more uniform assessment of status across jurisdictions, and
provides access to an existing digital database.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide quantitative values for "viable populations."
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
1-96 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Indicator ID: 4081
Measure
1) Counts of fecal coliforms (FC) and/or E.coli in recreational waters measured as number of organisms per volume of water
(e.g., FC/ml); and 2) frequency of beach closings at specific locations.
Purpose
To directly measure fecal coliform and E. coli levels in nearshore recreational waters, and as a surrogate indicator for other pathogen
types, to indirectly measure potential harm to human health through body contact with nearshore recreational waters.
Ecosystem Objective
Waters should be safe for recreational use. Waters used for recreational activities involving body contact should be
substantially free from pathogens, including bacteria, parasites, and viruses, that may harm human health. This objective is
consistent with Desired Outcome #2, Swimmability, identified in the IJC document Indicators to Evaluate Progress under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 1996.
Endpoint
Fecal coliform and E. coli levels should not exceed national, state, and/or provincial standards set for recreational waters.
Features
One of the most important factors in nearshore recreational water quality is that it be free from microbial contamination.
Recreational waters may become contaminated with animal and human feces from sources and conditions such as combined
sewer overflows that occur in certain areas after heavy rains, agricultural run-off, and poorly treated sewage. This indicator
will track E.coli and fecal coliform abundance and the frequency of beach closings over time and across geographic locations
throughout the basin. Analysis of data may show seasonal and local trends in nearshore recreational waters. The trends
provided by this indicator will aid in beach management and in the prediction of episodes of poor water quality.
Illustration
For each site selected throughout the basin, a bar graph will be presented showing the counts of fecal coliform and E. coli
over several years. Statistical analysis will be used to examine the temporal and spatial trends in water quality in recreational
beach areas. Data will be presented as a bar graph or as a CIS map showing the number of beach closings over time.
Limitations
Variability in the data from year to year may result from the process of monitoring and variations in reporting, and may not be solely
attributable to actual increases or decreases in levels of microbial contaminants. Viruses and parasites, although a concern in
recreational waters, are difficult to isolate and quantify at present, and feasible measurement techniques have yet to be developed.
Comparisons of the frequency of beach closings will be limited due to use of different water quality criteria in different localities.
Interpretation
This indicator will rely on national, state, and/or provincial fecal coliform or E. coli standards as a benchmark. Trends that
demonstrate an increase in fecal pollution levels overtime, and above the appropriate standard, will be considered negative,
or bad, trends. Trends that demonstrate a decrease in fecal pollution levels over time, and below the appropriate standard,
will be considered positive, or good, trends.
Comments
Analysis of data may show seasonal and local trends in recreational water. If episodes of poor recreational water quality can
be associated with specific events, then forecasting for episodes of poor water quality may become more accurate.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 2: Swimmability, 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 10: Recreational water impairment
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-97
-------
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Indicator ID: 4083
Measure
Concentration of PBT chemicals targeted by the GLWQA in edible fish tissue.
Purpose
To directly measure the concentration of PBT chemicals in Great Lakes fish and to indirectly measure the exposure of
humans to PBT chemicals through consumption of Great Lakes fish caught via sport and subsistence fishing.
Endpoint
Reduction in concentration of PBT chemicals in fish tissue to levels that do not pose a risk to populations consuming Great
Lakes fish. The elimination offish advisories in the Great Lakes may be considered to be an appropriate endpoint.
Ecosystem Objective
Fish in the Great Lakes ecosystem should be safe to eat; consumption should not be limited by contaminants of human
origin. This objective is consistent with Desired Outcome #1, Fishability, identified in the IJC document Indicators to
Evaluate Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1996).
Features
The temporal and geographic trends in the chemical contaminant levels in fish species consumed by human populations in
the Great Lakes basin will be used as an indicator of exposure to PBT chemicals. Concentrations of contaminants in fish
should be determined from a boneless, skinless fillet of dorsal muscle flesh removed from the fish. This would provide not
only the most consistent test results, but is also the most edible portion of the fish. Choosing appropriate indicator species is
crucial and should be based on fish consumption patterns and availability of data. Additional chemicals can be considered as
new information arises. The indicator will allow regulatory agencies to make suggestions regarding remedial planning as well
as issuing advisories to the public on safe consumption limits.
Illustration
Results of raw data will be used to construct simple bar graphs showing the fluctuation of contaminants over time and space.
Limitations
Data for use in developing indicators exist, however, there are differences in surveillance techniques for fish consumption and
differences in tissue sampling methods between jurisdictions.
Interpretation
Reductions in contaminant levels in fish tissue will reflect an improvement in environmental quality and the potential for
reduced exposure to contaminants from consumption of Great Lakes fish.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 1: Fishability, 4: Healthy human populations, 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 1: Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
1-98 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
Indicator ID: 4088
Measure
Estimated total daily intake of PBT chemicals targeted by the GLWQA from air, water, soil, and food sources.
Purpose
To estimate the daily intake of PBT chemicals from all sources and to indirectly estimate the potential harm to human health
and the efficacy of policies and technology intended to reduce PBT chemicals.
Ecosystem Objective
Relates to IJC Desired Outcome 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
Endpoint
Intake of PBT chemicals from all sources should be below established guideline values and should continue to decline.
Features
This indicator tracks contaminants levels in various media and their estimated daily intake via ingestion and inhalation. Daily
intakes have been estimated for the following age groups : 0-0.5 years, 0.5-4 years, 5-11 years, 12-19 years, 20 + years,
and total lifetime, using available data up to 1996 (Great Lakes Health Effects Program, Health Canada). Estimated daily
intakes can be updated periodically, as new data becomes available.
Illustration
The temporal variation in estimated dose for each age group and the relative contribution of each media as a percentage of
total dose will be displayed in a graphic format.
Limitations
Factors such as technological advances, differences in sampling and laboratory procedures, as well as survey
questionnaires, create difficulties in accurately comparing historical data.
Interpretation
Changes in the estimated daily dose from air, water, soil or food sources will indicate changes in environmental quality, in
human exposure, and the risk to human health.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-99
-------
Drinking Water Quality
Indicator ID: 4175
Measure
Concentrations of chemical substances such as alkylphenols, metals (e.g., lead, mercury) and other inorganic compounds,
pesticides, radionuclides, and drinking water disinfection by-products (e.g., trihalomethanes) as well as microbial parameters
such as bacteria, viruses and parasites in raw, treated and distributed drinking water.
Purpose
To directly measure chemical and microbial contaminant levels in drinking water and to indirectly measure potential for
human exposure to drinking water contaminants, as well as to indirectly measure the efficacy of policies and technologies to
ensure safe drinking water.
Ecosystem Objective
Treated drinking water supplies should be safe to drink. This objective is consistent with Desired Outcome #3, Drinkability,
identified in the IJC document Indicators to Evaluate Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1996).
Endpoint
Densities of disease-causing organisms or concentrations of hazardous or toxic chemicals or radioactive substances should
not exceed human health objectives, standards, or guidelines.
Features
This indicator would reveal trends in contaminant levels in raw, treated and distributed water in various locations throughout
the basin. Through existing water monitoring programs, which analyse raw, treated and distributed waters, results can be
compared against established water quality objectives. This evaluation applies to water supply systems that draw water from
either surface water or groundwater sources. Data on temporal trends, such as seasonal differences or changes over time, in
chemical or microbial contaminant concentrations for specific locations could be identified.
Illustration
For selected locations in the Great Lakes basin, simple bar or line graphs would display the average concentration of
contaminants in raw, treated and distributed water. The data could also be displayed in a GIS format that would allow for a
variety of endpoint analyses to be displayed as an overlay on maps of the entire Great Lakes basin or more local areas.
Limitations
Most contaminants in drinking water rarely exceed guidelines and many are below their analytical detection limit. Since the
absolute concentration of some contaminants may not be determinable, it is difficult to show fluctuations in their concentration
levels.
Interpretation
Existing monitoring programs at drinking water treatment plants analyse for chemical and microbial contaminants in raw,
treated and distributed waters. Results can be compared against established water quality guidelines and objectives. The
data could be supplemented with additional information showing relationships between contaminant levels and human health
risks; for example, the association between long-term exposure to chlorination disinfection by-products in drinking water and
the increased risk of bladder and colon cancers.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 16: Pollution from contaminated groundwater
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 3: Drinkability, 4: Healthy human populations, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 9: Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problems
1-100 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Air Quality
Indicator ID: 4176
Measure
Concentration of chemicals and participate matter in ambient air.
Purpose
To directly monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem and to indirectly measure the potential impact of air quality on
human health in the Great Lakes basin; in addition, to indirectly measure the potential impact of inefficiencies in human
economic and land use activities on air quality.
Ecosystem Objective
Air should be safe to breathe. Air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem should be protected in areas where it is relatively
good, and improved in areas where it is degraded. This is consistent with ecosystem objectives statements being adopted by
certain lakewide management plans, including Lake Superior, (Ecosystem Principles and Objectives, Indicators and Targets
for Lake Superior, Lake Superior Binational Program, 1995), in fulfilment of Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
Endpoint
Canadian and U.S. air quality standards.
Features
The Great Lakes basin experiences high levels of certain air pollutants due to both local sources and long range transport.
Studies conducted in the Great Lakes region have provided strong evidence linking ground-level ozone and sulphates to
increased rates of hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory disease and to increased death rates. Pollutants that can be
used to assess overall air quality include SO2, CO, O3, NOX, TRS and SP. Air toxics, such as benzene, formaldehyde, and
ethylene dichloride, should also be used to assess air quality. Other air pollutants can be added as new information becomes
available. This indicator can use information from existing air monitoring databases. Data can be supplemented with
established associations between levels of ambient air pollution and rates of admissions to acute care hospitals for
cardiorespiratory disease.
Illustration
Using a CIS mapping display, trends in pollutant levels over several years for each pollutant in a particular region or over the
entire Great Lakes basin data could be presented. Data could also be displayed as the number of exceedances of guidelines
which may be established for any pollutant. The above data could be supplemented with additional graphs showing the
relationships between sulphate and ozone levels in outdoor air and hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory diseases.
Limitations
Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions employ different standards for measurement of exceedances.
Although indoor air is a major contributor to exposure to air toxics, there is no practical way to consistently monitor indoor air
quality. Therefore, this component to the estimate of total exposure to airborne contaminants will not be included in this
indicator.
Interpretation
Interpretation of the indicator would be made by identifying trends in the levels of air contaminants overtime in comparison to
guideline levels.
Comments
A significant association is found between atmospheric ozone and sulphate levels and the number of daily hospital
admissions for respiratory conditions. Five percent of daily respiratory admissions in the months of May to August can be
attributed to ozone, and an additional 1% to sulphates. This finding is consistent among all age groups. The largest impact
appears to be on children under 2 years of age, in whom 15% of respiratory hospital admissions are attributed to ozone and
sulphate together, while the elderly are least affected (4%). There does not appear to be a level of ozone below which no
adverse respiratory health effects are observed.
For both respiratory and cardiac illnesses, the average daily hospitalization rates increase with increasing levels of sulphates.
A 13 ug/m3 increase in sulphates recorded on the previous day is associated with a 3.7% increase in respiratory admissions
and a 2.8% increase in cardiac admissions. Admissions for cardiac diseases increases 2.5% for those under 65 years and
3.5% for those 65 years and older.
Some air pollution emissions can be prevented through better pollution prevention or by changing the demand for certain
products and services that contribute to air pollution. Therefore, this indicator can additionally measure progress on
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-101
-------
sustainable development by determining the degree to which resources are wasted as pollution, thereby representing
inefficiency in human economic activity.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-102 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Indicator ID: 4177
Measure
Concentrations of PBT chemicals targeted by the GLWQA in human tissues such as blood, breast milk, hair and adipose
tissues.
Purpose
To directly measure the concentration of PBT chemicals in human tissues and to indirectly measure the efficacy of policies
and technology to reduce PBT chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator relates to IJC Desired Outcome 4: Healthy Human Populations.
Endpoint
Continued reduction of PBT chemical concentrations in human tissue. Where PBT chemicals are detected, they should be
maintained below health guidance levels.
Features
This indicator will monitor the concentration of PBT chemicals in human tissues to establish geographic patterns and trends
overtime, providing an estimate of both past and current chemical exposures.
Illustration
Data will be displayed as bar graphs showing PBT chemical concentrations over time to highlight trends and in CIS format to
illustrate geographic patterns in body burden levels.
Limitations
This indicator requires extensive sampling of human populations, as well as standardized tissue collection and chemical
analysis methods for use by participating laboratories. A detailed history of the sample population, including diet, lifestyle,
and occupation, is necessary to characterize the history of exposure.
Interpretation
The long persistence of PBT chemicals in the body would indicate that there is a relatively long time period between
reductions in exposure and subsequent reductions in tissue levels. However, trends that demonstrate a decrease in the
concentration of PBT chemicals in human tissue, to levels below health guidance levels, would be a positive indication that
the human health risks posed by exposure to environmental contaminants are being reduced. Tissue levels above health
guidance values are a concern for human health.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 17: Research
and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-103
-------
Radionuclides
Indicator ID: 4178
Measure
Concentration of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in cow's milk, gross beta activity in air and precipitation, and airborne and waterborne
radionuclide emissions from nuclear power plants in the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To directly measure concentrations of artificial radionuclides in cow's milk, surface water, drinking water, and air, and to
indirectly estimate the potential for human exposure to artificial radionuclides.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator relates to IJC Desired Outcome 4: Healthy Human Populations.
Endpoint
Limit releases of artificial radionuclides to minimize human exposure.
Features
This indicator will provide a measure of the overall exposure of the Great Lakes basin population from nuclear weapons
fallout. It will present almost 30 years of data on the concentration of cesium-137 and strontium-90, two types of radionuclides
associated with above ground nuclear weapons testing, in cow's milk and gross beta activity in air and precipitation since
cessation of atmospheric weapons testing. This indicator will also present trends in the concentrations of airborne and
waterborne tritium, strontium-90, iodine-131, cesium-134, and cesium-137 emissions from nuclear power plants in the Great
Lakes basin, providing an estimate of exposure to contaminants from nuclear power plant discharges. Measurements of
radionuclide emissions may allow for the estimation of human exposure to discharges by nuclear power plants and may
indicate geographical differences in exposure from those sources. In addition to natural background radiation, the Great
Lakes basin contains nearly all components of the nuclear fuel cycle, as well as many radioisotope users such as hospitals
and industry.
Illustration
Graphs will display almost 30 years of data on the concentration of cesium-137 and strontium-90 in cow's milk and gross beta
activity in air and precipitation. Graphs will also present reported airborne and waterborne tritium, strontium-90, iodine-131,
cesium-134, and cesium-137 emissions from nuclear power plants in the Great Lakes basin, beginning in 1972 (ref. IJC
Nuclear Task Force, 1997).
Limitations
Monitoring of radionuclides in the Great Lakes basin meets primarily the compliance needs of licenses for discharge. Very
little of the current monitoring activities are designed to address, or are capable of considering, the movement and cycling of
radionuclides through environmental compartments and ecosystems. The data for Cs-137 and Sr-90 concentrations collected
during the past 30 years show a decline in radioactivity in the Great Lakes basin after the ban on above ground nuclear
weapons testing. The trend illustrated by these data— decreased exposure to Cs-137 and Sr-90 due to decreased weapons
testing— is not especially useful to policy makers and regulatory agencies.
Interpretation
A trend of decreasing concentration of artificial radionuclides over time would indicate a reduction in risk to human health. A
trend of increasing concentrations would indicate a potential for greater human exposure.
Comments
Hypothetical estimates based on conservative exposure models estimates the total number of fatal cancers, non-fatal
weighted cancers, and hereditary disorders over the lifetime of the current Canadian Great Lakes basin population
attributable to a 50-year exposure to natural background radiation is of the order of 340,000. The total number of health
effects attributable to radioactive fallout from all the weapons tests to date would be in the order of 5,000. Health Effects due
to 50 years of operation of the nuclear fuel cycle at current levels would be of the order of 200. (Ref. Health Canada, State of
Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin, 1997). On average, natural
radiation accounts for more than 98% of human exposure to ionizing radiation, excluding medical exposures.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, water
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
1-104 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 1-105
-------
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
Indicator ID: 4179
Measure
Disease incidence rate (rate = number of new cases of specific disease/ size of population) for those diseases that have a
demonstrated environmental link, such as cancers and birth defects, in the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To directly measure disease incidence rates in the Great Lakes basin population and to assess areas in the Great Lakes
basin where further investigation of the exposure and effects of environmental pollutants on human health is needed.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator relates to IJC Desired Outcome 4: Healthy Human Populations.
Endpoint
Disease incidence rates should decrease overtime. Environmental pollutants should be minimized as health risk factors.
Features
This indicator provides geographical and temporal patterns of disease incidence, such as cancer and birth defects,
throughout the Great Lakes basin. Although cause and effect relationships cannot be established from this indicator, it is
useful for identifying areas that may require investigation.
Illustration
This indicator is represented by maps of the Great Lakes basin illustrating the distribution of disease incidences, such as
cancers and birth defects, in Ontario. In addition, a graph will show trends in the incidences of diseases over time.
Limitations
The accuracy of this indicator depends on the availability and quality of hospital records and continuing improvements of
registry databases. Cause and effect relationships between environmental conditions and disease incidence rates cannot be
established from this indicator. The explanation of disease incidence rates, such as cancer and birth defects, in any area
requires more extensive epidemiological research to assess the relative importance of various factors, including diet, lifestyle,
occupation, and exposure to environmental contaminants.
Interpretation
Although cause and effect relationships between environmental contaminants and disease cannot be established from this
indicator, it is useful for identifying areas which require investigation. Additional evaluation will be required to refine the
analysis to specific cancers and birth defects that are most likely to be related to environmentally related. This indicator may
also allow for the development of new hypotheses regarding the role of environmental exposure in the etiology of human
disease.
Comments
This indicator could be expanded in the future to include biomonitors of exposure, biomarkers of pre-disease conditions,
endocrine disruption, and low birth weight.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-106 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Indicator ID: 3509
Measure
Number of partnerships; basin location and geographic coverage; budgets, FTE staff; identification of major projects and
initiatives.
Purpose
General measures of the number, distribution, and extent of geographic coverage of sustainable landscape initiatives in the
Great Lakes basin; description of their basic organizational capacities to implement ecosystem management initiatives.
Ecosystem Objective
A Sustainable Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Endpoint
Partnerships that are setting and maintaining levels of ecosystem health and integrity throughout the Great Lakes basin, thus
maintaining consistent ecological functioning and ecological benefits and services to local communities and regions.
Features
Identification and survey of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships and a compilation of responses.
Illustration
Graphs, charts, narrative descriptions, and maps; data presented for the Great Lakes basin and cross-broken by individual
Lakes; maps indicating coverage of basin(s) by stated partnership boundaries.
Limitations
Some interpretation of definitions is required to set qualifying criteria for sustainable landscape partnerships to determine the
sample frame for the survey.
Interpretation
This indicator will show the coverage of the basin(s) by place-based ecosystem management initiatives and provide
descriptive information of their capacities to do this work.
Comments
Local collaborative partnerships have the potential to address ecosystem issues that have proven beyond the capacities of
existing resource management programs. These issues include such landscape wide objectives as habitat protection,
nonpoint pollution, aesthetics, and recreational opportunities. Partnerships may include many actors who have not
traditionally seen themselves as significant or important ecosystem managers. These potential partners may include land use
and development decision makers, municipal governments, private industries, agriculture, engineering firms, universities,
non-profit organizations, community foundations, and others.
Unfinished Business
Since SOLEC 98 no revisions have been made to this indicator - however, revisions will be made before the next
version is released. Comments on this indicator are most welcome.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-107
-------
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Indicator ID: 3510
Measure
The diversity of the members participating in partnerships measured on two axes: Horizontal Integration - the diversity of local
partners; and Vertical Integration -the direct participation of federal and state/provincial actors in local partnership initiatives.
Purpose
Stewardship is a function of local partners coming together to redefine problems in such a manner as to bridge the gaps
between previously insular decision-making processes, e.g., land development, land use controls, water quality management
and habitat protection. This redefinition of problems and responses can be enhanced and empowered by the direct
participation federal and state/provincial partners. The indicator measures the "richness" of local partnerships along these two
dimensions. It focuses on the role of "full partners," those actors who are willing to modify plans, programs, and budgets in
support of shared core values pertaining to sustainable landscapes.
Ecosystem Objective
A Sustainable Great Lakes Ecosystem
Endpoint
Partnerships that are setting and maintaining levels of ecosystem health and integrity throughout the Great Lakes basin, thus
maintaining consistent ecological functioning and ecological benefits and services to local communities and regions.
Features
Horizontal Integration: Measured by surveying identified partnerships as to the range and diversity of participants engaged in
full partnership.
Vertical Integration: Measured by surveying identified partnerships as to the collaborative involvement of federal and
state/provincial actors as full partners in local initiatives.
Illustration
Graphs, charts and narrative descriptions illustrating survey responses for the Great Lakes basin and cross-broken by
individual Lakes.
Limitations
Some definition and interpretation will be required to set parameters for "full partners" and to translate the diversity of partners
into a simple scalar presentation for each locality and basin.
Interpretation
The description of the base capacities of partnerships to accomplish sustainable landscape initiatives by building
collaborative relations between local decision making systems, e.g., the land conversion system: lending institutions,
developers, and real estate agents; the description of the extent of participation of federal and state/provincial partners to
enhance and empower these local initiatives.
Comments
Ecosystem management initiatives require new constituencies that expand the traditional boundaries of resource
management. In addition, Federal, state/provincial, and regional agencies have the greatest expertise and resources to
support sustainable ecosystem management. Their presence as full partners in local initiatives brings their expertise and
resources to the table to assist in achieving shared goals.
Unfinished Business
Since SOLEC 98 no revisions have been made to this indicator - however, revisions will be made before the next
version is released. Comments on this indicator are most welcome.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-108 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Integration of Ecosystem Management across Landscapes
Indicator ID: 3511
Measure
Simple reporting of the adoption of ecosystem management as a guiding principle in place-based resource management
programs by states/provinces and regional agencies and governments and budget allocations in support of ecosystem
management programs and projects.
Purpose
Some state/provincial and regional agencies and governments have formally adopted and provided resources for the
implementation of ecosystem management as a basic strategy. Such actions provide the fundamental institutional framework
for the development of place-based partnerships for stewardship. This indicator provides an enumeration of these
governments and agencies and reports the extent of their institutional support for ecosystem management.
Ecosystem Objective
A Sustainable Great Lakes Ecosystem
Endpoint
Partnerships that are setting and maintaining levels of ecosystem health and integrity throughout the Great Lakes basin, thus
maintaining consistent ecological functioning and ecological benefits and services to local communities and regions.
Features
Survey of basin and lake governments to identify policies, programs, and agencies for which ecosystem management is a
guiding principle and budget allocations in support of these activities.
Illustration
Graphs and charts and narrative descriptions illustrating survey responses for the Great Lakes basin and cross-broken by
individual Lakes.
Limitations
Some definition and interpretation will be required to set parameters for "adoption of ecosystem management as a guiding
principle."
Interpretation
The formal adoption of ecosystem management as an agency strategy combined with an description of the resources
allocated for the implementation of the strategy provides a index of institutional commitment to stewardship initiatives.
Comments
Adoption of ecosystem management principles necessarily leads to the identification of interrelationships in landscape
systems. An emphasis on these interrelationships requires the completion of ecological risk and functional value
assessments as well as community value surveys to determine priorities pertaining to ecosystem health. This process leads
to the definition of appropriate action in places.
Unfinished Business
Since SOLEC 98 no revisions have been made to this indicator - however, revisions will be made before the next
version is released. Comments on this indicator are most welcome.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): stewardship
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-109
-------
Integration of Sustainability Principles across Landscapes
Indicator ID: 3512
Measure
Simple reporting of the adoption of place-based sustainability as a strategic goal by states/provinces and regional agencies
and governments and budget allocations in support of sustainability initiatives and projects.
Purpose
Some state/provincial and regional agencies and governments have formally adopted place-based sustainability as a
fundamental goal for resource management and allocated resources for its achievement. The establishment of such a goal
institutionalizes stewardship as a process for place-based partnerships. This indicator provides an enumeration of these
governments and agencies and reports the extent of their institutional support for place-based sustainability.
Ecosystem Objective
A Sustainable Great Lakes Ecosystem
Endpoint
Partnerships that are setting and maintaining levels of ecosystem health and integrity throughout the Great Lakes basin, thus
maintaining consistent ecological functioning and ecological benefits and services to local communities and regions.
Features
Survey of basin and lake governments to identify policies, programs, and agencies that have adopted place-based
sustainability as a strategic goal and allocated resources for its achievement.
Illustration
Graphs and charts and narrative descriptions illustrating survey responses for the Great Lakes basin and cross-broken by
individual Lakes.
Limitations
Some definition and interpretation will be required to set parameters for "adoption of place-based sustainability as a strategic
goal by states/provinces and regional agencies and governments."
Interpretation
The formal adoption of place-based sustainability as a strategic goal by states/provinces and regional agencies and
governments combined with a description of the resources allocated for its achievement provides a index of institutional
commitment to stewardship initiatives.
Comments
Adoption of place-based sustainability principles establishes the balance between economic vitality, environmental health and
social well being as a fundamental goal. It also institutionalizes a long term time horizon for ecosystem management
activities. Focusing sustainability on landscapes will lead to the establishment of levels of integrity and health and an
acknowledgment that functioning and inter-related systems are required to maintain this health and integrity.
Unfinished Business
Since SOLEC 98 no revisions have been made to this indicator - however, revisions will be made before the next
version is released. Comments on this indicator are most welcome.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): stewardship
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-110 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Indicator ID: 3513
Measure
An enumeration and description of programs and projects that engage citizens in the stewardship of their landscapes
/ecosystems and/or foster the ethic of stewardship; total number of identified programs, total number of participants, basin
location.
Purpose
Measures citizen stewardship action focused on places -the landscapes in which they live.
Ecosystem Objective
A Sustainable Great Lakes Ecosystem
Endpoint
Continuing programs supporting a stewardship ethic and sense of responsibility for the landscapes within which people live.
The building of a sense of place and the establishment of an identity for the local landscape including an understanding of the
balance of interrelationships required to maintain the quality, health, and vitality of these landscapes over time.
A critical mass of local support for partnerships responsible for setting and maintaining levels of ecosystem health and
integrity in places throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Features
Identification of place-based landscape/ecosystem education programs. Identification of place-based landscape/ecosystem
festivals. Identification of other place-based Landscape/Ecosystem programs which engage citizenry in stewardship activities
and/or support a stewardship ethic and sense of place.
Illustration
Graphs and charts and narrative descriptions illustrating survey responses for the Great Lakes basin and cross-broken by
individual Lakes.
Limitations
Some definition and interpretation will be required to set parameters for "programs and projects which engage citizens in the
stewardship of their landscapes/ecosystems."
Interpretation
Measures activities that indicate citizen/community engagement and support for stewardship.
Comments
Community support for stewardship is required if governments, agencies, industry, and others are to adopt stewardship as a
core value. In the case of some issues this support will be essential. For example, habitat protection will not be successfully
addressed without the collaboration of local land use decision makers who have embraced the ethic of stewardship. The
extent to which these local officials will actually respond to the need for habitat protection will be determined in part by the
strength of the local constituency supporting stewardship as a community value.
Unfinished Business
Since SOLEC 98 no revisions have been made to this indicator - however, revisions will be made before the next
version is released. Comments on this indicator are most welcome.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): stewardship
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-111
-------
Aesthetics
Indicator ID: 7042
Measure
Visible waste and refuse in communities around the basin.
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of waste and decay around human activities in the Great Lakes basin and to indirectly
measure the degree to which human activities are conducted in an efficient and ordered fashion consistent with ecosystem
harmony and integrity.
Ecosystem Objective
GLWQA Annex 2 requirement for aesthetics - cleanliness and freedom from evidence of waste.
Endpoint
Absence of obvious waste and decay around human activities and an obvious attention to cleanliness and respect for the
environment.
Features
Aesthetics is an important aspect of society. It can relate to the management of other components of the ecosystem.
Examples of poor aesthetics include waste oil and scum deposits in surface waterways, excessive trash along roadsides and
on city streets, and run down and crumbling buildings within cities. The indicator is measured by a survey of waste and
refuse that can be ascertained by a survey of communities in the basin. To determine the condition of aesthetics around the
Great Lakes basin, surveys would need to be conducted to ascertain perspectives and opinions. This indicator is linked to
other stewardship indicators, especially pollution prevention.
Illustration
Limitations
This indicator can be highly subjective although there is general agreement that obvious signs of waste and decay of private
and public property are unaesthetic and signs of poor ecosystem management. The components of this indicator are not
currently monitored since cleanliness and order can be highly subjective. Aesthetics should be kept in the context of waste or
lack of maintenance and not become a matter or issue of taste and style.
Interpretation
This indicator represents a culture of maintenance and respect of the environment. A result approaching the endpoint
indicates better care for the environment.
Comments
The level of order and cleanliness of a community, or other human activity (e.g., farm operation), can provide information on
perspectives related to environmental health. Society has made no specific attempt to measure or comparatively evaluate
this aspect.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine how often the surveys would be conducted (i.e., what are the temporal trends this indicator would
measure?).
Need to determine how this indicator will be presented. For example, will a bar graph or a map be used?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 11: Degradation of aesthetics
1-112 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Economic Prosperity
Indicator ID: 7043
Measure
Unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To directly measure unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin and to indirectly measure the capacity of the Great
Lakes region to make decisions that will benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Human economic prosperity is a goal of all governments. Full employment is a goal for all economies and humans are part of
the ecosystem.
Endpoint
Achieving the lowest economically sustainable unemployment levels possible. Levels of unemployment under 5% in western
societies are considered full employment.
Features
The indicator demonstrates the economic ability of humans to avoid abusive behaviour of the rest of the ecosystem. In a
global context, wealthier nations (US and Canada, Europe) are more likely to also have better environmental management
regimes because they can better afford them and can afford to avoid many of the highly exploitive choices with respect to the
environment. Data on employment rates are collected regularly and frequently throughout the basin. The unemployment rate
is a better indicator than gross domestic production per capita for this purpose since it focuses on human ability to meet their
own needs through income provision and not necessarily through undesirable environmentally activities. For example, the oil
spill from the Exxon Valdez increased gross domestic production, although it had a minimal effect on employment rates.
Illustration
The indicator will be best represented by a chart showing trends over years.
Limitations
The collection and presentation of the indicator information is not limited. It was noted in the World Commission on
Environment and Development report "Our Common Future" that although economic well being is associated with higher
levels of resource consumption and environmental degradation, higher levels of economic development afford the ability to
better manage the ecosystem and can constrain unsustainable resource exploitation.
Interpretation
This indicator is useful in defining the extent to which society is meeting only human need and should be presented in the
context of the other ecosystem indicators. Decreasing trends in unemployment may not correlate to improvements in the
condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem. For example, higher employment levels may lead to greater spending, which may
cause environmentally undesirable consequences, such as new sprawl development.
Comments
Since unemployment is determined from those actually seeking work, this is a good indicator of the degree to which society's
pursuit of economic prosperity is being met.
Currently unemployment rates in the U.S. are at almost historic lows. Although distribution of income may not be ideal, there
is a sense that the human component of the ecosystem is better off than it was prior to this period. Arguments for excessive
ecosystem exploitation can be countered as not being necessary.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 5: Economic viability
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-113
-------
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
Indicator ID: 8140
Measure
The total amount of dollars spent on an annual basis by federal and state/provincial agencies and non-governmental
organizations in each of four areas: Great Lakes research, monitoring, restoration, and protection (including within nearshore
lands).
Purpose
To directly measure the amount of dollars spent annually on Great Lakes programs and to indirectly measure the
responsiveness of Great Lakes programs by determining the adequacy of annual funding focused on research, monitoring,
restoration, and protection of Great Lakes ecosystems by federal and state/provincial agencies and non-governmental
organizations.
Ecosystem Objective
Programs should be responsive to the degradation of shoreline communities and species. This indicator relates to the IJC
Desired Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity.
Endpoint
Fully funded research, monitoring, restoration, and protection programs for Great Lakes ecosystems.
Features
This indicator will track the amount of dollars spent annually on Great Lakes research, monitoring, restoration, and protection
programs. It will assess the number of projects, funding levels, and number of researchers across various factors, including
type of funding source (e.g., government, non-government, private sector); levels of governments (e.g., local, State, Federal);
basin wide; lakewide; regions of special interest; and types of research and locations. Data collection for this indicator will
require a survey of major funding agencies, organizations and universities to identify key individuals and types of research or
projects. The trends illustrated by this indicator can be used to determine which areas/issues require additional support, and
where there are opportunities to shift funding.
Illustration
Summary tables or graphs will be displayed for the entire basin and for each lake showing trends in the number of resources
allocated for research, monitoring, restoration, and projection programs and projects.
Limitations
Because it is often difficult to determine the spatial focus of various research projects (e.g., nearshore versus coastal
wetlands), this indicator may double-count, or overlook, resources allocated to projects. A lack of historical data will make the
assessment of funding trends overtime difficult. To date, there has been no effort to collect this data. To initiate such an
effort, and examine trends every 3 to 5 years, would require a substantial commitment. Obstacles to information collection
may include freedom of information issues and difficulties in assessing private sector research efforts.
Interpretation
This indicator could be used to compare investments in Biodiversity Investment Areas to overall program spending, or to
other program areas such as restoration. A baseline will be established to determine what resources a program requires to
be considered "fully funded." This information will serve as a baseline to determine if the endpoint for this indicator has been
achieved.
Comments
Received comments that this measure may be too dependent on political climate and not directly related to the benefits of the
programs themselves. It is not clear how spending money is a meaningful or particularly sensitive societal response. This
indicator should measure successful action. While it is agreed that this measure is not perfect, it can provide an initial
estimate of the amount of attention given to various components of the Great Lakes ecosystem, such as nearshore terrestrial
areas, over the long term. This indicator could be expanded to include factors such as the number of programs, policies,
plans prepared, etc. as other indicators of agency interest.
This indicator may benefit from a ranking system that allows the return on investment to be assessed over time.
A change in funding levels may not be a reflection of the amount of attention the Great Lakes receive, but rather a reflection
of budget issues.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine a quantitative reference value, such as a particular dollar amount based on programs needs
assessed on an annual basis.
1-114 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-115
-------
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
Indicator ID: 4519
Measure
For land areas adjacent to the Great Lakes, total number of "extreme storms", per year during ice-free and ice-break-up
periods on the Great Lakes.
Purpose
To directly measure the number of "extreme storms" each year and to indirectly measure the impact of climate change on
ecological components of coastal wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
GLWQA General Objective: "These waters should be free from materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the water as
result of human activity that. . . produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life." Change in
atmospheric temperature will potentially affect the number of extreme storms in the Great Lakes region which will, in turn,
affect coastal wetlands. Awareness of occurrence will encourage human response to reduce the stressor and minimize
biological disruption. (IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9).
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of historical data, if available, to determine the average
number of extreme storms on the Great Lakes prior to a particular date.
Features
Extreme storm events are a natural stressor than can occur anywhere in the basin and can potentially alter coastal wetlands
and indicators of wetland health. There is natural variability in occurrences of extreme storm events, but the interpretation
method tries to account for this, so the final score should have lower variability over time. Criteria to define an "extreme
storm" (e.g., any storm below a central atmospheric pressure threshold or above a wind speed threshold) must be set.
This indicator may show similar trends to other indicators of climate change (ie. #4857 First Emergence of Water Lily
Blossoms in Coastal Wetlands and #4858 Ice Duration on the Great Lakes). It is indirectly linked to any other indicator that
track trends in wetland area/habitat change.
Illustration
A graph with the total number of extreme storm events (not ice-bound) on the y axis and years on the x axis, beginning with
the cut-off date for historical data. The graph will also indicate the historical median and extremes.
Limitations
This indicator assumes that: 1) of all storms, "extreme storms" alter coastal wetlands the most (due to the combined effects of
wind and waves; 2) storms throughout the basin represent storm effects on wetlands throughout the basin; and 3) historical
data is available. It may take some time to collect data and to define historical reference levels.
Interpretation
To interpret this indicator, data for "extreme storms" need to be gathered each year. From the recorded data of "extreme
storms", the pre-1980 median, maximum and minimum will be determined. The historic range will be divided into 3 equally
occurring ranges: below average, average, and above average (i.e., the number of extreme storms/year exceeded 0-33.3%,
33.3% to 66.7%, 66.7% to 100% of the years of record before 1980). The indicator will score high if the annual numbers of
extreme storms for the previous 10 years are within the maximum and minimum historical extremes and they are distributed
fairly evenly among the 3 historical ranges. Low scores will be obtained if any annual Extreme storm numbers of the previous
10 years lie beyond the maximum or minimum extremes or they are becoming highly skewed away from a fairly even
distribution among the 3 ranges.
Water levels, fetch and direction of storms may affect how storms influence individual wetlands.
Comments
The concept of storm damage is very understandable to public.
An endpoint could be reached when the previous 10 years' values of numbers of extreme storms are evenly distributed within
the pre-1980 historic range of number of extreme storms.
A technical report written by P. J. Lewis will provide a good starting point for historical data and assessment. The report was
published by the Canadian Climate Centre, Technical Report #87-13, Severe Storms Over the Great Lakes: A Catalogue and
Summary. 1957-1985. This report gives a fair amount of detail about each storm that had a least two reports of storm force
winds (>48 knots) or greater.
1-116 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Unfinished Business
Need a definition of "extreme storms" - will it be based on wind speed, amount of precipitation, central atmospheric
pressure of the storm, or the pressure gradient? Or some combination of two or more criteria.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s): climate change
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-117
-------
Global Warming: First Emergence of Water Lily Blossoms in Coastal Wetlands
Indicator ID: 4857
Measure
The number of days after January 1 of first sighting of white on a water lily blossom, averaged over a representative set of
coastal wetlands.
Purpose
To directly measure change in first emergence dates of water lilies as an indicator of climate change affecting wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
GLWQA General Objective: "These waters should be free from materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the water as
result of human activity that. . . produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life." Change in
temperature potentially affects most biota. Awareness of occurrence will encourage human response to reduce the stressor
towards minimizing biological disruption. (IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9).
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of historical data, if available, to determine the average
historical emergence date of water lilies, and to determine the earliest and latest recorded dates of first emergence. If no
historical data are available, the endpoint will need to be established from data gathered from monitoring this indicator.
Features
To monitor this indicator, a set of representative coastal wetland sites will be selected based on: 1) climate zones, 2) local
observers and 3) associated historical data. The data will be collected annually. The data will have some variability due to
natural climate variability and this will have to be considered when interpreting the data. Provided there are enough sites that
meet the required criteria, collection and analysis of this indicator should be feasible.
This indicator may show similar trends to Ice Duration on the Great Lakes. It will be indirectly linked to indicators affected by climate change.
Illustration
A graph will be displayed showing, annually, the number of days after January 1 (average of the sites) of the first sighting of
white on a water lily blossom. The average historical emergence data, and the earliest and latest recorded dates, will be
marked for reference and comparison.
Limitations
A possible limitation may be locating sites that meet the needed criteria including on-site wetland observers and accessible
water lilies. Monitoring would require frequent site visits for a period of time each year.
Interpretation
To interpret this indicator, data for the white water lily or for a highly correlated reference crop need to be gathered. From the
recorded date of first emergence, the historical earliest and latest dates will be determined. The historic range will be divided
into 3 equally occurring date ranges: early, average, and late. Scores will be designed to be high if the annual averages for
the previous 10 years are within high and low historical extremes AND they are distributed fairly evenly among the 3 historical
ranges. Low scores will be obtained if annual averages lie beyond the high or low extremes OR they are becoming highly
skewed away from a fairly even distribution among the 3 ranges.
Comments
This indicator allows local people to become involved and aware of SOLEC. This indicator may have to be rethought if water
lily data do not correlate well with historical data for a reference crop.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): climate change
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-118 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Global Warming: Maximum Ice Extent on the Great Lakes
Indicator ID: 4858
Measure
Maximum percentage of Great Lakes area covered by ice each year.
Purpose
To directly measure temperature and accompanying physical changes to each lake and to indirectly measure the impact of
climate change on wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
GLWQA General Objective: "These waters should be free from materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the water as
result of human activity that. . . produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life." Change in
water temperature (potentially due to global warming) will affect ice extent on the Lakes and, in turn, affect coastal wetlands.
Awareness of occurrence will encourage human response to reduce the stressor towards minimizing biological disruption.
(IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9).
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of historical data to determine the average number of
days per year that ice historically (prior to 1980) formed on each lake.
Features
Ice cover reflects temperature, wind, and heat stored in a lake, therefore, this is a good indicator of climate effects. This data
is already collected annually for each lake by NOAA using satellite imagery. There is a natural variability in MAXIMUM ice
extent accounted for in the interpretation.
This indicator may show similar trends to other indicators of climate change (ie. #4519 Number of Extreme Storms, #4857
First Emergence of Water Lily Blossoms in Coastal Wetlands, and #4861 Water Level Fluctuations). It is indirectly linked to
any other indicator that track trends in wetland area/habitat change.
Illustration
A graph displaying the maximum percentage of ice cover on the y axis and years on the x axis. The historical median and
extremes will be indicated.
Limitations
The data that have already been collected by NOAA are specific to each lake rather than coastal wetlands.
Interpretation
Even though it is unclear if storms alter ice extent, storms can break up ice and alter their formation, therefore, information
regarding storms and their severity is needed to properly interpret this indicator.
To interpret this indicator, data for maximum percentage ice cover need to be gathered each year. From the period of record
for maximum percentage of ice cover, the pre-1980 high and low extremes will be determined. The historic range will be
divided into 3 equally occurring ranges of maximum per cent ice cover: below average, average, and above average (i.e.,
maximum per cent ice cover exceeded 0 to 33.3%, 33.3.% to 66.7%, 66.7% to 100% of the pre-1980 years of record). The
indicator will score high if the annual maximum percentage values for the previous 10 years are within the maximum and
minimum historical extremes and they are distributed fairly evenly among the 3 historical ranges. Low scores will be obtained
if any annual maximum percentage cover value lies beyond the high or low extremes or if the annual values are becoming
highly skewed away from a fairly even distribution among the 3 ranges.
Comments
This is a very understandable feature. Lake ice indicates coastal wetland ice and itself affects wetlands (e.g., winter storm
severity).
The endpoint is reached when the previous 10 years' values of maximum per cent ice cover are distributed evenly within the
pre-1980 historic range of maximum per cent ice cover.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s): climate change
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 1-119
-------
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
1-120 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Acid Rain
Indicator ID: 9000
Measure
1) Levels of pH in precipitation in the Great Lakes Basin, and 2) the area within the Great Lakes basin in exceedance of
critical loadings of sulphate to aquatic systems, measured as wet sulphate residual deposition over critical load (kg/ha/yr).
Purpose
To directly measure pH levels in precipitation and critical loadings of sulphate to the Great Lakes basin, and to indirectly
measure the potential stress to the Great Lakes ecosystem due to acid rain, as well as to indirectly measure the efficacy of
policies to reduce sulphur and nitrogen acidic compounds.
Ecosystem Objective
The Canada/U.S. Accord on Air Quality pledges the two nations to reduce the emissions of acidifying compounds to the point
where deposition containing these compounds does not adversely impact aquatic and terrestrial biotic systems.
Endpoint
Levels of sulphate in wet deposition are not to exceed critical loads, defined by ecozone to be from 8-20 kg/ha/yr.
Features
Measurements of sulphate deposition and pH are made by the US NDDN and Canadian CAPMoN networks along with
provincial and state partners. These data are stored in databases on both sides of the border.
Illustration
Data are routinely extracted from databases into annual maps of sulphate and pH deposition. These maps will be used to
depict this indicator.
Limitations
Interpretation
This measure is not sufficient to fully understand the deposition problem and trends in pH concentration throughout the basin
is another related indicator. Areas exceeding the sulphate critical load continue to be ecologically stressed due to high levels
of acidity.
Comments
Current projections how that this may not occur until after 2010.
The two specific measures tracked both provide indication of progress towards the goal of reducing acidifying substances.
Further progress in reduction of acidifying substances are required.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine what the target pH level is.
Need to add more information on how often measurements of sulphate and pH are made, and the spatial trends (i.e.,
location of monitoring sites within the Great Lakes basin) described by this indicator.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air
Related Issue(s): toxics
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 15: Airborne
toxic substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-121
-------
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Indicator ID: 9001
Measure
Percentage of daylight hours per year which have <10 km Visible Range (for relative humidity values < 80% and no observed
weather codes from synoptic observations).
Purpose
To directly measure the percentage of daylight hours with reduced visibility per year and to indirectly measure the efficacy of
policies and technologies developed to improve visibility in the Great Lakes basin.
Ecosystem Objective
Endpoint
Features
This indicator provides a measure of the visibility from human observers and from automated systems which relates to the
progress made in limiting visibility reducing aerosols. Much progress has been made since 1951 in this regard and this
progress should continue. Data exist back to 1951 in the U.S. and Canada and can form a trend statistic. Visibility is also an
aesthetic problem, one which is most likely noticed by the public. This indicator is also an aesthetic indicator for land use.
Further degradation of visibility in urban areas in the Great Lakes basin is to be avoided.
Illustration
Limitations
Recent changes in the observing protocols in Canada may lessen the number of stations capable of producing data on this
indicator. However, automated observations which are tied to the prior data can be used as a surrogate. In the U.S.,
IMPROVE and NESCAUM observations stations can be used to infer this data.
Interpretation
Visibility trends should show improvement over time. The SOLEC indicator (% hours < 10 km visibility) should decrease with
time. If visibility is decreasing with time, major source types should be investigated. These include industrial production of
sulphate aerosols, mobile sources of organic aerosols, nitrates and black carbon, and soil dust aerosols.
Comments
The U.S. has designated atmospheric visibility as a protected value to be especially evaluated in its national parks. As part of
the Clean Air Act, prevention of significant deterioration of visibility in Class I areas (largely national parks and forest
reserves) is to be avoided. The PSD regulations require that visibility (measured in the number of kilometers distant one can
see a black target of 0.02% contrast) not decrease.
Canada and the U.S. have agreed through the Air Quality Accord of 1990 that Canada will bring into effect sufficient controls
to protect resources from transboundary impacts of visibility-reducing aerosols, in a manner similar to the US PSD
regulations.
In Canada, regional stations, including Toronto, have relevant data for this statistic.
Typical measures of visibility are Meteorological Visible Range (km) observed by eyesight, aerosol light scattering coefficient
(bscat, km-1) measured by nephelometers, or deciviews (a perceptive indicator related to bscat).
Unfinished Business
Need to add an explanation of synoptic observations.
Need to provide an ecosystem objective.
Need to provide a quantifiable endpoint, such as the "ideal" percentage of daylight hours per year that have a <10
km visible range.
Need to provide more information on the spatial trends (i.e., location of monitoring sites within the Great Lakes
basin) described by this indicator.
Need to determine how this indicator will be presented. For example, will a bar graph be used to illustrate trends in
visibility overtime?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): air
Related Issue(s):
1-122 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 1-123
-------
Appendix 2 — Listing of All Indicators Entered into Database
The attached table contains a listing of over 800 indicators that have been entered into the database.
The table includes:
the indicator name,
the indicator number or code,
what the indicator measures,
what agency/document the indicator originated from (any numbers in this column refer to the
document numbers listed in Appendix 2), and
whether the indicator has been proposed for the SOLEC Indicator List (C.R. means Concept
Retained in another indicator).
Ind.
code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Indicator name
Lake herring
Lake trout
Non-depleted native fishes
Depleted native fishes
Sea lamprey
Aquatic Habitat
Fish consumption advisories
Salmon and trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Yellow perch
Northern pike
Muskellunge
Lake Whitefishes
Lake whitefish and lake herring
Bass and sunfish
Lake sturgeon
Preyfish Populations
Sea lamprey
Native species diversity
Genetic diversity
Habitat
Habitat
Measure
Rehabilitate to historical level of production
Restore self-sustaining stocks to historical abundance
Maintain stable, self-sustaining status
Restore stable self-sustaining stocks
Reduce population by 50% by 2000; 90% by 201 0
1) Quality and area of aquatic habitat (e.g., shore, spawning
shoals, tributaries, wetlands, etc.) and 2) population of sentinal
fish species. For example, the measures for tributary quality
could include the number of dams, number of miles of river
channel that is impounded, number of miles of (formerly) high-
gradient stream channel that is impounded, and the number of
miles between the river mouth and the first dam. The number
and location offish passage facilities (up- and downstream) that
could be used successfully by species or communities of
concern (for example, lake sturgeon, or other anadromous fishes
listed in FCGO) could also serve as measures.
Reduce level in fish below FCA action levels
1) Productivity, yield, or harvest using abundance (e.g., catch of
each species in a given unit of sampling effort), or biomass
metrics; and 2) population of stocked and naturally produced
fish.
Abundance, biomass, or annual production of walleye and
burrowing mayflies Hexagenia spp. populations in historical,
warm-coolwater, mesotrophic habitats of the Great Lakes.
Presence or absence of a Hexagenia mating flight (emergence)
in late June- July in areas of historical abundance.
Maintain as top omnivore; 0.5Mkg/y
Maintain as prominent predator
Manage to support trophy fishery
Quantify using either numbers or biomass.
Maintain self-sustaining stocks yielding 3.8Mkg/y
Maintain at recreationally attractive levels
Rehabilitate populations; delist as T or E spp.
Abundance and diversity, as well as age and size distribution, of
preyfish species (i.e., deepwater ciscoes, sculpins, lake herring,
rainbow smelt, and alewives) in each lake.
Number of spawning run adult sea lampreys; wounding rates on
large salmonids.
Total number of different species in a collection (see features).
Comparison of historical with present conditions.
Heterozygosity (allozyme, allelic);nuclear or mitochondrial DNA
polymorphisms; population pain/vise genetic distance; nucleon
diversity/gene diversity; genetic variability; genetic uniqueness.
No net loss; rehabilitate degraded habitats
Reduce or eliminate contaminants
Program
sponsor
GLFC - 1
GLFC - 1
GLFC - 1
GLFC - 1
GLFC - 1
GLFC - 1
GLFC - 1
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
GLFC -5
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
C.R.(93)
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-1
-------
Ind.
code
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Indicator name
Salmon and trout
Planktivores (preyfish)
Inshore fish
Benthivore (fish)
Benthivore (lake whitefish)
Sea lamprey
Other species (fish)
Habitat
habitat
Lake trout
Warmwater fish
Preyfish
Salmon, trout, and whitefishes
Sea lamprey
Lake trout
Walleye
Hexagenia (burrowing mayfly)
Exotic species
Native species and habitats
Persistent toxics
Persistent toxics
Nutrient loading
Nutrient loading
Nutrient loading
Nutrient loading
Habitat
Riverine habitat
Western basin ecosystem
Central basin ecosystem
Eastern basin ecosystem
Contaminants
Habitat
Genetic diversity
Rare, Threatened & Endangered
species
Preyfish
Food web
Diaporeia and Hexagenia
Biomass/production size spectrum
Yield of piscivores
Piscivore/prey biomass
Fraction of yield as native fish
Zooplankton size distribution
Total P levels <= 10mg/L
Small native bivalve presence
Native Unionid Mussels
Submersed aquatic vegetation
Municipal discharges: BOD, TSS, Pf
Petroleum industry liquid discharges
Fish Entrainment
Fishability
Measure
Establish diverse community yielding 6-15Mlbs/y
Match to primary production and predator demand
Maintain self-sustaining stocks; yield >2-4Mlbs/y
Maintain self-sustaining stocks
Maintain self-sustaining stocks; yield 4-6M Ibs/y
Reduce to achieve other fish community objective
Protect diverse native fish community
No net loss; restore riverine spawning habitat
Reduce or eliminate contaminants
Restore self-sustaining populations; 0.5-1 M adult
Maintain current complex; yield 1 kg/ha/y
Maintain major species; mean biomass 110 kg/ha/y
Maintain diverse complex; yield 2.5 kg/ha/y
Limit lake trout mortality to<90,000 fish/y
Health indicator for coldwater fish community
Health for mesotrophic ecosystem; yield .3 kg/ha/y
Health indicator for mesotrophic ecosystem
Effects of
Status of
Levels in water and sediment
Levels in fish and wildlife
DO levels in bottom waters
Water clarity and algal blooms
Maintain mesotrophic conditions (10-20 ug P/L)
Manage loadings to yield 50-60 M Ibs good fish/y
Manage nearshore habitat for quality fisheries
Protect spawning habitat of anadromous fish
Manage for warm and coolwater fishes
Manage for warm, cool, and coldwater fishes
Emphasize management for coldwater fishes
Reduce levels to no effect on fish production
Adequate habitat to support fish community goals
Conserve locally adapted strains
Manage to preserve and protect
Manage as prey, baitfish, and human food (smelt)
Manage to meet fish community objectives
Manage as prey and indicators of habitat quality
Ecosystem structure
Commercial and sport catch
Ecosystem health
Ratio of native to exotic species offish.
Ecosystem structure; predation, and productivity
Baseline productivity
Ecosystem health
Distribution and abundance, reported as number of individuals
per unit of sampling effort; soft tissue weight; and reproductive
output of the Native Unionid mussel.
Condition of physical habitat; nutrient loading
Water quality
Water quality
1) Water withdrawal rates in m3/sec (gal/min) at once-through
cooling at steam-electric and pumped-storage power plants in
the Great Lakes; and 2) calculated total annual mortalities
(losses) of sentinal species at each plant in each lake.
Contaminant levels in fish; fish advisories
Program
sponsor
GLFC-2
GLFC-2
GLFC-2
GLFC-2
GLFC-2
GLFC-2
GLFC-2
GLFC-2
GLFC-3
GLFC-3
GLFC-3
GLFC-3
GLFC-3
IJC
IJC
IJC - 30
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SOLEC - 28
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
GLFC-4
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
EC -39
EC -39
EC -39
IJC - 35
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(17)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(111)
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(112)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(8)
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
2-2
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Indicator name
Biological community integrity and
diversity
Virtual elimination persistent toxics
Phosphorus
Physical environment integrity
Loss of native species
Ecosystem imbalance
Reproductive impairment
Nutrient stress
Contaminant stresses
Lake trout
Mesotrophic biological surrogates
Fish habitat-in 43 AOCs
Fish community
Habitat
White sucker
Lake trout
Walleye, Hexagenia
Brown bullhead, Hexagenia, benthic
community
Walleye and Hexagenia
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia
hoyf)
Fish community structure and
function
Fish community structure and
function
Fish community structure and
function
Fish community structure and
function
Fish community structure and
function
Reproduction and self-sustainability
Fish habitat and spawning grounds
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and
Tumours in Nearshore Fish
Tainting of fish flavor
Exotics
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Tributaries
Dredging activities
Contaminant levels to protect
aquatic life
Eutrophication
Phytoplankton Populations
Measure
Multiple; biota and habitat
Multiple; mixed
Multiple; mixed
Multiple; mixed
Number of species lost
Lake trout dichotomous key
EMS; female parent contaminant body burden
P level, DO level; Chlorophyll a
loadings, residues, body burdens
lake trout dichotomous key
Walleye and Hexagenia
Habitat supports fish community objectives
Site specific; 43 sites
Areas of aquatic vegetation and loose rock substrate
Basin-wide toxics
Oligotrophic habitats
Basin-wide mesotrophic habitats
Toxics in AOCs
Walleye, 0.3kg/ha/y; Hexagenia, 200/m2/y/3y
Abundance, yield, or biomass, and self-sustainability of lake
trout and D. hoyi in coldwater, oligotrophic habitats of the Great
Lakes.
Annual harvest of trout and salmon (M Ibs)
Annual harvest of planktivores (M Ibs)
Annual harvest of inshore fishes (M Ibs)
Annual harvest of benthivore fishes (M Ibs)
Annual harvest of other native fishes (M Ibs)
Lake trout
lake trout spawning habitat; coastal wetland sp. H
Frequency of tumors and other related anomalies in nearshore
fish.
Annual number of complaints for sport fish
lamprey wounding rates; presence of other species
Species diversity and abundance in the aquatic oligochaete
community.
Macroinvertebrate community; IBI, MBI, etc.
Contaminant level in sediments
Concentration of toxics in water column
Total P and ammonia in water
Species and size, fractionated by Carbon-14 uptake, of
phytoplankton populations.
Zero discharge and emission of 9 toxic contaminants
Phosphorus Concentrations and
Loadings
Total phosphorus levels (ug/L).
Program
sponsor
IJC - 35
IJC - 35
IJC - 35
IJC - 35
SOLEC - 22
IJC - 35
IJC - 35
IJC - 35
IJC - 35
IJC - 29
IJC -31
GLFC/EC/USE
PA -41
GLFC/EC/USE
PA -41
Ontario LaMP -
12
IJC - 36
IJC - 36
IJC - 36
IJC - 36
IJC - 30
IJC - 30
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Superior LaMP
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
C.R.(112)
C.R.(111)
No
No
No
No
C.R.(111)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Candidate
C.R.(112)
Yes
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-3
-------
Ind.
code
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
Indicator name
Trends in Contaminant
Concentrations & Loadings of
Priority Chemicals in Abiotic Media:
Water, Air, Soil, and Sediments
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants In Young-of-the Year
Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting
waterbirds
Zooplankton Populations as
Indicators of Ecosystem Health
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in
Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in
Sediment Cores
Contaminant Exchanges Between
Media: Air to Water and Water to
Sediment
Biomass/Production Size Spectrum
Excess Nutrients
Zooplankton Size Distribution
Production or Yield of Piscivores
Piscivore/Prey Fish Biomass Ratio
Fraction Yield as Native Fish
Contaminant Body Burdens
Burrowing Mayfly Nymphs
Trends in Abundance of Key
Species
Lake Herring Stocks
Salmonine Stocks
Planktivore (prey) Species Biomass
Rarity of Species and Communities
Non-Native/Exotic Species
Species Richness
Human Population Size
Tern Populations
Herring Gull
Measure
This indicator will use the contaminant concentrations and
computational methodology to compute the loadings, trends, and
exchanges of priority toxic chemicals between air, water, and
sediment. Fugacity based approaches of intermedia transport
will also be included as part of the indicator.
Concentration of PBT chemicals in the catch-weighted average,
edible tissue of recreational fish.
Concentration of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail
shiners.
1) Annual concentrations of DDT complex,
PCBs/PCDFs/PCDDs and other organic contaminants and Hg
and other metals in Herring Gull eggs from 15 sites from
throughout the Great Lakes (U.S. and Canada). 2) Periodic
measurement of biological features of gulls and other colonial
waterbirds known to be directly or indirectly impacted by
contaminants and other stressors. These include (but are not
limited to): clutch size, eggshell thickness, hatching and fledging
success, size and trends in breeding population, various
physiological biomarkers including vitamin A, immune and
thyroid function, stress hormone levels, liver enzyme induction,
PAH levels in bile and porphyrins and genetic and chromsomal
abnormalities.
1) Community Composition; 2) Mean Individual Size; and 3)
Biomass and Production.
Annual average loadings of IJC priority toxic chemicals from the
atmosphere to the Great Lakes, based on measured
atmospheric concentrations of the chemicals, as well as wet and
dry deposition rates.
The concentration of IJC priority toxic chemicals in the offshore
waters of the Great Lakes.
The concentrations of IJC priority toxic chemicals in sediment
cores at selected sites within the Great Lakes at ten year
intervals.
Estimates of air to water and water to sediment loadings of IJC
priority toxic chemicals using fugacity based approaches of
intermedia transport.
Total Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels
Mean Zooplankton Length
Naturally Producing Fish to Salmonine Populations
DDT, PCB, dieldrin concentrations in lake trout
Easily quantified using either numbers or biomass
Index Target Abundances (e.g. lake trout, diporeia
Annual Yields
Annual Yields of Salmon and Trout
Total number of different species in a collection
Population Size from census data
Common and Caspian Terns
Program
sponsor
New
New
New
USEPA - 46
USEPA - 46,
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP -
11
Ontario LaMP
GLFC-1,
Ontario LaMP -
12, IJC -31
GLFC-7
GLFC - 1
GLFC - 1
GLFC -2
SOLEC-19
USEPA - 46
USEPA - 46
USEPA - 46
Ontario LaMP -
12
Ontario LaMP -
12, IJC -31
SOLEC
Indicator?
C.R.(117,
118, 119,
120)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2-4
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
Indicator name
Bald Eagle/Osprey Populations
Double-Crested Cormorant
Contaminant Concentrations in
Water
Induction of Mixed Function Oxidase
Enzymes
Inhibition of Amino Levulinic Acid
Dehydratase
Hepatic Porphyria
Hepatic Vitamin A (Retinol)
Thyroid Related Abnormalities
Tumor Incidence
Fin Ray Asymmetry
Congenital Malformations
Disease Incidence
Parasite Incidence
Walleye Abundance
Exceedance of Water Quality
Guidelines
Total discharge via leakages
Contaminants discharged by STP in
kg/day
Industrial effluent discharged per day
Zinc Loadings
Iron Loadings
Phenols Loadings
TSS Discharge
Cyanide Loadings
BOD Loadings
TSP Concentrations
Fecal coliform concentration
Chlorine Concentrations
Concentration of cadmium
Concentration of chromium
Concentration of lead
Concentration of aluminum
Concentration of Mirex
Concentration of copper
Growth rate of individuals
Carcinogenesis
Teratogenesis and Congenital
Defects
Susceptibility to Disease
Behavioural Effects
Morphological Changes
Feminization
Natality and Mortality
Population Age Structure
Number of Breeding Pairs
Geographical Range of Population
Decomposition
Phosphorus Loadings
Fugacity
Water Transparency
Ratio of Specialist to Generalist
Organisms
Tainting of Fish Flavour
Measure
PCB, DDE, dieldrin, HCB, BaP
P450 1A1
Bacterial Contamination
kg of pollutants and metals
Total kg per year
Total kg per year
Total kg/day
Total kg/day
STP effluent concentrations (mg/L)
mg/L
MF count/1 00 ml
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
Algal cells, etc.
Chorophyte - Cladophora
Partial pressure/escaping tendency of chemical
Program
sponsor
Ontario LaMP -
12
Ontario LaMP -
12
SOLEC-16
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
SOLEC-18
Ontario LaMP -
12
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
EC -38
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
IJC - 33
University of
Toronto - 60
OMNR/NYSDE
C-50
IJC -31
GLFC
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-5
-------
Ind.
code
1068
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
4078
4079
Indicator name
Ammonia
TKN
Total Phosphorus
Total Dissolved Si
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Chlorides
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperatures
Secchi Depth
Reinvestment in Natural Capital
Citizen Involvement in Decision
Making
Per Capita Membership in
Community Organizations
Energy Consumption
Waste Stream Loadings
Political Pressure -
Protect/Remediate Environment
Diversity of Cultures
Basin-Wide Sense of Identity
General Participation in
Environmental Programs
Capacities of Sustainable
Landscape Partnerships
Organizational Richness of
Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Integration of Ecosystem
Management across Landscapes
Integration of Sustainability
Principles across Landscapes
Citizen/Community Place-Based
Stewardship Activities
Drinking Water Quality
Drinking Water Quality
Measure
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Number of partnerships; basin location and geographic
coverage; budgets, FTE staff; identification of major projects and
initiatives
The diversity of the members participating in partnerships
measured on two axes: Horizontal Integration — the diversity of
local partners; and Vertical Integration — the direct participation
of federal and state/provincial actors in local partnership
initiatives.
Simple reporting of the adoption of ecosystem management as a
guiding principle in place-based resource management
programs by states/provinces and regional agencies and
governments and budget allocations in support of ecosystem
management programs and projects.
Simple reporting of the adoption of place-based sustainability as
a strategic goal by states/provinces and regional agencies and
governments and budget allocations in support of sustainability
initiatives and projects.
An enumeration and description of programs and projects that
engage citizens in the stewardship of their
landscapes/ecosystems and/or foster the ethic of stewardship;
total number of identified programs, total number of participants,
basin location.
Chemical concentration in finished drinking water
Microbial contaminants in finished drinking water
Program
sponsor
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Michigan LaMP
-9
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
C.R.(4175)
C.R.(4175)
2-6
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
Indicator name
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore
Recreational Waters
Contaminants in Air
Chemical Contaminants in Fish
Tissue
Chemical Contaminants in Human
Tissue 1
Chemical Contaminants in Human
Tissue 2
Chemical Contaminants in Human
Tissue 3
Chemical Contaminants in Human
Tissue 4
Chemical Contaminant Intake From
Air, Water, Soil and Food
Radionuclides 1
Radionuclides 2
Air Quality and Cardiorespiratory
Health 1
Air Quality and Cardiorespiratory
Health 2
Cancer Risk and Chlorination
Byproducts in Drinking Water
Cancer Incidence Rates
Birth Defects Incidence Rates
Social Indicators
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Fish
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Measure
1) Counts of fecal coliforms (FC) and/or E.coli in recreational
waters measured as number of organisms per volume of water
(e.g., FC/ml); and 2) frequency of beach closings at specific
locations.
Concentration of chemicals and particulates in ambient air
Concentration of PBT chemicals targeted by the GLWQA in
edible fish tissue
Breast milk: Concentration of PBT chemicals
Blood lead concentrations in children
Geographic comparisons of chemical contaminants in human
tissue (blood, milk and hair)
Umbilical cord blood: Concentration of PBT chemicals
Estimated total daily intake of PBT chemicals targeted by the
GLWQA from air, water, soil, and food sources.
Concentration of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in cow's milk
Concentration of H-3 (tritium) and C-14 in surface water, drinking
water, and air
Relationship between respiratory admissions to hospitals and
ozone and sulphate levels.
Cardiorespiratory hospital admissions and sulfate levels
Correlation of THM levels in drinking water with cancer incidence
Geographic distribution of cancer incidence in the Great Lakes
region
Geographic distribution of birth defect rates in the Great Lakes
region
Public knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding use of
Great Lakes resources
Aldrin/dieldrin in Indicator Species
Benzo(a)pyrene in Indicator Species
Chlordane in Indicator Species
DDT and metabolites in Indicator Species
Hexachlorobenzene in Indicator Species
Alkyl-lead in Indicator Species
Mercury and compounds in Indicator Species
Mirex in Indicator Species
Octachlorostyrene in Indicator Species
PCBs in Indicator Species
Dioxins and Furans in Indicator Species
Toxaphene in Indicator Species
Lead in raw and treated water
Mercury in raw and treated water
Benzene in raw and treated water
Program
sponsor
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Heath Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
USEPA
Health Canada
-56
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
SOLEC
Indicator?
Yes
C.R.(4176)
Yes
C.R.(4177)
No
C.R.(4177)
C.R.(4177)
Yes
C.R.(4178)
C.R.(4178)
C.R.(4176)
C.R.(4176)
C.R.(4175)
C.R.(4179)
C.R.(4179)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4083)
C.R.(4083)
No
C.R.(4083)
C.R.(4083)
C.R.(4083)
C.R.(4078)
C.R.(4078)
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-7
-------
Ind.
code
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
Indicator name
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Contaminants in Air
Contaminants in Air
Contaminants in Air
Contaminants in Air
Recreational Water Quality
Recreational Water Quality
Recreational Water Quality
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Radionuclides
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 01
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 02
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 03
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 04
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 05
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 06
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 07
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 08
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 09
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 10
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 11
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 12
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 13
Measure
Chlordane in raw and treated water
Dibromochloropropane in raw and treated water
Ethylenedibromide in raw and treated water
Toxaphene in raw and treated water
Hexachlorobenzene in raw and treated water
Benzo(a)pyrene in raw and treated water
PCBs in raw and treated water
2,3,7,8-TCDD in raw and treated water
Coliform in raw and treated water
Fecal coliform in raw and treated water
Ozone concentrations in air
Particulate matter concentrations in air
Carbon monoxide concentrations in air
Volatile Organic Compounds concentrations in air
Enterococci concentrations in water
E. coli concentrations in water
Fecal coliform concentrations in water
Viruses in raw and treated water
XX concentrations in YY
Concentrations in breast milk of DDT
Concentrations in breast milk of dieldrin
Concentrations in breast milk of heptachlor epoxid
Concentrations in breast milk of oxychlordane
Concentrations in breast milk of transnonachlor
Concentrations in breast milk of B-HCCH
Concentrations in breast milk of HCB
Concentrations in breast milk of PCB
Daily intake of DDT by breast-fed infants
Daily intake of dieldrin by breast-fed infants
Intake of heptachlor epoxide by breast-fed infants
Daily intake of oxychlordane by breast-fed infants
Intake of transnonachlor by breast-fed infants
Program
sponsor
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4079)
C.R.(4079)
C.R.(4082)
C.R.(4082)
C.R.(4082)
C.R.(4082)
C.R.(4081)
C.R.(4081)
C.R.(4081)
C.R.(4079)
No
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
2-8
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
4155
4156
4157
4158
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4501
4502
4503
4504
Indicator name
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 14
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 15
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 16
Organochlorines in human breast
milk 17
Geographic distribution of cancer
Birth defects in Ontario, 1978-1988
Cancer risk/chlorination disinfection
by-products
Air pollutants affecting hospital
admission rates
Air pollutants affecting hospital
admission rates
Air pollutants affecting hospital
admission rates
Exposure to aldrin and dieldrin
Exposure to benzo(a)pyrene
Exposure to chlordane
Exposure to DDT
Exposure to dioxins and furans
Exposure to PCBs
Exposure to hexachlorobenzene
Exposure to mercury
Exposure to mirex
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human
Tissue
Radionuclides
Geographic Patterns and Trends in
Disease Incidence
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate
Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community
Health
Deformities/Eroded
Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Measure
Daily intake of B-HCCH by breast-fed infants
Daily intake of HCB by breast-fed infants
Daily intake of PCB by breast-fed infants
Organochlorine pesticide index for breast milk
Cancer incidence
Birth defects incidence
THM levels in drinking water + cancer incidence
Daily respiratory admissions vs sulphate levels
Daily respiratory admissions vs ozone levels
Cardiorespiratory hospitalization rates vs levels of sulphates
Estimated daily intake
Estimated daily intake
Estimated daily intake
Estimated daily intake
Estimated daily intake
Estimated daily intake
Estimated daily intake
Estimated daily intake
Estimated daily intake
Concentrations of chemical substances such as alkylphenols,
metals (e.g., lead, mercury) and other inorganic compounds ,
pesticides, radionuclides, and drinking water disinfection by-
products (e.g., trihalomethanes) as well as microbial
parameters such as bacteria, viruses and parasites in raw,
treated and distributed drinking water.
Concentration of chemicals and particulate matter in ambient air.
Concentrations of PBT chemicals targeted by the GLWQA in
human tissues such as blood, breast milk, hair and adipose
tissues.
Concentration of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in cow's milk, gross beta
activity in air and precipitation, and airborne and waterborne
radionuclide emissions from nuclear power plants in the Great
Lakes basin.
Disease incidence rate (rate = x disease incidences/ y
population) of diseases that have a demonstrated environmental
link, such as cancers and birth defects, in the Great Lakes basin.
Functional Feeding Groups (e.g., herbivores, detritivores,
carnivores)/lndex of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
Numbers and percent of deformities/ eroded fins/ lesions/
tumors (DELT) in coastal wetland fish.
Species composition and relative abundance of calling frogs and
toads, based on evening surveys using protocol developed for
the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) or modification of MMP
protocol.
Program
sponsor
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Health Canada
-56
Combined
SOLEC
Indicator?
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4084)
C.R.(4094)
C.R.(4095)
C.R.(4093)
C.R.(4091)
C.R.(4091)
C.R.(4092)
C.R.(4088)
C.R.(4088)
C.R.(4088)
C.R.(4088)
C.R.(4088)
C.R.(4088)
C.R.(4088)
C.R.(4088)
C.R.(4088)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-9
-------
Ind.
code
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
Indicator name
Reptile Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle
Eggs
Wetland-dependent Bird Diversity
and Abundance
Mink Populations
Contaminants in Mink
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland
Area by Type
Chlorophyll a Levels
Presence, Abundance & Expansion
of Invasive Plants
Agricultural land use: risk of
declining soil quality
Reported Toxic Releases
Sediment Flowing Into Coastal
Wetlands
Inflow Flow Alteration
Water Level Fluctuations
Global Warming: Number of
Extreme Storms
Development Adjacent to
Representative Wetlands
Buffers and Land Use Adjacent to
Coastal Wetlands
Measure
Species composition and abundance of basking turtles and
snakes, based on surveys using protocol similar to the Marsh
Monitoring Program (MMP) protocols for amphibian and bird
surveys.
Contaminant levels in Snapping Turtle eggs
Species composition and relative abundance of wetland-
dependent birds, based on evening surveys using protocol
developed for Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) or modification
of the MMP protocol.
Estimate of numbers of mink
Measure levels of contaminants in wild mink of Great Lakes
coastal wetlands.
Areal extent of coastal wetlands by type as a range (e.g., dry
year/low water level area versus wet year/ high water level
area).
Gain in restored wetland area by type.
Chlorophyll a levels
Presence, abundance, & expansion of invasive plants, such as
flowering rush, great hairy willow-herb, common frogbit, yellow
iris, purple loosestrife, Eurasian water milfoil, curly pondweed,
cattail, Phalaris, and Phragmites.
Areas at risk of declining soil quality (primarily erosion) are
calculated/estimated from their inherent soil loss (under natural
cover), topography/slope, the type of crop grown, and
agricultural management practices (e.g. conservation tillage).
Total tons of reported toxic releases to water.
Suspended Sediment Unit Area Load (tonnes/km2 of upstream
watershed) for a representative set of existing monitoring sites
just upstream of coastal wetlands.
Ratio of total high extreme flows to total low extreme flows for all
existing monitoring sites just upstream of coastal wetlands.
Using IGLD 85 water levels and gauging stations best
representing lakes and coastal wetlands: 1) Weighted 5-year
moving average level index =[0.5 L(t) + 0.25 L(t-1) + 0.125 L(t-2)
+ 0.0625 L(t-3) + 0.03125 L(t-4)]/ 0.96875, where L(t) is the
average lake level in yeart (Busch, 1990). 2) Lake-wide annual
range in monthly averages. 3) Lake-wide seasonal peak (days
after January 1). 4) Lake-wide seasonal minimum (days after
September 1). 5) Elevation Difference between Upper and
Lower Emergent Extent based on Water Level model (Painter &
Keddy, 1992). (Upper extent uses average water level
surrounding seasonal peak of growing season (e.g., May, June,
July average). Upper extent follows this value for rising levels
and stays at the highest for 12 years after levels drop and then
within 6 years meets the water level. Lower extent uses the
mean water level in September. Lower extent follows mean
September levels as they drop. As levels rise, it takes 3 years to
move up to meet mean September levels.)
For land areas adjacent to the Great Lakes, total number of
"extreme storms", per year during ice-free and ice-break-up
periods on the Great Lakes.
Sum of a weighted score of adjacent land use using km
perimeter x weighting factor divided by the total upland
perimeter, where the weighting factors are: Built-up = -1 ; Row
Crop = -0.5; Hay and pasture = - 0.2. Where buffers (idle or
wooded): Buffer of >1000 m and Land Use beyond buffer:
Urban = 1 , Row Crop = 1 , Hay and Pasture = 1 . Buffer of 250 -
1000 m and Land Use beyond buffer: Urban = 0.25, Row Crop =
0.5, Hay and Pasture = 0.8. Buffer of 50 - 250 m and Land Use
beyond buffer: Urban = 0.1, Row Crop = 0.2, Hay and Pasture =
0.5. Buffer of 20 - 50 m and Land Use beyond buffer: Urban =
0.05, Row Crop = 0.1 , Hay and Pasture= 0.25.
Program
sponsor
USEPA - 47
SO LEG
SO LEG
EC/TNG - 42
Great Lakes
Commission -
53
EC/TNC - 42,
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
C.R.(7007)
C.R.(4854,4
855,4856)
Yes
No
C.R.(4861)
Yes
No
C.R.(7054)
2-10
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
Indicator name
Upstream Buffers and Agricultural
Land Use
Inflow Water Quality: Invertebrate
Indices
First Emergence of Indicator spp or
Ice Duration
Quantity and quality of wetlands
Quantity and quality of wetlands
Quantity and quality of particular
habitat
Quantity and quality of particular
habitat types (e.g. wetlands and
spawning beds for desirable native
species)
Areal Extent of Wetlands (meadow-
emergent area)
Wetland Extent & Type Diversity
(C.2)
Hexagon-wide Areal Extent of
Wetlands
Wetland size, abundance
Wetland habitat
Size, Position, and Number of Great
Lakes Coastal Wetlands
Wetland Size, Abundance, and
Susceptibility to Threats Along its
Border
Areal Extent of Wetland Type
Acres of shoreline wetlands with
diverse submergent and emergent
macrophyte growth that can provide
spawning habitat for fish
Changes in Area of Habitats or
Vegetation Types Over Time
Average Area per Wetland
Area of relative % area of physical
features of watershed based on
mapping
Number of Wetlands/Unit Area
Mapping: Wetland Spatial
Configuration
Patch Size and Perimeter-to-Area
Ratio
Fractal Dimension (index of
complexity of shapes on the
landscape)
Shape Index (perimeter vs perimeter
of circle the same area)
Patton's Diversity Index
Compliance with protection of
wetlands
Number of regulations relating to
habitat protection
Protection of the Collingwood
Wetland Complex
Amount of protected spaces versus
total area
Percent of land covered by historical
property protection
Habitat loss or restoration
Measure
Area-weighted total of each bioMAP for streams (river mouth
wetlands) and Reynoldson's Nearshore Index (open shore
wetlands), and possibly on-site turbidity.
Average emergence of an indicator species; average duration of
ice cover.
Changes in aerial extent and diversity of vegetation types using
aerial photos
Number and area
Measurements of patch areas and perimeters from aerial photos
(GIS for large areas)
Calculation involving perimeter and area for patches on a
digitized map
A measure of the amount of edge within an area of given size
from aerial photos
Program
sponsor
EC & partners -
43
IJC - 35
EC & partners -
43
IJC - 35
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 48
SOLEC - 28
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 25
SOLEC - 24
USEPA - 48
Michigan LaMP
-9
SOLEC - 25
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
C.R.(4857,4
858)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-11
-------
Ind.
code
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
Indicator name
Rates of loss of particular habitat
types
Loss in habitat/wetlands quality &
quantity
Acres restored to wetland condition -
net gain
Amount of habitat enhancement
remediation
Gains in habitat/wetlands quality &
quantity (areas protected)
Range of expansion or reduction of
exotic and native species
A Habitat Index based on concept of
IBI (Index of Biotic Integrity)
Resilience - time of recovery of
system health following an extreme
event/occurrence
Interspersion of wetland vegetation
and open water (wetland spatial
config. - interspersion & water
depths)
Habitat Proportions (Cover Types)
Fish and wildlife habitat
Presence of suitable fish habitat
Quantity and quality of habitat
throughout the life cycle for critical
components of the food web;
information about productivity and
submerged vegetation may be useful
Quantity and quality of habitat
throughout the life cycle for critical
components of the food web
Effect of exotic species
Measure of habitat connectiveness
(roads, fences, canals, etc.)
Gamma Index of Network
Connectivity
Structural Diversity (# veg
communities/unit area)
Abundance, Diversity, & Species
Composition of Vegetation (C.3)
Extent of submerged aquatic
vegetation (distribution)
Vegetation Structure
Linear Classification & Physical
Structure of Habitat
Permanent vegetation plots
Biomass (or production) size
spectrum
Plant community characteristics
(dominance & diversity of indicator
species)
Changes in Plant Community
Characteristics
Status of plant communities
Status of Plant Communities
Productivity/ Population Viability -
Plants:
Plant performance
Status of individual plant species
Measure
Mapping and determining proportions of various land use or
vegetation cover types in a landscape using remotely sensed
data
Ratio of links in a network to the maximum possible number of
links in that network from remotely sensed data
Other metrics: aerial cover, species richness, relative
abundance, relative dominance, importance values, diversity,
presence/ absence of indicator species, & spatial patterning
Vertical vegetation profile
Pitcher's Thistle in low dunes, Lake Huron Tansy
Program
sponsor
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 22
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 22
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
IJC - 35
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 28
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
SOLEC - 25
SOLEC - 28
SOLEC - 24
Michigan LaMP
-8
USEPA - 48
SOLEC - 28
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4521)
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4521)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2-12
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
Indicator name
Status of Individual Plant Taxa
Leaf Area, Solar Transmittance, &
Greenness
Algae blooms
August diatom to blue green algae
ratio
Chlorophyll a (as indicator of
nuisance algal growth)
Number of species present from a
selected list of conservative wetland
obligate marsh species
Floristic Quality Assessment
Number of species present from a
selected list of weedy marsh species
Index of amount and extent of plant
detritus (depth of litter above soil)
Marsh Monitoring Program
(presence of indicator bird and
amphibian species)
Results of Breeding Bird Survey
Biodiversity Measurements
Biotic Community Indices
Shannon and Simpson Index
Changes in Richness - types of
organisms with respect to
air/water/land interfaces
Species Richness and Berger-
Parker
Species richness (maintain healthy
commercial and recreational
fisheries)
Species Diversity (alpha,
community) (wildlife)
Status of basin diversity
Regional Diversity (Beta, ecosystem)
Changes in Faunal Community
Characteristics
Integrity of biotic communities
Percentage of optimum population
density - specific species
Presence and relative abundance of
key aquatic species
Change in keystone or unique
species
Changes in unique species
Demographics: Animals
Presence and abundance of
selected key species within the food
web, including a top predator, a mid-
trophic level species, and a species
at the food base
Productivity of certain species - bald
eagle, black bear
Trophic structures and flux /
Number/abundance/status of
species representing various trophic
levels or guilds
Wildlife populations
Measure
Changes in canopy characteristics (e.g., premature leaf drop
and yellowing of leaves) and solar transmittance
Selected list includes: flowering rush, great hairy willow-herb,
common frogbit, yellow iris, purple loosestrife, Eurasian water
milfoil, curly pond weed
Age structure, sex ratio, fertility, mortality, survivorship, and
dispersal of keystone species
Species and population
Program
sponsor
SOLEC - 24
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 22
EC/TNC - 42
EC/TNC - 42
EC/TNC - 42
USEPA - 48
EC/TNC - 42
Michigan LaMP
-8
SOLEC - 25
SOLEC - 25
Michigan LaMP
-8
EC & partners -
43
Michigan LaMP
-8
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
SOLEC - 25
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-13
-------
Ind.
code
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
Indicator name
Self-sustaining indigenous species,
survival, growth, and food habits
Presence of Rare, Threatened, or
Endangered Species
Number and abundance of
endangered native species, incl. fish,
waterfowl, plants and invertebrates
Threatened or endangered species
or habitats
Population density of provincially
significant bird species
Population Characteristics of
Economically or Socially Valuable
Wetland Species
Presence of Characteristic Species
with Narrow Environmental
Tolerances
Status of Species Typical of a Great
Lakes Wetland
Detection of new species and
establishment of self-sustaining
populations
Natural reproduction
Costs of exotic species
Presence and abundance of non-
indigenous species
Status of Exotic Species
Native species loss (# native
species)
Rates of extinction
Number and abundance of native
species vs introduced or invading
species
Non-native species (stressor and
effect)
Cumulative number and abundance
of exotic species introduced
Presence and Abundance of
Invasive Species
Population densities of wildlife
including waterfowl
Relative Abundance: Animals
Migrating waterfowl counts
Number of pairs of colonial
waterbirds
Population size
Reproductive potential (egg size,
clutch or brood size)
Productivity (young produced and
raised to independence)
Neotropical bird abundance and
diversity
Productivity Metrics - Birds
Stress Resistance - Birds
Age structure of the population
Measure
Selected list includes: Wood Turtle, Blanding's Turtle, W. and N.
Ribbon Snake, Queen Snake, E. Massasauga
Presence of certain water bird species; usefulness of other
classes of animals being evaluated
Bald Eagle, 1200 northern breeding pairs - minimum production
of 1 .0 young per nest; terns, Black-crowned Night-Heron,
cormorants — nest production
Bald Eagles (for northern Lake Michigan), terns, Black-crowned
Night-Herons - genetic diversity, disease incidence, immune
function, stress biomarkers
Program
sponsor
EC & partners -
43
Michigan LaMP
-8
IJC - 35
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 25
SOLEC - 25
SOLEC - 24
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 24
SOLEC - 22
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC/TNC - 42
IJC - 35
SOLEC - 25
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 47
EC/TNC - 42
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2-14
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
Indicator name
Productivity Metrics - Insects
Amphibian abundance, species
richness, and species composition
Productivity Metrics - Amphibians
Stress Resistance - Amphibians
Amphibian Assemblage Diversity
Productivity Metrics - Reptiles
Stress Resistance - Reptiles
Reptile Assemblage Diversity
Productivity/ Population Viability -
Mammals
Stress Resistance - Mammals
Ungulate range in the Lake superior
basin
Number and saturation of niches
present
Faunal indicators of disturbed habitat
Population Survival & Mortality
Benthic invertebrates (avoid
destructive land-water linkages)
Shift in oligochaete assemblages &
midges, fingernail clams, mayflies,
amphipods, indicative of eutrophic
environment to mesotrophic
environment
Benthos
Acute and chronic toxic effects on
benthic community absent
Bioassay of benthic community
show end points comparable to
controls
Benthic biomass ranging from 25 to
50 g/m wet weight of benthos
Population densities of mesotrophic
species
Benthic community structure not
significantly different from control
sites of desirable physical and
chemical characteristics
Sediment Particle Size Distribution
Aquatic Invertebrate community -
multiple metrics
Aquatic insect emergence rate (# tax
& indiv. / unit time)
Deviation from expected benthic
community
Paleoindicators
Macroinvertebrate Abundance,
Biomass, & Species Composition
Soil & Aquatic Microbial Community
Structure
Reach specific & basin-wide fish
assemblage assessment: species
composition, relative abundance,
movement, critical habitat
identification
Measure
Biomass by species or guild (emergent, sediment-dwelling,
surface, etc.)
# of Mud Puppy egg masses and % hatching; # of larvae and
survival, # of adults
Mud Puppy — genetic diversity, disease incidence, immune
function, stress biomarkers
# of Snapping Turtle eggs and # of Painted Turtle eggs; # of
adult Snapping Turtles and # of adult Painted Turtles; incidence
of dead embryos and deformities
Snapping Turtles and Painted Turtles - genetic diversity,
disease incidence, immune function, stress biomarkers
Mink - # of offspring and survival, incidence of dead embryos
and deformities
Mink — genetic diversity, disease incidence, immune function,
stress biomarkers
Program
sponsor
Michigan LaMP
-8
EC & partners -
43
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-15
-------
Ind.
code
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
Indicator name
Species: Northern Pike, Yellow
Perch, Brown Bullhead
Fish Community Stability
Shift from a fish community
indicative of eutrophic environment
to a self-sustaining community
Ratio biomass piscivores to prey fish
biomass
Proposed nearshore biomass
(kg/ha): piscivores 40-60;
specialists: 70-100; generalists 30-
90
Fraction of salmonine production
comprising naturally produced fish
Balanced fishery and nutrients
Increase the (fish) species richness
from 4 to 6-7 per transect
Abundance/Biomass (fish)
Species Abundance/Diversity (fish)
Diversity (fish)
Pelagic: Benthic Ratio (fish)
Increase the native (fish) species
biomass from 37% to 80-90% of the
total biomass
Percent Exotics (fish)
Percent of Rough Fish (Biomass) in
Community
Percent Phytophils (fish)
Predator: Prey Ratio (fish)
Percent of Turbidity tolerant species
in community (fish)
Production of yield piscivores
Hatchery production
Viable recruitment
Attain a littoral fish biomass of 200-
250 kg/ha
Reduce the spatial variability in fish
biomass
Healthy fish communities present
indicating a viable plankton
community
Fish harvest statistics vs spawning
biomass levels
Fish harvest statistics vs. spawning
biomass levels
Fish catch
Total standing stock/secondary
production (fish)
Commercial Fish Catches of
Wetland-dependent Species
Changes in sediment budgets,
nutrient enrichment, toxic chemicals
(BioMAP stream benthic index,
Reynoldson's nearshore benthic
index, % upland-wetland interface
that is buffered)
Acid loadings
Quality/quantity of dredged material
Measure
Program
sponsor
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
IJC - 35
EC/TNC - 42
USEPA - 48
SOLEC - 25
EC/TNC - 42
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4516,4
854,4855,48
56)
No
No
2-16
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
Indicator name
Loss of habitat specific to persistent
toxics
Model fate and distribution of
suspended sediment/contaminant
Contaminant fate model -
TOXIWASP
Develop/improve DO modeling
capabilities - DOSTOC, WASP
Bioassays
Fish and wildlife bioassays confirm
no significant toxicity from the water
column or sediment contaminants /
Contaminant levels in wildlife
Algal bioassays show no significant
differences in toxicity between
harbour and control samples
Chemical Contaminants in Water &
Sediments
Field monitoring of water column
contaminants
Toxins
Levels of nutrients and persistent
toxic chemicals
Concentrations of Nutrients and
Toxic Substances
Levels of Persistent Toxic Chemicals
Concentration of Persistent Toxic
Substances in Biota
Concentration of persistent toxic
substances in biota
Chemical Contaminants in Tissues
Contaminant Accumulation (wildlife)
Contaminant levels in tissue
population growth rates and density
in most sensitive species equal to
that of control areas
Toxic contaminants in aquatic
organisms
Tissue Concentrations of Toxic
Chemicals or Malformation in Fish
and Wildlife
Concentration of contaminants in
fish
Levels of toxic contaminants in fish
White sucker - population
characteristics, reproductive
success, tumors, EROD/AHH or
Caffeine Breath Test, BROD/PROD,
Vitamin A stores, DMA damage,
Plasma ALAD
Abnormalities/Pathology in Brown
Bullhead
Contaminant Load in Brown
Bullhead Fillet
Toxic contaminant levels in selected
fish species and in selected fish-
eating birds
Productivity Metrics - Birds:
Bald Eagle abundance and
contamination
Measure
Laboratory testing of pollutant effects on organisms
Contaminant bioaccumulation in plant and animal tissues
Herring Gull contaminant levels
Program
sponsor
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
SOLEC - 28
SOLEC - 25
SOLEC - 24
SOLEC - 24
SOLEC - 28
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 25
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
IJC - 36
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
IJC - 35
Michigan LaMP
-8
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
C.R.(4516)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4854,
4855, 4856)
C.R.(4854,
4855, 4856)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-17
-------
Ind.
code
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
Indicator name
Bald Eagle - population
characteristics, reproductive
success, chick growth, congenital
abnormalities, eggshell thinning,
Caffeine breath Test, Vitamin A
stores in plasma, Plasma Thyroxine,
Plasma ALAD.
Contaminant Metrics - Birds
Herring gull or Black-crowned night
heron - population characteristics,
reproductive success, chick growth,
congenital abnormalities,
EROD/AHH or Caffeine breath Test,
PROD/BROD, Vitamin A stores,
Plasma Thyroxine.
Double-crested cormorant -
population characteristics, congenital
abnormalities, eggshell thinning
Contaminants in Feathers
Contaminant Metrics - Plants
Contaminant Metrics - Amphibians
Contaminant Metrics - Reptiles
Snapping turtle - Population
characteristics, Reproductive
success, Congenital anomalies,
DNA damage
Contaminant Metrics - Mammals
Mink - Population characteristics,
Reproductive success
Acetyl Cholinesterase - AChE (sub-
organism)
ALAD (sub-organism) (blood
enzyme)
Species health
Detoxifying Enzyme Systems (sub-
organisms)
Species Specific Individual
Pathology
Gene Frequency
Genetic Damage
Immuno Assay (sub-organism)
species specific Individual Diet
Species-specific Individual Body
Weight / Condition Index
Species - specific individual
behaviour
Natural Biological Stressors (e.g.
count # muskrat houses in sample
area)
Morphological Asymmetry: Animals
Biomarkers (broad indicator covered
more specifically in next 8 indicators)
DNA Alteration: Adducts
Measure
Bald Eagle (for northern Lake Michigan), terns, Black-crowned
Night-Heron, cormorants - concentration of contaminants,
enzyme induction assays
Pitcher's Thistle in low dunes; Lake Huron Tansy
Mud Puppy — concentration of contaminants, enzyme induction
assays
Snapping Turtles and Painted Turtles - concentration of
contaminants, enzyme induction assays
Mink- concentration of contaminants, enzyme induction assays
Morphological variability in structure such as teeth and bones of
bilaterally symmetrical organisms
Organism response to human-induced stresses at the
biochemical and cellular level before the stresses produce a
detectable response at the organism and population levels
Lab analysis for DNA adducts indicating exposure to
chemical(s); with sufficient toxicological information and
identification of particular adducts, data obtained may be a
diagnostic screening technique for environmental genotoxicity.
Program
sponsor
IJC - 36
Michigan LaMP
-8
IJC - 36
IJC - 36
USEPA - 48
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
IJC - 36
Michigan LaMP
-8
IJC - 36
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
EC/TNC - 42
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2-18
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
Indicator name
DMA AlteratiorrSecondary
Modification
DNA Alteration: Irreversible Event
Cholinesterase Levels
Metabolites of Xenobiotic Chemicals
Porphyrin Accumulation
Histopathologic Alterations
Fish Consumption Advisories for
Wetland-dependent Species
Certain Health Problems Associated
with Consumption Rates of Plants,
Fish, or Wildlife from Coastal
Wetlands
Macrophage Phagocytotic Activity
Water column nutrient levels
Nutrients in Water & Sediments
Nutrient diffusing
substrates/periphyton
Field monitoring of water column
SOD
Algal blooms, which characterize
excess nutrient condition
Concentration of total phosphorus
Loadings of phosphorus
Changes in recreational activity due
to excess phosphorus
Ambient phosphorus concentrations
Ambient phosphorus concentration
in selected areas of the Great Lakes
Tributary nitrates concentration
Ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus
Dissolved oxygen standard
(nearshore)
Costs for additional mitigation of
nutrient loadings for increased point
and non-point source control
Set initial and final goals of
phosphorus, ammonia and
suspended solids net loading targets
(kg/d)
Nutrient balance (ratio of ammonia &
nitrates to total N, of SRP to total P
at outlet and inlet)
Standing Stock of Major Nutrients
(CNP analysis of biomass)
Sediment Nutrient Constituents
Turbidity
Measure
Lab analysis for strand breaks in DNA; screening technique for
exposure to any genotoxic chemical.
Lab analysis for irreversible DNA alteration; screening technique
that indicates subclinical expression of mutagenic damage.
Lab analysis for neurotoxic chemicals such as
organophosphates and carbamates (insecticides).
Lab analysis for certain metabolites of xenobiotic chemicals in
animals; confirms that toxicants have ent.ered cells and
interacted with molecular targets.
Lab analysis of porphyrins; patterns of accumulation may be
used to predict action of chemicals within the pathway of heme
biosynthesis, which is vital for maintaining adequate blood cell
count; PCBs, Pb may disturb porphyrin metabolism in mammals
& birds.
Extensive methodology exists for determination of tissue, cellular
and subcellular responses as an indicator of exposure to a
variety of anthropogenic pollutants
Lab analysis of uptake of formalin-killed E. coli by macrophages;
indicator of immune system capacity to destroy foreign material
can serve as a useful sentinel of the health status of
environmentally stressed organisms
Program
sponsor
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
SOLEC - 25
SOLEC - 25
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 47
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
IJC - 35
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
IJC - 35
IJC - 35
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4855,
4856)
C.R.(4855,
4856)
No
No
No
C.R.(4856)
C.R.(4856)
No
C.R.(4856)
C.R.(4856)
C.R.(4780)
No
No
No
C.R.(4516,
4856)
No
No
No
C.R.(4516)
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-19
-------
Ind.
code
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
Indicator name
Water quality of harbour and
tributary streams
Aquatic Conditions, Diurnal DO/pH,
Alkalinity, Temperature, Turbidity &
(P/R)
Organic Matter & Sediment
Accretion (C.1)
Drainage (% original wetland drained
within 1 km of 1997 boundary)
Filling (% of 1955 extent that is filled)
Land use adjacent to wetland
Adjacent Land Use
Land-use Characteristics in the
Vicinity of Coastal Wetlands
Changes in land use
Percent Land Use Classes within
Hexagon
Land uses and land-use practices,
including the nature and extent of
riparian vegetation, and information
about land use zoning and
watershed management plans
Land-use changes, encroachment,
development
Land Use Changes Upstream in the
Watersheds of Coastal Wetlands
with Inflowing Tributaries
Landscape patterns
Landscape Pattern (broad indicator
covered more specifically in next 6
indicators)
Contagion or Habitat Patchiness
Landscape Stressors
Land form and distributary
sensitivities; satellite imagery of
flooding extent
Encroachment/development basin-
wide
Land-use Changes, Encroachment/
Development Basin-wide
Non-point source urban stormwater
best management practices
Roads (length of roadside abutting
wetland)
Hexagon-wide Road Density
Non-point source agricultural best
management practices
Restoration of agricultural land to
fallow land
Measures of stream-side buffers
Riparian vegetation response
modeling
Buffer zones/forestry clear cutting
practices - implications for aquatic
and riparian communities
Shoreline Modification (% of
shoreline-wetland interface that is
modified)
Diking (% of total wetland area that
is diked)
Measure
Accumulation of both mineral and organic matter in wetlands
Landscape indicators, calculated from remote sensing,
describing the spatial distribution of physical, biological, and
cultural features across a geographic area
Land-use and vegetation-cover data to calculate this indicator
would be provided by EMAP-characterization
Program
sponsor
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 47
EC/TNC - 42
EC/TNC - 42
SOLEC - 28
USEPA - 48
SOLEC - 25
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
IJC - 35
SOLEC - 28
SOLEC - 25
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 47
USEPA - 47
SOLEC - 24
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC 94
SOLEC - 24
EC & partners -
43
EC/TNC - 42
USEPA - 48
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC/TNC - 42
EC/TNC - 42
SOLEC
Indicator?
C.R.(4516,
4854, 4855,
4856)
No
No
No
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
No
No
C.R.(4521)
No
No
No
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4521)
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
2-20
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
Indicator name
Littoral shorelines development
Modified shorelines (to provide cover
for fish and wildlife)
Number of engineering land/water
interfaces, such as hardened
shorelines, dams, weirs and
diversions
Number and extent of engineered
land/ water interfaces, such as
hardened shoreline (breakwalls),
dams weirs, and diversions
Human-Use (proximity to channel
used by motor boats, existing visitor
statistic)
Recreational Opportunities
Proximity to Navigable Channels
Proximity to Recreation Boating
Activity
Proximity to Navigable Channels and
Recreational Boating Activity
Dredging (distance to nearest)
Land-use planning zoning, re-zoning
Amendment of Official Town Plan
(for habitat restoration)
Number of Employed Persons in
Activities Directly or Indirectly
Related to Coastal Wetlands
Quantity/quality of stream base flows
Quantity and quality of stream base
flow
Sediment Supply and Transport
(local expertise rating relative levels
at each site)
Sediment Supply Characteristics
Streamflow/sedimentation (avoid
destructive land-water linkages)
Accessible stream length
Hydrologic Connectivity
Hydrologic Connectivity with the
Lake as Determined by the
Presence of Dike Structures or
Continuous Natural Barriers
Annual Mean Water Level (from
nearest station / level at time of
fieldwork)
Water Level Regulation (years since
regulated)
Hydroperiod
Water level fluctuation
Water-level Monitoring
Flooding and Dewatering of Wetland
Monitor representative flow
discharge, depth and velocity
Model flow discharge, depth and
velocity
Ice and Storms (local knowledge to
rate conditions at each site)
Climate change (water depth/from
nearest climate station their annual
trend indicator for temperature
compared to historical standard)
Measure
Number of days of inundation per year
Program
sponsor
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
IJC - 35
EC/TNC - 42
SOLEC - 25
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
SOLEC - 25
EC/TNC - 42
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 25
EC & partners -
43
IJC - 35
EC/TNC - 42
SOLEC - 25
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
USEPA - 48
EC/TNC - 42
USEPA - 47
SOLEC - 28
SOLEC - 25
SOLEC - 24
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
EC/TNC - 42
EC/TNC - 42
SOLEC
Indicator?
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4516)
C.R.(4516)
C.R.(4516)
C.R.(4516)
C.R.(4516)
No
No
No
C.R.(4518)
C.R.(4518)
No
C.R.(4518)
C.R.(4518)
No
No
No
C.R.(4519,
4858)
C.R.(4857,
4858)
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-21
-------
Ind.
code
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
Indicator name
Protection from erosive forces
Protection from Erosive Forces
Changes in the Status of Protective
Barriers such as Sand Spits or
Barrier Beaches
Incidents of spills, accidents,
releases relating to use and
transport of human controlled and
human synthesized products
Water Quality: Chlorides Flowing
Into Coastal Wetlands
Water Quality: Nitrates Into Coastal
Wetlands
Water Quality: Total Phosphorus
Flowing Into Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: First Emergence of
Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the
Great Lakes
Reproductive output of mink
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into
Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Urban Density
Efficient urban density
Land conversion
Non-Agriculture land conversion
Economically viable communities -
downtown
Economically viable communities-
rural
Brownfield Redevelopment
Resource Use
Solid waste generation
Water use per capita
Wastewater discharge
Pollution Prevention
Mass Transportation
Traffic Congestion - cost
Mass Transit
Efficient transportation
Health care expenditures
Pollution Levels
Measure
Average concentration of chlorides in all existing monitoring sites
just upstream of coastal wetlands
Concentration of nitrate in all existing monitoring sites just
upstream of coastal wetlands. Add average atmospheric loading
using LRTAP monitoring?
Concentration of Total Phosphorus in all existing monitoring
sites just upstream of coastal wetlands.
The number of days after January 1 of first sighting of white on a
water lily blossom.
Maximum percentage of Great Lakes area covered by ice each
year.
Measure DNA of mink tissue and scats collected in spring and
fall.
Concentration of nitrate and total phosphorus just upstream
from, or in a set of, Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
For each lake: 1) Mean lake level; 2) Lake-wide annual range in
monthly averages; 3) Lake-wide seasonal peak (days after
January 1); 4) Lake-wide seasonal minimum (days after
September 1); and 5) Elevation Difference between Upper and
Lower Emergent Vegetation Extent based on Water Level
model.
Human population per square kilometer of existing and proposed
development areas. Total area is adjusted to exclude parks and
other designated greenspace.
Non-residential density
Percent change in land use type, including agriculture, urban
development, and forest, marsh or other natural cover.
acres of land converted annually
vacant commercial locations
vacant buildings
Total acreage of redeveloped brownfields.
Energy/water per capita
tons of waste per capita
litres per day per capita
litres of wastewater per capita
# of waste reduction programs
Percent of commuters using public transportation.
Average commuting cost per capita
% commuters on public transit
% of goods moved by fixed link or water
dollars spent per capita
Air index, wastewater and solid waste per capita
Program
sponsor
SOLEC - 28
SOLEC - 24
SOLEC - 25
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC 98
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27,
Superior- 14
SOLEC - 27,
University of
Toronto - 59
SOLEC,
Superior LaMP
-14
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC
SOLEC,
University of
Toronto - 59
SOLEC - 27,
61
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4860)
C.R.(4860)
Candidate
Candidate
No
Candidate
Candidate
Yes
C.R.(7000)
Yes
C.R.(7002)
C.R.(7000,
7043)
C.R.(7043)
Yes
C.R.(7056,
7057)
C.R.(7007)
C.R.(7007)
C.R.(7007)
No
Yes
C.R.(7012)
C.R.(7012)
C.R.(7012)
No
C.R.(7058,
7059, 7060)
2-22
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
Indicator name
Beach closings
Environmental land legacies
Water discharge quality
Environmental illness and mortality
Fish advisories
Outdoor recreation - opportunity
Outdoor recreation
Crime rate and social fabric
Traffic accidents
Loss of Natural Features
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Non-agriculture land loss
Wildlife loss
Forest clearing
Forest restoration
Mineral extraction
Fisheries pressure
Wildlife pressure
Land hardening
Chemical use - agricultural
Chemical use - non-agricultural
Conservation practices
Contaminated areas
Cottage and second home
development
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Public Infrastructure
Cultural Heritage
Population Change
Aboriginal Communities
Biodiversity
Beauty/Aesthetics
Building Permits
Human Impact
Reinvestment of Natural Capital
Green Planning Process
Measure
% days that beaches are closed
# landfills and other sites
concentration of contaminants
% change in mortality and morbidity
number of restrictions
% developed land available for recreation
average % hours spent on leisure
% change in crimes
% change in accidents
% of land protected, % forest change, status of breeding birds
and other endemic species
Number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans in place.
acres of natural land lost
population losses
acres clear cut
acres successfully replanted
new acres used for mining
% of biomass harvested
% of wildlife stock harvested
# acres paved or permanently covered
Tons pesticide and fertilizer used
Tons of pesticide and fertilizer use - non-agricultural
number of acres using conservation
acres contaminated by landfills and other sites
# of new second homes
Amount of waste and decay around human activities.
Unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin.
Infrastructure and facility investments
Preservation of cultural heritage resources
Growth or decline in urban or rural areas
Number and extent in the Basin
Changes in areas of natural/semi-natural habitats
Number of comm. environment improvement schemes
Number of permits issued annually
Measure of damage or remediation
Social resources to maintain natural resources
Number of municipalities with environmental and resource
conservation management plans.
Program
sponsor
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63,
CMHC - 62
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27,
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC - 27
SOLEC,
University of
Toronto - 59
SOLEC - 22,
OMMAH - 63
OMMAH - 63
SOLEC,
University of
Toronto - 59
SOLEC - 22,
OMMAH - 63,
61
Canadian
Council of
Forest
Ministers - 51
Canadian
Council of
Forest
Ministers - 51
SOLEC
OMMAH - 63
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
SOLEC 98
SOLEC
Indicator?
C.R.(7017)
C.R.(7006)
C.R.(7017)
No
C.R.(7017)
C.R.(7042)
C.R.(7042)
C.R.(7042)
C.R.(7012,
7042)
No
Yes
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7017)
C.R.(7017)
C.R.(7028,
7017,7027)
C.R.(7027,
7006)
C.R.(7002,
7027)
Yes
Yes
C.R.(7043)
C.R.(7042)
C.R.(7000,
7042,7043)
C.R.(7042)
C.R.(7027)
C.R.(7042)
C.R.(7000,
7002)
C.R.(7017,
7002,7007)
C.R.(7043,
7007)
Yes
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-23
-------
Ind.
code
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
Indicator name
Ground surface hardening
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal
Wetlands
Water Consumption
Energy Consumption
Ground Level Ozone
Wastewater Pollution
Solid Waste Generation
Threatened species
Threatened species
Threatened species
Threatened Species
Protected areas
Protected area
Protected area
Protected area
Key species
Habitat types
Endangered species
Biological community integrity
Contaminant levels
Habitat quality
Stream flows
Engineered shorelines
Riparian vegetation
Land use
Exotic species
Exotic species
Biological community integrity
Exotic species
Productivity of selected species
Habitat connectedness
Habitat restoration
Habitat disturbance
Species richness
Change in keystone or unique
species
Optimum population density
Landscape patterns
Integrity of biotic communities
Significant bird species
Density of worms
Physical features distribution
Habitat index
Habitat regulations
Sensitive habitats
Habitat enhancement
Measure
Percentage of land that is covered by buildings, roads, parking
lots and other hardened surfaces.
Land use within 1 kilometer (km) inland of a representative set of
coastal wetlands, measured as a weighted score determined by
multiplying the wetland perimeter (km) in each land use by an
associated weighting factor and dividing by the total upland
perimeter (km) of the wetland.
Water use per capita in the Great Lakes basin
Energy use in kilowatt hours per capita
Total number of days the ground level ozone standard is
exceeded on an annual basis in the Great Lakes region.
Loadings of metals, BOD and organic chemicals that are
released by municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial
direct dischargers, into water courses in the Great Lakes basin.
Amount of solid waste generated per capita (tons and cubic
meters).
% of known bird species threatened
% of known mammal species threatened
% of known reptile/amphibian species threatened
% of vascular plant species threatened
number of sites
Total size
% of territory
Per capita: km2/1000 inhabitants
Presence/abundance of key species
Quantity and quality of habitat types
Number and abundance of endangered species
Cumulative number and abundance of exotic species
Toxic contaminant levels in selected species
Quantity/quality of habitat for critical food web
Quantity/quality of stream base flow
Number/extent of engineered land/water edges
Nature/extent of riparian vegetation
Land use zoning
Range expansion or reduction of exotic/native spp.
Establishment of new self-sustaining populations
Rates of extinction of species
Warning/prevention/control programs in place
Productivity of bears, bald eagles
Number of barriers - roads, rail, canals, etc
Acres of habitat type restored
Quantity/quality of dredged materials
Changes in richness or types of organisms
Population change of selected species
% of optimum density for selected species
Changes in patterns of land use in each ecoregion
Extent of community stability under stress
Population density of significant bird species
Quantity/species diversity of earthworms
Area or % of physical features
Habitat index based on IBI concept
Number of regulations for habitat protection
% of sensitive habitats protected
Amount of habitat enhancement or remediation
Program
sponsor
OECD - 54
OECD - 54
OECD - 54
OECD - 54
OECD - 54
OECD - 54
OECD - 54
OECD - 54
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
SOLEC, IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
IJC - Lura
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
Ontario LaMP -
13
Ontario LaMP -
13
IJC - Lura
EC & partners -
43
EC & partners -
43
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
C.R.(4176)
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2-24
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
Indicator name
Permanent vegetation plots
Colonial waterbirds
Wildlife reproductive potential
Wildlife productivity
Wildlife age structure
Wildlife contaminants
Wildlife niches
Native/exotic species
Bald eagle recovery
Fish-eating birds
Ungulate range
Amphibian populations
Marsh birds
Mink contamination
Neotropical birds
Streamflow/sedimentation
Benthic invertebrates
Forest fragmentation
Accessible stream length
Forest diversity
Forest diversity
Protected forest
Species decline
Forest conversion
Vegetation structural diversity
Shape index
Plant community characteristics
Floristic Quality Assessment
Bio MAP
Retention of shoreline
species/communities
Measure
Changes in composition/health of vegetation
Number of pairs of colonial waterbirds by species
Egg size, clutch or brood size for selected spp
Number/% of young raised to independence
Age structure of selected wildlife populations
Contaminant levels in robust wildlife species
Number and saturation of niches present
Number/abundance of native vs exotic species
Abundance and contamination of bald eagles
Contaminant levels in young gulls and cormorants
Proportion of historical range or range shifts
Status and trends of amphibian populations
Status and trends of marsh bird populations
Contaminant loads in mink carcasses
Abundance and diversity of neotropical birds
Trends in streamflow patterns/sediment discharge
Density/richness of invertebrates in streams/lakes
% closed-canopy, mean patch size, variability
Total length or % of streams below first barrier
% forest types/total area and historical extent
% and extent of forest type and age class
Area, % and representation in protected areas
Number of species occupying <50% of full range
Area of forest permanently converted to urban, etc
# of habitat types/unit area
Perimeter of habitat/perimeter of same area circle
dominance/diversity of indicator/rare/sensitive sp
Natural quality scores based on total species list
Stream benthic invertebrates rated for sensitivity
Rate of loss of selected species/communities
Program
sponsor
NRBS
Synthesis
Report
EC & partners -
43
Ontario LaMP -
13
Ontario LaMP -
13
Ontario LaMP -
13
Ontario LaMP -
13
Ontario LaMP -
13
Ontario LaMP -
13
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Superior LaMP
-14
Canadian
Council of
Forest
Ministers - 51
Canadian
Council of
Forest
Ministers - 51
Canadian
Council of
Forest
Ministers - 51
Canadian
Council of
Forest
Ministers - 51
Canadian
Council of
Forest
Ministers - 51
EPA wetlands
EPA wetlands
EPA wetlands
Ontario NHIC
Ontario MOEE
SO LEG
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-25
-------
Ind.
code
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
Indicator name
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife contaminants
Wildlife contaminants
Wildlife stress resistance
Wildlife stress resistance
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Habitat distribution
Habitat distribution
Significant habitat types
Lichen distribution
Shoreline development
Public access
Degree of roadlessness
Small watershed quality
Small watershed quality
Reptiles/amphibians
Reptiles/amphibians
Threatened species
Threatened species
Threatened species
Development pressure
Development pressure
Development pressure
Development pressure
Development pressure
Wildlife population viability
Forest quality
Climate change
Special communities health
Special communities health
Special communities health
Agricultural land use
Agricultural land use
Measure
Pitcher's thistle, L. Huron tansy, dwarf lake iris
Insect biomass by species or guild
# turtle eggs, dead embryos and deformities
Nest production of eagles, gulls, night herons,
mink # offspring, survival, dead/deformities
Concentrations in turtles, fox snake, mink
Concentrations in osprey, eagles, cormorant, terns
Genetic diversity, disease incidence, in species
Immune function, stress biomarkers in species
Species richness and Berger-Parker
Shannon and Simpson index
Amphibian assemblage diversity
Swink and Wilhelm Native Index for plants
Results from breeding bird surveys
Area of cropland/pasture, woodland/woodlots
Area of urban/industrial, golf courses
Area of habitats designated by gov'ts or NGOs
# and types of lichen species present
% of shoreline developed/undeveloped
% of shoreline length open to public access
Total length of roads within 3 km of shore
% imperviousness
# of mature trees per acre
Population trends, species diversity
# of species with deformities over 1 0% population
Species added/removed; up/downgraded
Recovery plans completed/needed
Species on track to recovery/getting worse
# housing units, hotel rooms built
Real estate land values
Population density
Trends in #, type of building permits
Lot sizes along lakeshore
Density of deer populations
% land base in conifer vs aspen
Changes in sand spit patterns on Apostles
Heinz emerald dragonfly
Eastern hemlock population trends
Winter wren, veery, prairie warbler, wood pewee
Area of farmland within 5, 10 km of shoreline
Farmland as % of total land
Program
sponsor
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Michigan LaMP
-8
Ontario LaMP -
13
Ontario LaMP -
13
Ontario LaMP -
13
Jerry Wagner -
Ohio DNR
Jerry Wagner -
Ohio DNR
DAPCAN
DAPCAN
Pat Collins
Pat Collins
Pat Collins
Great Lakes
Commission -
53
Great Lakes
Commission -
53
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2-26
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
Indicator name
Agricultural land use
Agricultural land use: cropland
intensity
Agricultural intensity
Land use cover
Similarity to climax vegetation
Habitat fragmentation
Riparian integrity
Ecosystem diversity
Soil quality/condition
Species abundance
Species condition
Status of endangered and
threatened species
Status of unique
ecosystems/habitats
Status of vulnerable
ecosystems/species
Ecosystem services
Available resources
Pollution of terrestrial ecosystems
Soil erosion
Urban sprawl
Nearshore threatened species
Area, Quality and Protection of
Special Lakeshore Communities
Habitat distribution
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Lake Level Fluctuations
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife
Problem Species
Contaminants affecting productivity
of bald eagles
Extent and Quality of Nearshore
natural land cover
Nearshore species diversity and
stability
Expected diversity
Measure
% of cropland receiving fertilizer
Cropland as percentage of total land area, and trends over time.
An alternative measure is cropland as percentage of total
farmland, which is the common practice of the agricultural
community. But it is useless in this latter form unless indicator
81 1 1 (farmland intensity) is simultaneously available.
Farmland as percentage of total land area, and trends over time.
% land cover by land use category
Degree of similarity to potential (climax) vegetation
The pattern of natural habitat remaining within
ecoregions/subsections, as measured by 1) area to perimeter
ratio; 2) habitat patch size; and 3) percent intact cover.
Extent and distribution of riparian vegetation
% composition by forest type
Soil conditions for forest, rangeland, farmland
Relative population levels of common species
Tree stand condition - insects, disease
Known presence/absence, population levels
Presence/absence, condition
presence/absence, condition
Timber, carbon sequestration, recreation
land area available for recreation, hunting, etc
Air pollution, accumulation of toxics
Soil erosion potential, rates
Developed lands, nighttime lights
Number and proportion of nearshore species ranked as GI-G3 or
S1-S3 in the Biological Conservation Database.
Area, quality, and protected status of 12 special lakeshore
communities occurring within 1 kilometre of shoreline.
% land cover by habitat type <1km from shore
Kilometres of shoreline that have been hardened through
construction of sheet piling, rip rap and other erosion control
shore protection structures. (Does not include artificial coastal
structures such as jetties, groynes, breakwalls, piers, etc.)
Land use types, and associated area, within 1 kilometre (km) of
shore. Land use types could include urban residential,
commercial, and industrial, non-urban residential, intensive
agriculture, extensive agricultural, abandoned agricultural,
closed-canopy forest, harvested forest, wetland and other
natural area.
Range, frequency and seasonal pattern of fluctuations in water
levels on each of the Great Lakes.
Type and abundance of plant and wildlife problem species,
including white sweet clover, leafy spurge, spotted knapweed,
garlic mustard, white-tailed deer, and Brown-headed Cowbird,
within 1 kilometre (km) from shore.
1) Concentrations of DDT Complex, PCB, PCDD, PCDF and
other organic contaminants and mercury and other heavy metals
in Bald Eagle eggs, blood, and feathers; 2) number of fledged
young produced; and 3) number of developmental deformities.
Percent of natural land cover types within 1 km of the shoreline
that meet minimum standards of habitat quality.
The type and number of plant and wildlife species, and
vegetation regeneration rates within the nearshore area, defined
as the area within 1 kilometer (km) of the shoreline.
% of sites with >90% expected diversity/population
Program
sponsor
Great Lakes
Commission -
53
Great Lakes
Commission -
53
Great Lakes
Commission -
53
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
IJC
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(8161)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
C.R.(4861)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-27
-------
Ind.
code
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
Indicator name
Community/species plans
Financial Resources Allocated to
Great Lakes Programs
Shoreline managed under Integrated
Management Plans
Stream flow
Interior species
Agricultural land use: Key Best
Management Practices (BMP)
Forest certification
Artificial coastal structures
Contaminants affecting the
American otter
Nearshore endemic species
Nearshore protected areas
Breeding bird Diversity and
Abundance
Number, extent and viability of
endemic species
Threatened species
Areas of land under formal land
management plan (not completed)
Measure
Number of plans that are needed, developed, and implemented
to maintain or restore high quality, natural nearshore
communities — those within 1 kilometre (km) of the shoreline —
and federally/nationally listed endangered, threatened, and
vulnerable species.
The total amount of dollars spent on an annual basis by federal
and state/provincial agencies and non-governmental
organizations in each of four areas: Great Lakes research,
monitoring, restoration, and protection (including within
nearshore lands).
Percent of shoreline managed under an integrated shoreline
management plan. An integrated shoreline management plan is
one that includes consideration of coastal processes, aquatic
habitat, and designates appropriate setbacks, etc. and is
incorporated into local planning documents (e.g. a municipal
Official Plan).
Measure of stream flow and suspended sediments at the mouth
of major tributaries and connecting channels.
Density of interior forest/grassland species
There are many BMPs. This indicator should be an aggregate of
key desirable practices related to (i) cropping and tilling
(conservation- or no-tilling, crop rotation, cover crops, grassed
waterways, strip or contour cropping, shelterbelts), (ii) use of
farm chemicals and manure (decreased use of pesticides and
fertilizer per unit area, integrated pest and nutrient
management, etc.). At present, the aggregate indicator will be
limited to those practices for which adequate data are available.
Others (e.g. integrated pest management) should be included as
they become available (e.g. through the census). Measures
(good, indifferent, bad) include expert value judgments on how to
weight the individual practices in the aggregate, and on what
constitutes good or bad.
Acreage managed under forest certification
The number and type of artificial coastal structures (including
groynes, breakwalls, riprap, piers, etc) on the Great Lakes
shoreline. Artificial coastal structures include structures that
extend into shallow waters at an angle from the shoreline, or are
placed offshore for the purpose of breaking the force of the
waves. They are distinct from the hardened shoreline works
described in indicator #8131 , Hardened Shoreline, which modify
the shoreline edge itself.
1) Concentrations of heavy metals (e.g., Hg, Pb, Cd) found in
hair, blood, liver, and brain of the American otter; and 2)
concentrations of DDT and metabolites, PCBs/ PCDFs/PCDDs,
Dioxin, and other organic contaminants found in fatty tissues,
liver, and blood of the American otter.
Number, extent and viability of endemic species populations
within 1 kilometre of shore.
The percentage of the Great Lakes shoreline under various
levels of protection in six classes as defined by the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The six IUCN
classes are 1) strict protection, such as nature reserves and
wilderness; 2) ecosystem conservation and recreation, such as
national parks; 3) conservation of natural features, such as
natural monuments; 4) conservation through active
management, such as wildlife management areas; 5) protected
landscapes/seascapes; and 6) managed resource protected
areas, such as sustainable use areas.
Diversity and abundance of breeding bird populations and
communities in selected habitat types, and an avian index of
biotic integrity.
Number, extent and viability of endemic species populations
basin-wide.
Number and proportion of Great Lakes basin species ranked as
GI-G3 or S1-S3 in the Biological Conservation Database.
Program
sponsor
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SO LEG
SOLEC, Great
Lakes
Commission-
53
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
New
SO LEG -
New
Combined
SOLEC
Indicator?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
C.R.(7028)
No
Yes
Yes
C.R.(8161)
Yes
Yes
C.R.(8161)
C.R.(8161)
No
2-28
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ind.
code
8160
8161
9000
9001
Indicator name
Agricultural Land Use: Livestock
density
Threatened Species
Acid Rain
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of
Significant Deterioration
Measure
Number of livestock per unit area, weighted by amount of
manure-nitrogen produced per head.
Number, extent, and viability of species ranked as GI-G3 or S1-
S3 in the Biological Conservation Database.
1) Levels of pH in precipitation in the Great Lakes Basin, and 2)
the area within the Great Lakes basin in exceedance of critical
loadings of sulphate to aquatic systems, measured as wet
sulphate residual deposition over critical load (kg/ha/yr).
Percentage of daylight hours per year which have <10 km
Visible Range (for relative humidity values < 80% and no
observed weather codes from synoptic observations).
Program
sponsor
Great Lakes
Commission -
53
SOLEC
Indicator?
No
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
2-29
-------
Appendix 3 — Relevancies
The SOLEC list of indicators was developed according to the categories of open and nearshore
waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, human health, land use, societal and
unbounded. These groupings are convenient for SOLEC reporting, but they represent only one
of many ways to organize information about the Great Lakes. Depending on the user's
perspective, other groupings will be more convenient or will provide insight to aspects of the
Great Lakes that differ from the SOLEC groupings.
Each of the proposed SOLEC indicators has been evaluated by the Indicators Group for
relevance to several other organizational categories, and the results are displayed in the
attached table. The categories include;
Indicator Type. Based on the State-Pressure-Human Activity model, each SOLEC
indicator has been assigned to the appropriate category. Measurements of
contaminants in an environmental compartment are considered a pressure on the
ecosystem rather than a measurement of a state condition. There are currently 28
State, 37 Pressure and 15 Human Activity indicators proposed.
Environmental Compartments. This category sorts the SOLEC indicators by media, i.e.,
air (6), water (14), land (14), sediments (4), biota (21), fish (13), and humans (14). Fish
have been separated from biota as a special case.
Issues. Environmental management decisions often reflect an attempt to address an
issue rather than a medium or geographic location. Specific issues that SOLEC
indicators support include toxic contaminants (29), nutrients (12), exotic species (8),
habitat (28), climate change (4), and stewardship (11).
GLWQA Annexes. Several of the annexes of the GLWQA include monitoring and
reporting requirements. The proposed SOLEC indicators currently address 10 of the 17
annexes. Annex 11 (Monitoring) is supported if an indicator supports any of the other
annexes, and Annex 2 (LaMPs and RAPs) is supported if the indicators address any of
the Beneficial Use Impairments.
GLWQA Beneficial Use Impairments. Under Annex 2 of the GLWQA, fourteen
Beneficial Use Impairments are listed for consideration by Lakewide Management Plans
and Remedial Action Plans. The SOLEC indicators address to some extent 11 of the 14
listed use impairments.
IJC Desired Outcomes. The IJC listed nine Desired Outcomes in its report Indicators to
Evalutate Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1996). SOLEC
indicators address to some extent all nine Desired Outcomes. The many indicators with
relevance to the outcomes of Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, and Physical
Environment Integrity (including habitat) reflect SOLEC's emphasis on the biotic
components of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Great Lakes Fish Community Objectives. A series of fish community objectives have
been released or are being developed for each of the Great Lakes with the support of
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Some SOLEC indicators specifically reflect the
state offish communities, and others address related habitat issues.
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 3-1
-------
To facilitate cross referencing of the SOLEC indicators to the alternate categories, a section
has been added to each indicator description (Appendix 1) that lists all the applicable
categories. This matrix of alternate groupings of SOLEC indicators is also being incorporated
into the SOLEC indicators database. Users will be able to retrieve the list of indicators
associated with any of the sorting categories.
While the SOLEC indicators are intended to meet the criteria of necessary, sufficient and
feasible for SOLEC reporting, no attempt has been made to evaluate the adequacy of the
subset of SOLEC indicators that are relevant to any of the alternate organizing categories from
the perspective of other users. For example, LaMPs and RAPs are expected to require a
greater level of detail and geographic specificity to assess Beneficial Use Impairments than will
be provided by the proposed SOLEC indicators. Suggestions and comments on the
relevance of the SOLEC indicators to these or other alternate categories are encouraged.
3-2 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
Table on following pages.
SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators 3-3
-------
ID#
6
8
9
17
18
68
72
93
101
104
109
111
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
4081
4083
4088
4175
4176
4177
4178
Indicator name
Aquatic Habitat
Salmon and trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Fish Entrainment
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi)
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and
Tumors in Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Phosphorus Concentrations and
Loadings
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants In Young-of-the-Year
Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting
Waterbirds
Zooplankton Populations as
Indicators of Ecosystem Health
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in
Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in
Sediments Cores
Contaminant Exchanges Between: Air
to Water and Water to Sediment
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape
Partnerships
Organizational Richness of
Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Integration of Ecosystem
Management Principles across
Landscapes
Integration of Sustainability Principles
across Landscapes
Citizen/Community Place-Based
Stewardship Activities
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore
Recreational Waters
Chemical Contaminants in Fish
Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake from
Air, Water, Soil and Food
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human
Tissue
Radionuclides
Indicator
Type
£
S
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pressure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Human Activity
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental
Compartments
5
X
X
X
X
-CD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T3
<§
Sediments
X
X
1
ffi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.c
CO
LL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Humans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues
CO
o
O
[—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nutrients
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
E
X
LU
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Climate Change
Stewardship
X
X
X
X
X
SOLEC groupings
Open Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nearshore Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coastal Wetlands
X
X
Nearshore Terrestrial
Land Use
Human Health
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Societal
X
X
X
X
X
Unbounded
GLWQA Annex
1 Spec Objctvs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2LaMPsRAPsBUIs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3 Phosphorus
X
CO
>
5
^r
5 Wastes - Vessels
6 Shipping/ Pollution
SOLEC 98- Selection of Indicators
3-4
-------
GLWQA Annex (con't)
7 Dredging
1
CO
9 Contingency Plan
10 Hazard. Poll. List
11 Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12 Pers. Toxic Subs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13 Non-point Sources
X
X
14Contam. Sed's
X
d.
en
o
E
-------
ID#
4179
4501
4502
4503
4504
4506
4507
4510
4511
4513
4516
4519
4857
4858
4860
4861
7000
7002
7006
7012
7028
7042
7043
7053
7055
7056
7057
7059
7060
8114
8129
8131
8132
8134
Indicator name
Geographic Patterns and Trends in
Disease Incidence
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate
Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community
Health
Deformities/Eroded
Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle
Eggs
Wetland-dependent Bird Diversity
and Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland
Area by Type
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of
Invasive Plants
Sediment Flowing Into Coastal
Wetlands
Global Warming: Number of Extreme
Storms
Global Warming: First Emergence of
Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the
Great Lakes
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into
Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Urban Density
Land Conversion
Brownfield Redevelopment
Mass Transportation
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Green Planning Process
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Water Consumption
Energy Consumption
Wastewater Pollutant Loading
Solid Waste Generation
Habitat Fragmentation
Area, Quality, and Protection of
Special Lakeshore Communities
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem
Species
Indicator
Type
£
S
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pressure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Human Activity
X
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental
Compartments
5
-CD
X
X
X
X
X
T3
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sediments
X
1
ffi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.c
CO
LL
X
X
Humans
X
X
X
X
X
Issues
CO
o
O
[—
X
X
X
X
Nutrients
X
X
8
E
X
LU
X
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Climate Change
X
X
X
X
Stewardship
X
X
X
SOLEC groupings
Open Waters
Nearshore Waters
X
X
X
X
Coastal Wetlands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nearshore Terrestrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
Land Use
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Human Health
X
Societal
X
X
X
X
X
Unbounded
X
X
X
GLWQA Annex
1 Spec Objctvs
X
X
X
2LaMPsRAPsBUIs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3 Phosphorus
X
CO
>
5
^r
5 Wastes - Vessels
6 Shipping/ Pollution
SOLEC 98- Selection of Indicators
3-6
-------
GLWQA Annex (con't)
7 Dredging
1
CO
9 Contingency Plan
10 Hazard. Poll. List
11 Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12 Pers. Toxic Subs
X
X
X
13 Non-point Sources
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14Contam. Sed's
d.
en
o
E
-------
ID#
8135
8136
8137
8139
8140
8141
8142
8146
8147
8149
8150
8161
9000
9001
80
Indicator name
Contaminants Affecting Productivity
of Bald Eagles
Extent and Quality of Nearshore
Natural Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and
Stability
Community / Species Plans
Financial Resources Allocated to
Great Lakes Programs
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated
Management Plans
Streamflow
Artificial Coastal Structures
Contaminants Affecting the American
Otter
Nearshore Protected Areas
Breeding Bird Diversity and
Abundance
Threatened Species
Acid Rain
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of
Significant Deterioration
COUNT
Indicator
Type
£
S
CO
X
X
X
X
X
28
Pressure
X
X
X
X
X
37
Human Activity
X
X
X
X
15
Environmental
Compartments
5
X
X
6
-CD
X
14
T3
<§
X
X
X
X
14
Sediments
X
4
1
ffi
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
.c
CO
LL
X
13
Humans
X
X
14
Issues
CO
o
O
[—
X
X
X
29
Nutrients
12
8
E
X
LU
X
X
8
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
28
Climate Change
4
Stewardship
X
X
X
11
SOLEC groupings
Open Waters
X
X
22
Nearshore Waters
X
X
X
25
Coastal Wetlands
X
X
X
21
Nearshore Terrestrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
Land Use
X
11
Human Health
8
Societal
X
X
X
13
Unbounded
X
X
X
6
GLWQA Annex
1 Spec Objctvs
X
X
X
18
2LaMPsRAPsBUIs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
39
3 Phosphorus
X
3
CO
>
5
^r
0
5 Wastes - Vessels
0
6 Shipping/ Pollution
0
SOLEC 98- Selection of Indicators
3-8
-------
GLWQA Annex (con't)
7 Dredging
0
1
CO
0
9 Contingency Plan
0
10 Hazard. Poll. List
0
11 Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
60
12 Pers. Toxic Subs
X
X
X
X
19
13 Non-point Sources
X
X
X
20
14Contam. Sed's
1
d.
CO
o
E
-------
Appendix 4 — Criteria
A-4.1 SOLEC 98 Indicator Project Goals, Objectives and Criteria
Project Goals: The aim of the SOLEC 98 indicators project is to gather together a list of
indicators that will be used by the Parties (to the GLWQA) to report on the health of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem on a regular basis (ie. yearly, biennially, every five
years...). In most cases, these indicators have already been developed by various
groups, commissions, or agencies. The goal of this project is to gather the indicators
that will be most useful basin-wide and understandable to the interested public
(including educators, media, and decision-makers) while remaining scientifically valid.
Project Objectives: To present indicators that represent portions of the Great Lakes
ecosystem but show the state of and trends (improving, deteriorating or neutral trends)
of a larger ecosystem component so that, used all together, the health of the system
can be assessed.
Criteria: The following criteria have been adapted from a recent EPA document, Process for
Selecting Environmental Indicators and Supporting Data, modified slightly to better fit
this project. The three main criteria discussed at length with the SOLEC 98 Steering
Committee and the Indicator Group are: 1) are the indicators necessary to determine
the overall health of the Great Lakes; 2) are the indicators sufficient to determine the
overall health of the Great Lakes; and 3) are the indicators feasible (economically and
in terms of human resources) to use in determining the health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem? Additional criteria useful for selecting SOLEC indicators are also included.
Criterion
Explanation
Rating*
Validity
Relevance
Appropriate Scale
Accurate
Sensitive
Discriminating
Does the indicator present information relevant to Great Lakes
ecosystem integrity?
Does the indicator respond to changes on appropriate geographic (ie.
lakewide, basin-wide) and temporal (ie. monthly or yearly) scales for
SOLEC reporting?
Does the indicator accurately reflect the ecosystem component it is
intended to represent?
Is the indicator appropriately sensitive, i.e., are changes in the
indicator highly correlated with changing trends in the information it is
selected to represent?
Can the indicator distinguish natural variability from human-induced
changes?
Understandability
Understandable
Simplicity
Is the indicator appropriate for decision-makers and the general
public? Is the level of information from the indicator appropriate for
environmental managers to use in decision making?
Is the indicator simple and direct?
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators.
4-1
-------
Criterion
Presentation
Documented
Explanation
Can the indicator be presented in a format tailored to environmental
managers?
Is the methodology used to create the indicator well-documented and
understandable so that it can be easily communicated and
reproduced?
Rating*
Interpretability
Interpretable
Trend Evaluation
Is there a reference condition or benchmark for the indicator against
which current status and trends can be compared?
Will data that have been collected over a sufficient period of time
allow analysis of trends?
Information Richness
Richness
Broad Application
Does the indicator represent multiple ecosystem components or
stressors?
Is the indicator broadly applicable to many geographic areas?
Data Availability
Currently existing
Easily Available
Long term record
Are adequate data available for immediate indicator use?
Are data easily available? Can they be retrieved with a minimum of
fuss?
Do data currently exist to allow for analysis of environmental trends?
Timeliness
Timely
Anticipatory
Are changes in the environment reflected quickly by the indicator?
Does the indicator provide early warning of changes?
Cost Considerations (Feasibility)
Ease of Quantification
Data collection
Calculation and Interpretation
Does the indicator reflect a feature of the environment that can be
quantified simply, using standard methodologies with a known degree
of accuracy and precision?
Can data supporting the indicator be obtained with reasonable cost
and effort by some Great Lakes organization?
Can calculations and interpretations for the indicator be obtained with
reasonable cost and effort?
*The rating system used during the development of the Indicator List presented at SOLEC 98 (Version 2) was left to
the discretion of the Core Groups: some opted to use a simple Yes or No system while a few used a more complex
number rating system. See Section A-4.2 for post-SOLEC 98 indicator rating exercise.
Criteria for the whole SOLEC Indicator List:
Are each of these indicators in combination necessary to assess the overall health of the Great
Lakes ecosystem?
Are these indicators in combination sufficient to assess the overall health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem?
4-2
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
A-4.2 Post-SOLEC 98 Criteria Rating
After SOLEC 98, the Indicator Group agreed that an independent, third-party assessment of the
SOLEC indicators against the 21 criteria (presented in Section A-4.1) would be a useful
exercise. It was felt that an evaluation of the degree to which each indicator met the criteria
would help validate the proposed indicators that rated high, and would point out those that
needed further development work, refinement or even possible removal from the list. The
criteria rating could also play a role in prioritizing the indicators for future work. The
assessment took place after the majority of revisions had been made to the SOLEC indicators,
based on comments and concerns heard at SOLEC 98 and shortly afterwards.
The results presented are preliminary. They represent a summary of the assessment by
an independent contractor who is familiar with the description of each indicator, but they
have not been endorsed by the SOLEC Indicator Group.
Rating Process
The rating process was based on the 21 criteria from seven different categories presented in
the previous section, A-4.1. For SOLEC purposes, some of the categories of criteria can be
considered more important than others. For example, at this stage of the indicator
development process, it is more important that an indicator is relevant to Great Lakes
ecosystem integrity than it is for an indicator to have an existing source of supporting data. To
capture the varying importance of the criteria, each of the seven overall criteria categories were
assigned a weight based on importance.
Criteria Category
Validity
Understandability
Interpretability
Information Richness
Data Availability
Timeliness
Cost Considerations
(Feasibility)
Weight
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
A rather elaborate scheme was invented to provide an overall numeric score for each indicator
based on subjective ratings of each of the 21 criteria and the weighting of the 7 criteria
groupings. Every indicator was rated on how well it met each of the criteria using a scale of 1 to
3: 1 = does not meet criteria, 2 = partially meets criteria, 3 = fully meets criteria. The
assessments were based on the indicator descriptions as written, and in some cases there was
insufficient information given to rate a criterion high. Whenever possible, the benefit of the
doubt was given to the indicator if the required information could be inferred from the
description.
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators.
4-3
-------
The scores within each category were summed and weighted. The weighted scores were then
summed across categories to obtain a total overall score for the indicator. Because this system
gave the appearance of much greater precision to the category and the overall scores than was
warranted, an index was created by further adjusting the numerical ratings to a 5 point scale
and rounding to the nearest whole number. Descriptive rankings were then assigned as
follows: 5 = Excellent, 4 = Good, 3 = Moderate, 2 = Fair, 1 = Poor.
Seventy-five of the 80 SOLEC indicators were ranked, and the results are presented in the
table that follows. The five indicators from the Societal group were not ranked because they
have not been revised since SOLEC 98. Of the 75 ranked indicators, 9 ranked Excellent, 56
ranked Good, and 10 ranked Moderate. Closer inspection by the Core groups of the individual
criterion ratings should reveal those aspects of the indicators or the indicator descriptions that
could be improved, if possible, to affect a higher rating.
4-4 SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators
-------
ID#
17
111
115
4081
4176
4516
7059
8135
9000
8
9
18
68
72
93
101
104
109
113
114
116
117
118
119
4083
4088
4175
4177
4178
4179
4501
4502
4503
4504
4506
4507
4510
Indicator Name
Preyfish Populations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Coliform Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Air Quality
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
Wastewater Pollution
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Acid Rain
Salmon and Trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Fish Entrainment
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi)
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Zooplankton Populations
Atmospheric Depositions of Toxic Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentration of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
Chemical and Microbial Drinking Water Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Radionuclides
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
Invertebrate Community Health
Fish Community Health
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Coastal
Wetland Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Wetland Area by Type
£•
jo
15
E
G
E
E
E
G
G
E
G
G
G
E
G
E
E
E
G
E
E
G
G
G
E
E
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Understandability
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
G
E
E
G
E
E
E
G
E
E
E
G
E
E
E
M
E
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Interpretability
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
M
M
M
G
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
G
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Information Richness
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
E
M
G
E
G
M
E
E
E
E
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
E
E
E
G
E
G
M
Data Availability
E
G
E
M
E
G
G
G
E
G
G
F
F
G
M
F
F
F
G
G
M
F
F
F
M
F
G
F
G
G
F
F
F
G
F
G
F
Timelliness
M
E
M
M
G
G
M
M
M
F
M
G
F
E
M
G
F
G
G
E
G
M
E
M
F
F
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
F
Feasibility
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
E
G
M
M
M
G
G
F
G
F
G
G
G
M
G
G
G
M
G
M
F
G
G
M
E
G
F
G
M
Ranking
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
SOLEC 98 - Selection of Indicators
4-5
-------
ID#
4513
4519
4857
4858
4860
4861
7000
7012
7043
7055
7056
7057
7060
8114
8129
8131
8132
8134
8136
8139
8141
8142
8146
8147
8149
8150
8161
9001
6
120
4511
7002
7006
7028
7042
7053
Indicator Name
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
Global Warming: First Emergence of Water Lily Blossoms in
Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Urban Density
Mass Transportation
Economic Prosperity
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Water Consumption
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Generation
Habitat Fragmentation
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Nearshore Plant and Wldlife Problem Species
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Community/Species Plans
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
Streamflow
Artificial Coastal Structures
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Protected Nearshore Areas
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Threatened Species
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Aquatic Habitat
Contaminant Exchanges Between Media: Air to Water, and Water
to Sediment
Gain in Restored Wetland Area by Type
Land Conversion
Brownfield Redevelopment
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Aesthetics
Green Planning Process
£•
jo
15
E
G
G
G
E
G
E
G
E
G
G
E
G
E
G
G
G
G
G
M
M
G
E
E
G
G
G
G
G
G
M
G
G
G
G
M
Understandability
E
M
E
E
E
E
G
G
G
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
E
E
G
M
F
E
G
G
E
M
E
Interpretability
E
G
E
E
E
E
M
E
M
G
M
M
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
M
G
G
M
M
M
M
M
Information Richness
G
M
M
M
E
M
E
G
G
G
G
E
E
E
E
G
E
E
E
E
G
E
G
G
E
G
E
E
E
E
M
M
F
G
G
G
Data Availability
F
G
M
G
F
E
F
F
E
F
G
G
G
F
M
M
F
F
G
E
F
F
F
M
M
M
G
G
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
Timelliness
E
M
M
F
E
G
M
F
M
M
F
M
M
G
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
G
M
M
F
G
E
M
M
M
F
M
F
F
M
F
Feasibility
M
G
F
G
G
G
F
F
E
F
E
E
F
M
F
M
M
F
M
G
G
G
M
M
M
M
M
G
F
M
M
M
M
G
F
M
Ranking
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
SOLEC 98 - Selection of Indicators
4-6
-------
ID#
8137
8140
Indicator Name
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
^^
I
M
M
~
.a
re
•o
c
re
•55
<5
•o
E
G
&
Si
S
9)
a.
<5
c
G
E
S
're
S
a
P
F
$
c
"53
I-
F
F
>
;^
ja
re
LL
F
M
Ranking
Moderate
Moderate
SOLEC 98 - Selection of Indicators
4-7
-------
Appendix 5 — SOLEC Indicator Database
This appendix provides details of the fields and features of the SOLEC Indicator Database
(described briefly in Section 3.4 of this report).
Database Features - Things it can do
The database was designed primarily to assist the SOLEC Indicator Group organize and sort
the hundreds of indicators that were identified for the Great Lakes. Fields were incorporated to
provide descriptive information about each indicator, e.g., its title, the specific measurement to
be taken, the ecosystem objectives that it supports, the purpose for the indicator, its desired
endpoint or some other reference value, its features and limitations, an illustration, information
to help interpret the indicator, and any additional comments. Taken together, this information
provides a basis for a review of the proposed indicator against the SOLEC criteria, and a
rationale for indicator selection for the SOLEC list.
Additional fields in the database were designed to hold information useful for sorting the
indicators and tracking their progress through the process of SOLEC indicator selection.
Included is information about the original source for each indicator (by Great Lakes program
and/or reference document), indicator type, applicability to SOLEC categories, applicability to a
number of alternative groupings (e.g., IJC Desired Outcomes), data availability, and whether
the indicator had been modified or selected for the SOLEC list. Further details of the database
fields and the information they contain are presented in the Database Fields section below.
All of the information about a selected indicator can be viewed on screen. A user can therefore
select any given indicator, identify to which groupings it is applicable, obtain full descriptive
information, and determine if a current data source has been identified.
To make the database useful to others besides the Indicator Group, additional capabilities have
been added. A user has the ability to filter the indicators by a number of criteria. By entering a
key word or phrase, a user can search through the Title, Measure and Purpose fields for
indicators that contain the key word. For example, a search on "contamin" will return a list of all
the proposed indicators that mention contaminant, contaminants, contaminate, contaminates,
contamination, contaminating, etc. All the indicators in the database can be included, or the
search can be restricted to only those proposed as SOLEC indicators.
Sorting is also possible for the proposed SOLEC indicators according to a number of alternative
groupings, in addition to the SOLEC categories. Groupings have been provided for indicator
type ( state, pressure or human activity), environmental compartments, Great Lakes issues,
GLWQA Annexes, GLWQA Beneficial Use Impairments, IJC Desired Outcomes, and Great
Lakes Fishery Commission Objectives.
Reporting capabilities are also being incorporated into the database and will be available with
the online version. Users will be able to select pre-formatted reports based on results of the
sorting criteria, from simple lists of indicator titles to full page indicator descriptions. User-
specified reports for selected fields in the database will also be possible.
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 5-1
-------
Database Fields - Information stored about each indicator
The following are descriptions of the fields and the information they contain in the SOLEC
indicator database. Not all information is available for all the indicators in the database. The
most complete entries are provided for the proposed SOLEC indicators.
The Indicator "Description" Information
Name of Indicator. What is a brief, descriptive title for the indicator? Example: Contaminants
in Top Predator Fish
Measure. What is really being measured? Example: PCB congeners in 6 year old lake trout
Ecosystem Objective. What environmental goals or objectives does the indicator address or
support? Example: Lake Superior LaMP Human Health Objective, "Fish and wildlife . . . should
be safe to eat"
Purpose of the Indicator. What is the larger category of interest? An indicator is a surrogate
for something more consequential than the indicator, per se. Does the indicator provide
information about the environment or human health, about a stressor (contaminants, habitat,
exotic species, etc.), about sources of the stressors (industrial discharge, wetland diking, etc.),
or about human activities (or responses such as laws, volunteer programs, etc.). Example: A
direct measure of the level of organic contaminants in the food chain and an indirect measure of
potential harm to human health through consumption of contaminated fish.
Endpoint. (Or range, outcome or other reference value) What is the frame of reference to
interpret the indicator? Example: FDA Action Limit = 2.0 ug/g PCB in fish tissue.
Features of the Indicator. As applicable, describe space and/or time scales represented by
the indicator, anticipated variability, linkages with other indicators, and/or other information to
help determine or document the viability of this indicator to be included on the SOLEC list.
Example: Measurement of the concentration ofPCBs in whole lake trout has been part of an
annual program for over 20 years. To reduce variability in the analytical results and to increase
the ability to track trends in the levels of contaminants overtime, fish from the same age/size
are collected each year from designated locations in each lake, and they are composited for
analysis....
Illustration. What will be displayed graphically? How will the display incorporate the desired
endpoint or reference value? Example: For each lake, a graph will be displayed showing the
annual mean concentration and 95% confidence intervals of total PCBs in lake trout
composites. The data series from 1972 to the present will be included. Reference
concentrations will be marked on the figure for comparison to the measured values.
Limitations of the Indicator. How costly are the data to collect at the recommended
frequency? What issues may compromise the utility of the indicator? How closely linked is the
indicator to the broader issue being assessed? Example: This is a relatively costly indicator
that requires much coordination and collaboration between federal, state and provincial
agencies. The indicator, however, is very closely linked to the overall abundance of mobile
PCBs in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The indicator is an integrator of the level of PCBs in the
5-2 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
food web over large areas of each lake over several years, therefore it cannot be effectively
associated with specific sources.
Indicator Interpretation. Is other information needed to place this indicator in context? On
what basis can the subjective tags of "good" and "poor" be applied to the state of the
environment or to progress toward the ecosystem objective being supported by the indicator?
Example: Variations in feeding habits or food web structures could affect annual results and
complicate interpretations of long-term trends. Measurements ofPCBs (particulate and
dissolved) in the water column would help distinguish food web influences from changes in the
environmental concentrations ofPCBs. A scale from, say 50 ppm (worse than found in 1972)
to 0.05 ppm (the proposed health protection value, even though it is for fillets and not whole
fish) could be used to apply subjective assessments to the degree to which the ecosystem is
free from PCBs: 50 ppm = totally unacceptable, 5 ppm = poor, 0.5 ppm = fair and 0.05 ppm =
good.
Comments. Provide any other information that would assist the process of indicator selection
or the application of the indicator. Is a particular methodology required? Are special
calculations needed to derive or interpret the indicator? Is additional work needed to define the
indicator? Is the indicator feasible? Example: To maintain compatibility with the historic, long-
term data, established protocols for fish collection, sample preparation and analysis must be
followed. This indicator has been in use in the Great Lakes basin for over 20 years. It is
directly related to Great Lakes objectives, widely accepted, easily understood, and the
supporting data are of high quality.
The Indicator "Sorting" Information
Indicator Name. This field is copied from the "description" section above.
Measure. This field is copied from the "description" section above.
Program Source and Document. What program or group previously proposed the indicator?
What document did it come from? Major sources of proposed Great Lakes indicators included
the Lakewide Management Plans, IJC, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and previous SOLEC
background documents.
Indicator Type. For which element of the State-Pressure-Human Activities (Response) (SPR)
framework does the indicator provide information?
Applicable SOLEC Indicator Category. Previous SOLEC presentations and reports were
organized around a few major ecosystem components and human interactions. To be
consistent with, and extend these foundations, the indicators can be grouped accordingly. The
categories include: Open and Nearshore Waters, Coastal Wetlands, Nearshore Terrestrial,
Land Use, Human Health and Societal.
Applicable to other programs or groups. The SOLEC Indicator Group has made an initial
judgement concerning the applicability of each indicator to other programs or useful groupings.
Current groupings have been provided for environmental compartments (e.g., air, water, land,
biota), Great Lakes issues (e.g., toxics, nutrients, exotics), GLWQA Annexes, GLWQA
Beneficial Use Impairments, IJC Desired Outcomes, and Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Objectives.
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 5-3
-------
Applicable Lake or Lake Basin. What is the broad, geographic applicability for the indicator?
The majority of indicators will be applicable across the whole basin, however, some indicators
may vary between lakes or lake basins.
Status as SOLEC indicator? The database has been useful to help organize and sort
indicators, but not every indicator will be nominated to the SOLEC List. Therefore, a field
containing the status of each indicator was included in the database. "Candidate" applies to
those indicators under consideration for the SOLEC List. "Yes" applies to those which are
proposed to be included in the SOLEC list. "No" applies to those not proposed for the SOLEC
list, even though they may be useful in another context. "Concept Retained" applies to those
which contain one or more features that were combined, merged, or altered and that exist in
another, related indicator (with the new indicator number in brackets—i.e. Concept Retained
(7008) means that a feature of this particular indicator exists in indicator number 7008).
Data Availability. Recent data that directly support the indicator would greatly improve an
illustration of the indicator and would provide a means to immediately report on the ecosystem
component being measured. Three aspects to indicator data are retained in the database:
Data Availability (Yes, No, Unknown), Data Quality (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Unknown), and
Data Source and Comments (Where are the data? Is a time series available? What other
information is available about the data?).
5-4 SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators
-------
Appendix 6 — Definitions and Acronyms
The definitions presented below were intended to help guide SOLEC 98 and encourage
consistent use of terminology in order to achieve agreement on assessing the state of various
components of the Great Lakes and measuring progress toward the purpose of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (i.e., to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem).
TERM
DEFINITION
EXAMPLE
REFERENCE
VISION
A general description of the desired
state of a lake, geographical area,
or bioregion that is expressed by a
group of stakeholders. A vision
statement provides a description of
desired state — it provides
direction and establishes a horizon
to be sought.
The Grand Traverse Bay
Watershed Initiative has
established the following vision
statement:
"The ecological integrity of the
Grand Traverse Bay watershed
will be sustained or restored to
ensure regional economic
viability and quality use by future
generations."
Grand Traverse Bay
Watershed Initiative,
1102 Cass Street,
Suite B, Traverse
City, Michigan 49684;
616-935-1514
GOAL
A condition or state desired to be
brought about through a course of
action or program. They are
usually qualitative statements that
provide direction for plans and
projects. Goals are not specific
numerical limitations, but
conditions or states which can be
obtained through careful planning
and implementation.
The water use goal for the
fishery, established by the
Hamilton Harbour Stakeholder
Group, is "that water quality and
fish habitat should be improved
to permit an edible, naturally-
reproducing fishery for
warmwater species, and water
and habitat conditions in
Hamilton Harbour should not
limit natural reproduction and the
edibility of cold water species."
Hamilton Harbour
Remedial Action Plan
Writing Team. 1992.
RAP for Hamilton
Harbour. Goals,
options, and
recommendations.
Volume 2, Main
Report. Stage II
Remedial Action
Plan. Burlington,
Ontario, 329 pp.
OBJECTIVE
Specific descriptions of the state or
condition that must be met in order
to achieve goals and the vision.
In Hamilton Harbour on western
Lake Ontario, an objective is to
shift from a fish community
indicative of a eutrophic
environment, such as white
perch (Morone americana),
alewife (Alosa pseudoharenqus),
bullheads (Ictalurus spp.), and
carp (Cyprinus carpio), to a self-
sustaining community more
representative of a mesotrophic
environment, containing northern
pike (Esox lucius), bass
(Micropterus salmoides and M.
dolomieui), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), and sunfish
(Lepomis spp.).
Hamilton Harbour
Remedial Action Plan
Writing Team. 1992.
RAP for Hamilton
Harbour. Goals,
options, and
recommendations.
Volume 2, Main
Report. Stage II
Remedial Action
Plan. Burlington,
Ontario, 329 pp.
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators.
6-1
-------
TERM
DEFINITION
EXAMPLE
REFERENCE
INDICATOR
The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development
defines indicator as "a parameter,
or a value derived from
parameters, which points to,
provides information about, or
describes the state of a
phenomenon / environment / area,
with a significance extending
beyond that directly associated with
a parameter value." In the context
of the Great Lakes, it is a
measurable feature or features that
provide outcome-oriented,
managerially and scientifically
useful, evidence of environmental
and ecosystem quality or reliable
evidence of trends in quality.
Typically, there is a spectrum of
outcome-oriented parameters
which are monitored and
collectively serve as an indicator.
For example, parameters which
collectively serve as an indicator
for the fishery objective for
Hamilton Harbour include:
abundance of key species;
sustainability of indigenous
populations; presence of non-
indigenous species; and rate of
habitat loss and preservation.
Environment Canada
and U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency.
1995. State of the
Great Lakes .
Toronto, Ontario,
Chicago, Illinois, 56
pp.
PARAMETER
or
DATA POINT
A single measurable feature which
provides information regarding the
status and trend associated with
that feature and can be combined
with other parametric
measurements to serve as an
indicator.
Examples of parameters or data
points which can collectively
serve as indicators for the
Hamilton Harbour fishery
objective include quantitative
measurements of populations of
different species, population
trends, amount and quality of
littoral habitat, etc.
Hamilton Harbour
Remedial Action Plan
Writing Team. 1992.
RAP for Hamilton
Harbour. Goals,
options, and
recommendations.
Volume 2, Main
Report. Stage II
Remedial Action
Plan. Burlington,
Ontario, 329 pp.
TARGET
Specific, attainable, quantitative,
end points for indicators that
determine achievement of
objectives.
Fishery targets for Hamilton
Harbour include:
* total biomass offish in littoral
habitats - 200-250 kg/ha;
* total biomass of native
piscivores (e.g., northern pike,
largemouth bass) - 20-25%;
* percent of native species - 80-
90%;
* species richness - 6-7 species
per survey transect;
* piscivore biomass in littoral
habitats - 40-60 kg/ha;
* specialist (e.g., yellow perch,
pumpkinseed - Lepomis
qibbosus, alewife) biomass in
littoral habitats - 70-100 kg/ha;
and
* generalist (e.g., carp and
bullheads) biomass in littoral
habitats - 30-90 kg/ha.
R.G. Randall and
V.W. Cairns,
Department of
Fisheries and
Oceans, 867
Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario
L7R 4A6 Canada
6-2
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Acronyms
AOC - Areas of Concern
BIA - Biodiversity Investment Area
BOD - Biological Oxygen Demand
BUI - Beneficial Use Impairment
DELT - Deformities, erosion, lesions and tumors
FCGO - Fish Community Goals and Objectives
FFG - Functional Feeding Groups
GIS - geographic information system
GLFC - Great Lakes Fishery Commission
GLWQA - Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
IBI - Index of Biotic Integrity
IJC - International Joint Commission
IUCN - International Union for the Conservation of Nature
LaMP - Lakewide Management Plan
MMP - Marsh Monitoring Program
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAEL - No observed adverse effect level
PBT -Persistant, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals
RAP - Remedial Action Plan
SOLEC - State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 6-3
-------
Appendix 7 — Documents
The following table lists most of the documents and reports used by the Indicator Group to extract
indicators and other information. Please go to the end of the table for a list of the acronyms used here.
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
Program
Sponsor
GLFC
GLFC
GLFC
GLFC
GLFC
GLFC
Michigan
LaMP
Michigan
LaMP
Ontario LaMP
Ontario LaMP
Ontario LaMP
Superior
LaMP
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
Document Information
Busiahn, T.R. (ed) 1990. Fish-Community Objectives for Lake
Superior. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Special
Publication 90-1. 23 pp.
Eshenroder, R.L. et al. 1995. Fish-Community Objectives for
Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Special
Publication 95-3. 56 pp.
Kerr, S. J. and G.C. Le Tendre. 1991. The State of the Lake
Ontario Fish Community in 1989. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission Special Publication 91-3. 38 pp.
Lake Erie Committee. 1997. Lake Erie: Fish Community Goals
and Objectives. 34 pp.
DesJardine, R.L. et al. 1995. Fish-community objectives for
Lake Huron. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Special
Publication 95-1. 38 pp.
Great Lake Fishery Commission. 1995. Habitat Advisory Board
Meeting # 95-2, Minutes with Attachments. 410 pp.
Esparza et al. 1996. Lake Michigan Indicators: Degradation of
Wildlife Population/Bird or Animal Deformities - Population
Viability (draft). 6 pp.
Esparza et al. 1996. Matrix for Aquatics/Habitat Indicators for
Lake Michigan. 6 pp.
Lake Ontario Pelagic Community Health Indicators Committee
(LOPCHIC). 1993. Lake Ontario: An Ecosystem in Transition.
65 pp.
Lake Ontario Ecosystem Objectives Working Group. 1992.
Progress Report of the Ecosystem Objectives Working Group
on Ecosystem Objectives and Environmental Indicators for
Lake Ontario. 61 pp.
Lake Ontario Ecosystem Objectives Working Group. 1993.
Indicators of Progress Toward Lake Ontario Ecosystem
Objectives. 6 pp.
Lake Superior Work Group and Lake Superior Binational
Forum. 1996. Ecosystem Principles and Objectives, Indicators
and Targets for Lake Superior.
De Vault, D. et al. 1995. Toxic Contaminants in the Great
Lakes. Background paper. State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 1994. 37 pp.
Manno, J. et al. 1995. Effects of Great Lakes Basin
Contaminants on Human Health. Background paper. State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1994. 83 pp.
Koonce, J.F. 1995. Aquatic Community Health of the Great
Lakes. Background paper. State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 1994. 37 pp.
Core Group(s)
OW
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NW
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
cw
X
X
NT
X
X
X
HH
X
X
LU
X
S
X
X
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
7-1
-------
Ref.
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
36
38
39
40
Program
Sponsor
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
EC
EC
EC/CMHC/
ICURR
Document Information
Dodge, D. and R. Kavetsky. 1995. Aquatic Habitat and
Wetlands of the Great Lakes. Background paper. State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1994. 70 pp.
Allardice, D.R. and S. Thorp. 1995. A Changing Great Lakes
Economy: Economic and Environmental Linkages. Background
paper. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1994. 45 pp.
Neilson, M. et al. 1995. Nutrients: Trends and System
Response. Background paper. State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 1994. 20 pp.
United States/Canada. 1995. Sfate of the Great Lakes 1995.
56 pp.
Reid, R. and K. Holland. 1997. The Land by the Lakes:
Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems. Background paper. State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996. 142 pp.
Leger, W. and R. Greenwood. 1997. Information and
Information Management. Background paper. State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996. 96 pp.
Maynard, L. and D. Wilcox. 1997. Coastal Wetlands.
Background paper. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
1996.
Edsall, T.A. and M.N. Charlton. 1997. Nearshore Waters of the
Great Lakes. Background paper. State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 1996. 152 pp.
Thorp, S., R. Rivers, and V. Pebbles. 1997. Impacts of
Changing Land Use. Background paper. State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference 1996. 118 pp.
United States/Canada. 1997. Sfate of the Great Lakes 1997.
76pp.
Fuller, K. and H. Shear. 1996. Integration Paper. State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996. 65 pp.
Ryder, R.A. and C.J. Edwards. 1985. A Conceptual Approach
for the Application of Biological Indicators of Ecosystem Quality
in the Great Lakes Basin. 167 pp.
IJC Ecosystems Objectives Committee. 1990. Final Report of
the Ecosystem Objectives Committee. 53 pp.
Edwards, C.J. and R.A. Ryder (eds). 1990. Biological
Surrogates of Mesotrophic Ecosystem Health in the Laurentian
Great Lakes. 69 pp.
Seidl, P.J. (ed). 1993. Toward a State of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Report. State of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Task Force. 162 pp.
IJC. 1996. Indicators to Evaluate Progress under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 82 pp.
Fox (ed). 1994. Bioindicators as a Measure of Success for
Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances. 37 pp.
Campbell, M., D. Spear, and V. MacLaren. 1996. Measuring
Up: A Resource Guide for Municipal State of the Environment
Reporting. 70 pp.
Environment Canada Indicators Task Force. 1 991 . A Report on
Canada's Progress Towards a National Set of Environmental
Indicators. SOE Report 91-1. 98 pp.
MacLaren. V.W. 1996. Developing Indicators of Urban
Sustainability: A focus on the Canadian Experience. 147 pp.
Core Group(s)
OW
X
X
X
X
X
NW
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
cw
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NT
X
X
X
X
X
HH
X
LU
X
X
X
S
7-2
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
Ref.
No.
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Program
Sponsor
EC/GLFC/
USEPA
EC/NNC
EC
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
OMNR/
NYSDEC
CCFM
State of
Minnesota
GLC
OECD
NCASI
Health
Canada
Health
Canada
Health
Canada
Health
Canada
Health
Canada
Health
Canada
Document Information
Hartig, J. 1993. A Survey of Fish-community and Habitat
Goals/Objectives/Targets and Status in Great Lakes Areas of
Concern. 95 pp.
Snell, E. 1997. Great Lakes Biomonitoring Project: Initial
Development of a Framework for Monitoring Priority Coastal
Marsh Health and Integrity. 70 pp.
Environment Canada et al. 1997. A Compendium of Ecosystem
Health Goals, Objectives and Indicators (Prototype). 132 pp.
USEPA. 1998. Communicating Information on the Condition of
Terrestrial Ecosystems, A Focused Investigation of Indicators
of Terrestrial Ecosystem Health (initial draft).
Fabrizio, M.C., C.P. Ferreri and M.J. Hansen. 1995. Prey Fish
Communities as Indicators of Ecosystem Health in Lake
Michigan. 130 pp.
USEPA. 1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) Ecological Indicators. -425 pp.
Keough, J.R. and J. Griffin. 1994. Technical Workshop on
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
Indicators for Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands, Summary Report.
OMNR/NYSDEC. 1994. Ecosystem Watch: Status of the Lake
Ontario Ecosystem. 8 pp.
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. Criteria and
Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada,
Technical Report. 137 pp.
State of Minnesota. 1997. Environmental Indicators Initiative
(Draft).
Great Lakes Commission. 1996. An Agricultural Profile of the
Great Lakes Basin: Characteristics and Trends in Production,
Land-use and Environmental Impacts.
OECD. 1998. OECD Environmental Indicators for Sustainable
Development (Draft in Progress). 117 pp.
LTI-Limno Tech, Inc. 1993. Great Lakes Environmental
Assessment. 270 pp.
Health Canada, Great Lakes Health Effects Program.
Riedel, D., N. Tremblay and E. Tompkins (eds). 1997. Sfate of
Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and
Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Health
Effects Program. 482 pp.
Health Canada. 1998. Persistent Environmental Contaminants
and the Great Lakes Basin Population: An Exposure
Assessment. Great Lakes Health Effects Program.
Health Canada. 1 996. "Outdoor Air and Your Health - A
Summary of Research Related to Health Effects of Outdoor Air
Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin". Great Lakes Health Effects
Program.
Health Canada. 1 995. "Great Lakes Water and Your Health - A
Summary of 'Great Lakes Basin Cancer Risk Assessment: A
Case-control Study of Cancers of the Bladder, Colon and
Rectum'". Great Lakes Health Effects Program.
Health Canada. 1992. Atlas 1 - Birth Defects Atlas of Ontario:
1978-1988. Great Lakes Health Effects Program.
Core Group(s)
OW
X
X
NW
X
X
cw
X
X
X
X
NT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HH
X
X
X
X
X
X
LU
X
s
X
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
7-3
-------
Ref.
No.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Program
Sponsor
Health
Canada
OCTRF
OMH
GLPF/
USATSD/
NYGLRC
NYSDEC
UofT
UofT
GLC
OMMAH
USEPA
Document Information
Health Canada. 1992. Atlas II - Cancer Incidence in the Great
Lakes Region, Ontario: 1984-1988. Great Lakes Health Effects
Program.
Myers, S. et al. 1996. Report on Incorporating Human Health
Considerations into RAPs. 62 pp.
Kagey and Stark. 1992. Indicators of Human Reproductive
Health within the Great Lakes Drainage Basin Ecosystem. 59
pp.
Craan, A.G. and D.A. Haines. 1988 (submitted). "Twenty-five
years of surveillance for contaminants in human breast milk".
Arch. Environ. Contm. Toxicol.
Wang, ST. et al. "Decline in blood lead in Ontario children
correlated to decreasing consumption of leaded gasoline,
1983-1992". Clinical Chemistry. Vol 43, 1251-1252 pp.
MacLaren. V.W. 1996. "Urban Sustainability Reporting".
Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 62, No. 2.,
184-201 pp.
D. Mackay. 1998. Personal Communication. Trent University,
Peterborough, Ontario.
Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint.
New Society Publishers, British Columbia, Canada.
1994. Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Basin.
OMMAH. 1998. Performance Indicators for Planning (Pilot
Studies). A draft set of planning indicators for pilot study
purposes in sample communities in Ontario.
LURA Group. 1995. Measuring Urban Sustainability: Canadian
Indicators Workshop.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Process for
Selecting Environmental Indicators and Supporting Data. Data
Quality Action Team,
EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0031, D04; Washington, D.C., 78pp.
Core Group(s)
OW
X
NW
CW
NT
HH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LU
X
X
X
S
X
Core Groups
OW Open Waters
NW Nearshore Waters
CW Coastal Wetlands
NT Nearshore Terrestrial
HH Human Health
LU Socio-economics/Land Use
S Societal
Glossary of Program Sponsors (alphabetical order)
CCFM Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
EC Environment Canada
GLC Great Lakes Commission
GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission
GLPF Great Lakes Protection Fund
7-4
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
ICURR Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Rural Research
IJC International Joint Commission
NCASI The National Council of the Paper industry for Air and Stream Improvement
NYGLRC New York Great Lakes Research Consortium
NNC The Nature Conservancy of Canada
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OCTRF Ontario Cancer Treatment Research Foundation
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OMH Ontario Ministry of Health
OMMAH Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
SOLEC State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference
USATSDR United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
U of T U n ive rs ity of To ro nto
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
7-5
-------
Appendix 8 — Indicator Group, Core Group Members and
SOLEC 98 Steering Committee Members
The following chart depicts the SOLEC 98 organizational structure. The members of the
Indicator Group, the six Core Groups, and the Steering Committee are listed on the next four
pages. This paper does not discuss the Biodiversity Investment Area group—for more
information on these papers please visit one of the SOLEC websites:
http://www.cciw.ca/solec/
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
Co-chairs:
Paul Horvatin
Harvey Shear
Co-chairs:
Paul Bertram
Nancy Stadler-Salt
Co-authors:
Joe Koonce
Ken Minns
Heather Morrison
Co-authors:
Dennis Albert
Pat Chow-Fraser
Co-authors:
Ron Reid
Karen Rodriguez
Open&
Nearshore
Waters
Lead:
Tom Edsall
Coastal
Wetlands
Co-leads:
Duane Heaton
Nancy Patterson
Nearshore
Terrestrial
Co-leads:
Ron Reid
Karen Rodriguez
Land
Use
Lead:
Ray Rivers
Human
Health
Co-leads:
Doug Haines
Mark Johnson
Societal
Co-leads:
Ron Baba
Ray Rivers
Unbounded
Leads:
All Core Group Leads
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators.
8-1
-------
INDICATOR GROUP (membership as of October 1998)
Co-chairs:
Paul Bertram, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nancy Stadler-Salt, Environment Canada
Members:
Ron Baba, Oneida Nation
Tom Edsall, U.S. Geological Survey
Doug Haines, Health Canada
Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ray Hoff, Environment Canada
Mark Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nancy Patterson, Environment Canada
Henry Regier, University of Toronto (retired)
Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting
Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Daniel Smith, Conestoga Rovers, Inc.
Observers:
Jean Burton, Environment Canada
John Hartig, International Joint Commission
John Lawrence, Environment Canada
Dick Ryder, RAR & Associates
OPEN and NEARSHORE WATERS CORE GROUP (membership as of October 1998)
Lead:
Tom Edsall, U.S. Geological Survey
Members:
Scott Brown, Environment Canada
Randy Eschenroder, Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Ray Hoff, Environment Canada
Don Mackay, Trent University
Mohi Munawar, Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Henry Regier, University of Toronto (retired)
Wolfgang Scheider, Ontario Ministry of Environment
William Schertzer, Environment Canada
Brian Shuter, University of Toronto
Daniel Smith, Conestoga Rovers, Inc.
Observers:
Martine Allard, Environment Canada
Duncan Boyd, Ontario Ministry of Environment
Uwe Borgman, Environment Canada
Dan Bauer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Steve Carpenter, University of Wisconsin
Murray Charlton, Environment Canada
John Gannon, U.S. Geological Survey
Brian F. Lantry, NY State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Mark McMaster, Environment Canada
Mohi Munawar, Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Scott Painter, Environment Canada
Trefor Reynoldson, Environment Canada
Phil Ryan, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Richard Ryder, retired
Jim Sherry, Environment Canada
Gary Sprules, University of Toronto
William Strachan, Environment Canada
COASTAL WETLANDS CORE GROUP (membership as of October 1998)
Co-lead:
Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nancy Patterson, Environment Canada
Lesley Dunn, Environment Canada
Members:
Dennis Albert, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Christine Bishop, Environment Canada
Virginie Bouchard, Ohio State University
Tom Burton, Michigan State University
Adele Crowder, Queen's University (retired)
Jeff Gagler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tom Glatzel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rich Greenwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Laurie Maynard, Environment Canada
Kim Santos, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bill Schertzer, Environment Canada
Tom Simon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Elizabeth Snell, Snell & Cecile Environmental Research
Ralph Tiner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Russ Weeber, Bird Studies Canada
Observers:
Graham Bryan, Federation of Ontario Naturalists
Pat Chow-Fraser, McMaster University
Sue Crispin, The Nature Conservancy
Bud Harris, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Paul Keddy, University of Ottawa
Jon McCracken, Bird Studies Canada
Jim Meeker, Northland College
T.J. Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bill Mitsch, Ohio State University
Bob Myslik, Environment Canada
Jim Quinn, McMaster University
Janice Smith, Environment Canada
Paul Webb, University of Michigan
Tom Whillans, Trent University
Doug Wilcox, U.S. Geological Survey
Gerald Winn, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dimos Zarkadas, McMaster University
8-2
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
NEARSHORE TERRESTRIAL CORE GROUP (membership as of October 1998)
Co-leads: Observers:
Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises Brain Greenwood, University of Toronto
Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fred Johnson, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Paul Smith, Ontario Heritage Foundation
Members: Kris West, The Nature Conservancy
John Bacone, Indiana Department of Natural Resources
David Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
William Bowerman, Lake Superior State University
Sue Crispin, The Nature Conservancy
Pat Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Thomas Doolittle, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of
Chippewa Indians
Robert Dumke, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Dave Ewert, The Nature Conservancy
Michael Gilbertson, International Joint Commission
Ken Holtje, USDA Forest Service
Ian Jarvis, Agriculture Canada
Patrick Lawrence, University of Waterloo
Tija Luste, Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Roger Nanney, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Paul Matthiae, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Brian McHattie, Environment Canada
Ralph Moulton, Environment Canada
Christian Pupp, retired from Environment Canada
HUMAN HEALTH CORE GROUP (membership as of October 1998)
Co-leads: Observers:
Doug Haines, Health Canada Linda Birnbaum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mark D. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Donald Cole, McMaster University
Larry Fischer, Michigan State University
Members: Larry Rampie, Chlorine Chemical Council
Diane Dennis-Flagler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Heraline E. Hicks, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry
Warren Foster, Health Canada
Jack Manno, New York Great Lakes Research Consortium
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 8-3
-------
LAND USE CORE GROUP (membership as of
October 1998)
Lead:
Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting
Members:
Roy Aiken, Door Property Owners Assoc., Wisconsin
John Barr, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Brad Bass, Environment Canada
Mike Finney, Oneida Little Bear Devel Centre
George Francis, University of Waterloo
Kent Gilges, Center for Compatible Economic Development
Andrew Hamilton, Commission for Environmental Cooperation
John Haugland, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bryan Hill, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Ian Jarvis, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
James Kay, University of Waterloo
Virginia MacLaren, University of Toronto
Tom Muir, Environment Canada
Walter Mulkewich, Former Mayor of Burlington, Ontario
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Bruce Pond, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Mike Raab, County of Erie, Department of Environment and
Planning
Julie Stoneman, Michigan Environmental Council
Nancy Strole, Springfield Twp Oakland County, Michigan
Stephen Thorp, Great Lakes Commission
Peter Victor, York University
Margaret Wooster, Great Lakes United
STEWARDSHIP CORE GROUP (membership as
of October 1998)
Co-leads:
Ron Baba, Oneida Nation
Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting
Members:
Robert Brander, Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland
College
Jean Burton, Environment Canada
Jim Cantrill, Northern Michigan University
Margaret Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Doug Dodge, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Michael Donahue, Great Lakes Commission
Michael Finney, Oneida Nation
George Francis, University of Waterloo
John Hartig, International Joint Commission
Anne Kerr, Environment Canada
Joanna Kidd, LURA Consulting
Sally Lerner, University of Waterloo
Jack Manno, New York Great Lakes Research Consortium
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting
Margaret Shannon, SUNY Buffalo Law School
Madelyn Webb, Association for Canadian Educational
Resources
Leslie Woo, Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Margaret Wooster, Great Lakes United
8-4
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators
-------
SOLEC 98 STEERING COMMITTEE
M EM BERS (membership as of October 1998)
Co-chairs:
Paul Horvatin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO
Harvey Shear, Environment Canada, RDG-OR
Members:
Dan Bauer, USGS Water Resources Division
Judy Beck, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
Paul Bertram, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO
Kelly Burch, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Jean Burton, Environment Canada, Centre St. Laurent
Dieter Busch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Great Lakes
Fishery Resources Office
William Cibelus, Association for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
Marg Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Doug Dodge, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Michael Donahue, Great Lakes Commission
Richard Draper, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Tim Eder, National Wildlife Federation
Fred Fleischer, Ontario Ministry of Environment
Kent Fuller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO
John Gannon, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey
Sandra George, Environment Canada, ECB
Rich Greenwood, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
GLNPO
Margaret Guerriero, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5
John Hartig, International Joint Commission
Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO
Dan Helwig, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ray Hoff, Environment Canada, Centre for Atmospheric
Research Experiments
Brett Hulsey, Sierra Club
Anne Kerr, Environment Canada, Ecosystem Science
Directorate
Gail Krantzberg, Ontario Ministry of Environment
Bob Krska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jacinthe Leclerc, Environment Canada, S.L. Vision 2000
G. Tracy Mehan, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Gerry Mikol, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Susan Nameth, Environment Canada, Great Lakes
Environmental Office
Francine Norling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 5
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Dieter Riedel, Health Canada, Environmental Health Directorate
Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting
Peter Roberts, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs
Barbara Spinweber, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2
Nancy Stadler-Salt, Environment Canada, RDG-OR
Helen Taylor, The Nature Conservancy
Edward Tompkins, Environment Canada, GLCA
Karen Thompson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Office of Public Affairs
Steve Thorp, Great Lakes Commission
Jack Weinberg, Greenpeace
Margaret Wooster, Great Lakes United
Maggie Young, Environment Canada, RDG-OR
Observers:
James Addis, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Janette Anderson, Environment Canada, ECB
Kathy Baird, Indiana Department of Environmental Management
John Barr, Director of Metro Planning, Toronto
Steve Brandt, NOAA/GLERL
Lee Bridges, Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Murray Brooksbank, Environment Canada, Great Lakes
Environment Office
Allegra Cangelosi, Northeast-Midwest Institute
Patrick T. Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Kirby Cottrell, Director, Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Nicholas Damato, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg.
5
Joseph DePinto, University of Buffalo
Dale Engquist, U.S. National Park Service, Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore
Dr. Chris Goddard, Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Steve Hedtke, U.S. EPA, Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory
Roland Hemmett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 2
Heraline E. Hicks, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
Ken Holtje, Director, USDA - Forest Service
Ava Hottman, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Peter Jones, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Virginia Kibler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters (Alternate - Mark Morris)
Chuck Ledin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Steve Lozano, U.S. EPA, Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory
Percy Magee, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Jan Miller, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Barbara McLeod, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters
Roger Nanney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO
Carl Nash, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
Darrell Piekarz, Environment Canada, ECB
Phil Pope, Purdue University, Sea Grant Program
James Ray, Indiana Department of Natural Resources
M. Eric Reeves, Commander, US Coast Guard
Charles Sapp, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
Bob Schacht, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Jake Vanderwal, Lake Superior Programs Office
Jerry Wager, Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Peter L. Wise, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Patty Yount, Indiana Department of Environmental Management
James Zorn, Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
SOLEC 98—Selection of Indicators.
8-5
-------
Appendix 9 — Revisions Since Version 2 of the SOLEC 98
Indicator List
Indicator # Indicator Name
Nearshore and Open Waters
State Indicators
6 Aquatic Habitat
8 Salmon and Trout
9 Walleye and Hexagenia
17 Preyfish Populations
68 Native Unionid Mussels
93 Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi)
101 Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish
104 Benthos Diversity and Abundance
109 Phytoplankton Populations
116 Zooplankton Populations as Indicators of Ecosystem Health
Pressure Indicators
18 Sea Lamprey
72 Fish Entrainment
111 Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
442 Trends in Contaminant Concentrations & Loadings in: Water, Air, Soil and Sediments -
split into 4 new indicators: 117, 118, 119, & 120
113 Contaminants in Recreational Fish
114 Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
115 Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
777 Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals - new indicator, split out of 112
118 Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters -new indicator, split out of 112
119 Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores -new indicator, split out of 112
120 Contaminant Exchanges Between Media: Air to Water and Water to Sediment - new
indicator, split out of 112
Coastal Wetlands
State Indicators
4501 Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
4502 Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
4503 Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumours (DELT) in Coastal Wetland Fish
4504 Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
4505 Reptile Diversity and Abundance - deleted
4507 Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity & Abundance
4510 Coastal Wetland Area by Type
4511 Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type
4642 Chlorophyll a Levels - deleted
4513 Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
4859 Reproductive Output of Mink - deleted
7055 Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands - moved from Land Use Group
Pressure Indicators
4506 Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
4516 Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
4518 Water Level Fluctuations - combined with 8133 into new indicator 4861
4854 Water Quality: Chlorides flowing into Coastal Wetlands - deleted
4855 Water Quality: Nitrates into Coastal Wetlands - combined with 4856 into new indicator
4860
SOLEC 98— Selection of Indicators 9-1
-------
4856 Water Quality: Total Phosphorus flowing into Coastal Wetlands - combined with 4855 into
new indicator 4860
4860 Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands - new indicator, combines 4855 & 4856
4861 Water Level Fluctuations - new indicator, combines 4518 & 8133
Nearshore Terrestrial
State Indicators
8128 Ncarehorc Threatened Species - combined with 8148, 8151 & 8152 into new indicator
8161
8129 Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
8136 Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
8137 Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
8448 Nearshore Endemic Species - combined with 8128, 8151 & 8152 into new indicator 8161
Pressure Indicators
8131 Extent of Hardened Shoreline
8132 Nearshore Land Use Intensity
8133 Lake Level fluctuations - combined with 4518 into new indicator 4861
8134 Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species
8135 Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
8146 Artificial Coastal Structures
8147 Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
4867 Water Level Fluctuations - new indicator, combines 4518 & 8133
Human Activity (Response) Indicators
8139 Community / Species Plans
8140 financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs - moved into Societal Group
8141 Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
8149 Nearshore Protected Areas
Basin-wide Indicators
8150 Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance - moved into Land Use Group
845^ Number, Extent, and Viability of Endemic Species - combined with 8128, 8148 & 8152 into
new indicator 8161
8+52 Threatened Species - combined with 8128, 8148 & 8151 into new indicator 8161
Human Health
State Indicators
4179 Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
Pressure Indicators
4081 Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
4083 Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
4088 Chemical Contaminant Intake From Air, Water, Soil and Food
4175 Drinking Water Quality
4176 Air Quality
4177 Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
4178 Radionuclides
Land Use
State Indicators
7027 Loss of Natural Features - deleted
7042 Aesthetics - moved into Societal Group
7043 Economic Prosperity - moved into Societal Group
7055 1 labitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands - moved into Coastal Wetlands Group
8150 Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance - moved from Unbounded Group
8161 Threatened Species - new indicator, combines 8128, 8148, 8151 & 8152
Pressure Indicators
7000 Urban Density
9-2 SOLEC98— Selection of Indicators
-------
7002 Land Conversion
1^6? Resource Use - split into 7056 & 7057
7012 Mass Transportation
764? Pollution Levels - split into 7058, 7059 & 7060
7054 Ground Surface I lardening - deleted
7056 Water Consumption - new indicator, split out of 7007
7057 Energy Consumption - new indicator, split out of 7007
7058 Ground Level Ozone - new indicator, split out of 7017, then combined with 4176
7059 Wastewater Pollutant Loading -new indicator, split out of 7017
7060 Solid Waste Generation -new indicator, split out of 7017
8-444 Agricultural Intensity - deleted
8114 Habitat Fragmentation
8142 Stream Flow
Human Activity (Response) Indicators
7006 Brownfield Redevelopment
7028 Sustainable Agricultural Practices
7053 Green Planning Process
Societal Indicators
State Indicators
7042 Aesthetics - moved from Land Use Group
7043 Economic Prosperity - moved from Land Use Group
Human Activity (Response) Indicators
3509 Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships - unchanged from SOLEC 98
3510 Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships - unchanged from SOLEC 98
3511 Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles Across Landscapes - unchanged from SOLEC 98
3512 Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes - unchanged from SOLEC 98
3513 Citizen / Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities - unchanged from SOLEC 98
8140 Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs - moved Irom Nearshore Terrestrial Group
Unbounded
State Indicators
9001 Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
8466 Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance - moved into Land Use Group
8454 Number, Extent, and Viability of Endemic Species - combined with 8128, 8148 & 8152 into
new indicator 8161
8452 Threatened Species - combined with 8128, 8148 & 8151 into new indicator 8161
Pressure Indicators
442 Trends in Contaminant Concentrations & Loadings in: Water, Air, Soil and Sediments -
split into 4 new indicators: 117, 118, 119, & 120
4519 Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
4857 Global Warming: First Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
4858 Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
9000 Acid Rain
Total number of indicators = 80
(Please note: Indicator #4861 Water Level Fluctuations is listed twice since it is an integrated indicator
belonging to both the Coastal Wetlands and Nearshore Terrestrial groups)
SOLEC 98 — Selection of Indicators 9-3
------- |