State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996
HIGHLIGHTS OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
Prepared for the
SOLEC STEERING COMMITTEE
by
Jack Manno
Suni Edson
Great Lakes Research Consortium
SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry
Syracuse, New York
and
SOLEC '96 Organizers
November 1996
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Nearshore Waters 4
The Coastal Wetlands 6
Nearshore Terrestrial - Land by the Lakes 8
Impacts of Changing Land Use 12
Information and Information Management 15
SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
Introduction
In signing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the governments of the United
States and Canada committed to restoring and maintaining "the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." They also
agreed to adopt an ecosystem approach to management, which means, at a minimum,
a commitment to improve understanding of the complex ecological relationships that
comprise the Great Lakes basin and use that understanding to minimize the negative
impact of human activities on the Great Lakes ecosystem One of the purposes of the
1996 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), whose background papers
are summarized here, is to provide information about the state of the nearshore areas
of the Great Lakes that can be used by all levels of decision-making and management
to help fulfill these commitments.
The nearshore zone is where life is concentrated. It includes the relatively warm,
shallow and productive waters near the shore, coastal wetlands, and the land areas
directly affected by lake processes. It is also the portion of the Great Lakes ecosystem
most crowded with humans and our activities. In the end, the commitment to maintain
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem means learning how to apply what we know about the ecology of the Great
Lakes to better manage human impacts on the nearshore environment. SOLEC's
purpose is to assess the condition of nearshore ecosystems and discuss what
improvements can be made.
The background papers prepared for SOLEC '96 describe the ecology of each
component of the nearshore zone, the impacts of various stressors, the sources of
these stressors and the condition of the coastal areas in terms of ecological integrity.
Although it would be valuable if we could, it is not possible to simply go out and
measure ecological integrity. We need indicators: measurable variables which provide
insight and information about the state of an ecosystem.
One of the most important outcomes of SOLEC is the effort to derive indicators for
measuring the state of different components of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The
effort to derive indicators of ecological integrity is complicated by the fact that like
"health", a closely related concept, "integrity" is sometimes only noticed when it fails.
In ecology, as in everyday speech, the term "integrity" describes a state of healthy
functioning -- a core stability that endows character, recognizability and wholeness.
Some indicators, such as the "Representation of biodiversity in lakeshore parks and
protected areas," which is listed in the nearshore terrestrial paper, are relatively direct
measures of the protection of ecosystem health. Other indicators, such as "urban
population density," described in the land-use paper, reflect the belief that societal
trends toward urban sprawl and more land being used per household, results in
ecological degradation. Indicators can be site specific, such as the diversity and
abundance of aquatic invertebrates in a given wetland, while others have lake or
basin-wide relevance, such as population size of wetland-dependent waterfowl. The
advantage of developing such indicators is that once identified, they can be measured
SOLEC'96 - Highlights 1
-------
over time and trends can be assessed and interpreted.
Ecosystems are basic functional units of nature. They are identifiable as a complex set
of relationships in which energy is exchanged between and among living and non-living
components, and in which all parts adapt to conditions others produce and which
together comprise a system capable of self-organization and recovery from stress or
disruption. Over long periods of time, the species which comprise an ecosystem come
to depend on each other and on the unique physical conditions to which they've
adapted. Thus, highly evolved and complex communities of organisms become
established. These systems evolve over centuries under conditions of gradual change
interspersed with regular patterns of sudden change such as fires or rising and falling
water levels. Such sudden change eliminates species that cannot survive these
events. What remains are communities especially suited for particular patterns of
change. The native species and living communities contain within their genetic makeup
the "memory" of the thousands of years of conditions they have survived within the
Great Lakes basin. The greater the number of complex communities that exist, the
more varied and rich the genetic diversity, the more stable and resilient the ecosystem,
and the more ecosystem integrity is maintained.
Human activities can change conditions in an ecosystem rapidly, however, and often
too quickly for the system to adapt. As a result, the ability of the system to maintain
integrity or wholeness becomes compromised. Unstable conditions in an ecosystem
open niches for invading organisms, some transported here long distances by human
activity and others simply neighbors taking advantage of newly favorable conditions for
their spread. Often, the effects of these invasions further simplify the system. When this
happens over and over again, special ecosystems lose their unique character and give
way to new communities of organisms better adapted to human-influenced conditions.
A homogenization and simplification occurs, diminishing the entire ecosystem.
A commitment to ecosystem integrity suggests, therefore, the maintenance of
conditions in which rare ecosystem types are preserved. For the Great Lakes near
shore, this means sufficient examples of predominant Great Lakes ecoregions must be
protected so that the conditions within which the basin ecosystem evolved are
maintained. Protection efforts must include viable populations and communities that are
representative of the full range of nearshore ecosystems throughout the basin. A
commitment to ecosystem integrity also suggests the need to apply the knowledge we
have gained in studying ecological systems whenever we make decisions that will
affect any part of the Great Lakes.
The state of the nearshore areas of the Great Lakes varies from near pristine in parts of
the Lake Superior basin to severely impacted throughout much of the Lower Lakes.
During the period from European settlement until the first Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement in 1972, forests were cleared for timber and agriculture, top predator fish
were fished to extinction, stream flows were reengineered, waste products from cities
and industries choked off life in the nearshore regions, shorelines were transformed
and exotic species flourished. Although the era of ignoring environmental
2 SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
consequences has mostly passed, the legacy remains. Faced with this legacy, much
has been accomplished, including a significant reduction in the worst of toxic chemical
pollution of the nearshore, and widespread recognition of the importance of protecting
the ecological integrity of the lakes.
There is a fundamental challenge facing managers and decision-makers of the Great
Lakes basin. They must be able to understand that the nearshore region is an
ecosystem unto itself. Enough information to make informed decisions must also be
obtained. Specific challenges that must be met in the next two years include:
1. Bringing together available information on the state of the nearshore ecosystem
into accessible GIS (Geographical Information Systems) based formats and
systems.
2. Developing easily understood indicators.
3. Integrating the concepts of biodiversity and habitat into existing programs.
4. Integrating LAMPs, RAPs, and fisheries management plans so that they become
fully viable management mechanisms, useful for decision makers throughout the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem in taking action and assessing results.
The following articles describe in detail the current status and major trends of important
components of the nearshore waters, coastal wetlands and nearshore lands. An
analysis of the state of information about the Great Lakes nearshore ecosystems is
included as well. These articles provide background and direction to the Canadian and
U.S. commitment to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity
of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
Nearshore Waters
Not all water in the Great Lakes is equal. Not only is each Lake unique in geological,
biological and chemical characteristics, but in addition, the water of the Great Lakes is
divided into two general classifications -- offshore and nearshore waters. The
nearshore is a band of water found along the perimeter of each Lake that serves as
critical habitat for nearly all species of Great Lakes fish and many types of birds and
mammals. Specifically, the nearshore waters begin at the shoreline, or lakeside edge of
coastal wetlands, and extend offshore to areas with water warm enough to support a
community of warm water fish and associated organisms.
The width and amount of the nearshore waters in each lake varies, depending on the
size and shape of the lake basin. In general, the nearshore consists of coastal areas
less than 30 meters in depth, except in Lake Superior where they are less than 10
meters. While less than 5 % of Lake Superior is considered "nearshore", more than
90% of Lake Erie is. The Great Lakes connecting channels, Lake St. Clair, the lower
reaches of the Great Lakes tributaries, and the waters around islands and offshore
shoals are also considered nearshore waters.
Unlike the deeper, colder offshore waters, the nearshore is linked physically to coastal
wetlands, rivers and streams, shoreline landforms and human communities. As a
result, they exchange materials and energy with these nearby ecosystems and play a
role in maintaining the entire basin's ecological balance. In fact, virtually all species of
Great Lakes fish use nearshore waters to sustain their critical life stages or functions.
In addition, many ducks, geese, swans and other water birds feed and rest in the
nearshore waters, especially during the fall and spring migrations. Endangered or
threatened aquatic raptors, such as osprey and bald eagles, use the nearshore waters
for nesting. Mammals and amphibians are found there, as well.
In technical terms, the boundary of nearshore waters is defined in terms of the
shoreward extent of deep cold water which forms the summer thermocline, or boundary
between cold dense water and the warmer surface waters. Mixing between the warm
and cold water masses is very limited. Also, during the spring and early summer,
pollutants are held close to shore by the thermal bar. This bar forms as water closest to
the shore warms up and is prevented from mixing with water farther from shore
because of density differences. Later in the season, warm water spreads across the
lakes, but does not mix with the deep water until it cools in the autumn.
Because of limited mixing, inputs from the nearshore lands, wetlands, tributaries and
ground water flow are concentrated in the nearshore. The nearshore waters are,
therefore, the most vulnerable to pollution and other forms of ecological degradation.
Organochlorine contaminants are found at unacceptably high levels in Lake Michigan
and Lake Ontario. These and other industrial pollutants, including oils and metals, are
at high levels in sediments in some connecting channels, and in certain harbors
throughout the system.
SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
Other human activities have taken their toll on the nearshore waters in a number of
ways. Agricultural runoff from streams and shoreline has disturbed the chemical
balance of the water by introducing excess nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus.
The passage of boats for transportation during the winter has destroyed ice bridges
used by mammals. Navigation-related dredging through 1972 moved 357.2 million
cubic meters of sediment and other materials. Continued dredging removes about 4-6
million cubic meters per year.
Among the most destructive human activities for the nearshore waters have been
power production and the introduction of exotic species. Billions of adult fish, eggs,
and larvae are killed every year by being drawn into cooling water intakes of
thermo-electric plants. At the same time, at least 139 new aquatic organisms have
become residents of the Great Lakes since the early 1800s. Without natural predators,
these exotic species, which are released from ships dumping solid or liquid ballast,
rapidly reproduce and alter the biological state of the nearshore waters. For example,
predation and competition by the alewife, which became established in the Great Lakes
as early as 1873, suppressed native populations of yellow perch, emerald shiner,
whitefish and spoonhead sculpin.
While there is little doubt that the nearshore aquatic environment of the Great Lakes
has been changed physically, chemically and biologically by human activity, the trend
toward worsening conditions has slowed down in the last 25 years and in the case of
water quality has even been reversed. The overall reduction in the quantity of algae,
and a drop in the annual occurrence of anoxic conditions in the bottom waters of
central Lake Erie, indicate that the Lakes are returning to original conditions. This
trend shows that the efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to the Lakes have been
successful. Other indicators of the improving health of the nearshore waters are an
increase in the population of burrowing mayflies, which are extremely sensitive to
pollutants; a reduction in the number of beach closings; and the recovering fish
community, including native lake trout, walleye, yellow perch and whitefish.
Determining the state of the nearshore waters ecosystem requires an evaluation of the
ability of the living communities that make up that ecosystem to be self-sustaining with
minimum human assistance. Unfortunately, there exists a lack of standard information
on indicator species in the nearshore waters. To improve the monitoring of ecosystem
health, information systems need to be improved.
Efforts to improve the health of the Great Lakes nearshore waters in the last few
decades have made a positive difference. Continued vigilance is needed to prevent
repetition of past problems. Coordinated management plans should be designed and
implemented to protect wildlife habitat, fisheries, nest sites for aquatic raptors,
tributaries that encourage native fish spawning, and water quality. Some habitat and
biodiversity in the nearshore waters has been lost forever. But, as people become
more educated about our impacts on the Great Lakes, the nearshore waters can once
again thrive with a healthy variety of life and activity.
SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
The Coastal Wetlands
Shaped by dynamic large lake processes, including waves, wind, ice and seasonal
fluctuations in water levels, Great Lakes coastal wetlands are vibrant and unique areas
of unrivalled importance to the life of the lakes. They are an essential component of the
nearshore zone, and their protection is integral to the health of the entire Great Lakes
ecosystem. In recent years, protecting wetlands has become a high environmental
priority in both Canada and the U.S. Some information exists about individual wetland
systems and dramatic improvements have been made in our understanding of the
importance of wetlands and the ecological functions they serve. Yet, we still lack
enough detailed and comprehensive information about the Great Lakes coastal
wetlands to be able to report confidently on their current condition, trends in wetland
viability and health, or the overall success or failure of current protection and
restoration efforts. No inventory or evaluation system for measuring ecosystem health
in coastal wetlands exists, and no system of classification of wetland quality has been
commonly accepted. As a result, the state of the entire coastal wetlands ecosystem is
not adequately known.
What we do know is that Great Lakes coastal wetlands are a considerable ecological,
biological, economic, and aesthetic resource. Yet, these special ecosystems have
been increasingly degraded and destroyed in the last century as a result of human
activity. Most directly, the filling and dredging of wetlands to support human-desired
land uses, such as agriculture, housing, industry, recreation, and commercial
development, has reduced the number of wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. For
example, researchers estimate 83 percent of the original 3900 hectares of western
Lake Ontario marshland has been lost forever, generally to urbanization. In addition,
coastal wetlands have been harmed by other activities, including road construction;
formation of break walls; introduction of non-indigenous species; the discharge of toxic
chemicals; and changes in the lakes' water-level fluctuations. Reductions in
water-level fluctuations and alterations of other natural physical processes are among
the most serious threats facing remaining wetlands because such changes are not site
specific and can upset the ecological balance of all coastal wetlands, regardless of
whether or not they are protected from direct destruction.
In general, Lake Superior's wetlands, which are the most isolated from human impact,
are in better shape than those of the lower lakes. Indicators of poor wetland health,
including disruption of water flows, increases in exotic species, reductions in genetic
diversity, and the presence of bioaccumulated chemicals in animal tissue, tell us where
individual wetlands are in trouble. For example, the strong presence of invasive plants,
such as purple loosestrife and the common reed, in Lake Ontario's wetlands suggests
ecosystem stress, which may be the result of water-level regulation.
What we also know is that numerous species of fish, plants, reptiles, birds and
mammals call the Great Lakes coastal wetlands their home, and for many of these
species, these wetlands are their only home. Reptiles and amphibians breed, lay their
eggs, and feed and raise their young there. Waterfowl, songbirds and shorebirds stop
6 SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
to rest and revive at Great Lakes wetlands on their long migrations. Small mammals,
such as the muskrat and beaver, use wetland vegetation for food and shelter. Fish
thrive in them. In fact, research shows that more than 90 percent of the approximately
200 fish species found in the Great Lakes are directly dependent on coastal wetlands
for survival at some point in their life cycles.
In addition to providing a sanctuary for living communities, the Great Lakes coastal
wetlands - which include marshes, wet meadows, swamps, and peatlands -- play an
essential role in sustaining the physical and ecological balance of the entire Great
Lakes' Basin. A buffer between land and water, wetlands control sediment levels in the
Lakes and river beds; they filter excess nutrients and chemical contaminants from
passing water, thus improving water quality; they protect terrestrial systems from
storms and erosion.
Human beings also benefit from the hard work of coastal wetlands. Many housing
areas along the Great Lakes shoreline would be subject to the potential damage of
wave forces, both on a regular basis and during storms, without the protective barrier
that wetlands provide. The filtration functions of wetlands keep the Lakes water clean,
thus preventing heavy algal growth and fish die-offs, which would make the area an
undesirable place to live. Coastal wetlands provide humans a beautiful and peaceful
place where they can bird-watch, photograph or study nature, or participate in hunting
and fishing.
Luckily, it is not too late to prevent the total destruction of the coastal wetlands.
Conservation, restoration, and stewardship can occur if planned carefully and
undertaken with considerable attention paid to the interactions and interdependence
between the uplands, the wetlands, and the lakes themselves. Wetland health must be
monitored and measured using commonly accepted indicators, such as land-use
patterns, wildlife population stability, vegetation richness, water levels, and water
chemistry and composition. One powerful tool available today to assess the state of
our coastal wetlands is remote sensing. With the advent of this technology, aerial
photography and satellite imagery can determine the size and number of coastal
wetlands and assess changes in wetland size as they respond to between-year water
level fluctuations. Remote sensing also can measure land-use changes in the
watersheds of coastal wetlands to find correlations between land use and wetland
integrity. This correlation then can be used to determine policies to preserve our
remaining wetland areas.
Policies for coastal wetland preservation and conservation rely on a wide range of tools
to influence the fate of particular wetlands. These tools fall into four broad categories -
regulatory mechanisms, tax incentives, securement and stewardship initiatives, and
special programs and partnerships. Wetlands are both publicly-held and
privately-owned lands, and saving them requires cooperation between government
institutions-- at local, regional and federal levels -- and American and Canadian
citizens. We can choose to make changes that will preserve the Great Lakes coastal
wetlands the way they naturally occur, thus ensuring that the intricate web of nutrients,
SOLEC '96 - Highlights 7
-------
sediments, plants, wildlife and water is maintained and sustained. Otherwise, we put
an irreplaceable resource at risk.
8 SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
Nearshore Terrestrial - Land by the Lakes
The land near the lakes, the nearshore terrestrial zone, is defined by the Lakes
themselves. It is the product of ancient glacial sculpting; continuous etching by wave
and wind; longshore currents; and the steady deposit of sediment by more than 500
tributaries all which constantly modify the 16,000 km of shoreline. The ever-changing
shoreline, in turn, buffers inland, life-sustaining systems and interacts with coastal
wetland systems. Nearshore terrestrial zones may be as narrow as a beach weathered
by wind or as wide as a forest or dune field that extends many kilometers inland. They
include unusual land features, such as the towering cliffs of Lake Superior's north
shore and the stunning lake plain prairies of the Southern Lake Michigan basin.
Because climate, weather patterns, geology and soils vary throughout the basin, the
ecological communities found in the nearshore terrestrial zone are incredibly diverse.
Each Great Lakes near shore land type supports a plethora of plant and animal
species, which, in turn, shape the land into identifiable ecosystems. Some of this flora
and fauna can be found nowhere else in the world - they exist only by virtue of the
natural physical forces of the lakes. For example, the endangered Pitcher's thistle
fights extinction on the beaches and dunes of Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior.
After surveying the conditions of near shore lands and trends in conservation efforts
throughout the lakes, researchers preparing for the 1996 State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference have concluded that the health of the land by the lakes is degrading
throughout the Great Lakes basin.
According to the background paper prepared for the conference, reversing this trend
will require a concerted international effort to establish a core set of protected areas
along the Great Lakes coast, and coordinated shoreline management measures
elsewhere between these core areas.
Human activity can damage ecological health of the nearshore terrestrial zone in both
direct and indirect ways. Direct damage comes from alteration through conversion of
natural lands to areas or managed for agricultural, residential, industrial and
recreational development; extraction of timber or minerals; and paving or armoring of
shoreline to facilitate transportation or other water uses. Indirect damage occurs when
human activity disrupts physical processes that sustain nearshore habitats. The
release of toxic chemicals; the interruption or exaggeration of lake level fluctuations
due to dredging, dams and canals; and the introduction of exotic plants into the food
chain all upset these physical processes and damage the ecological balance of near
shore lands.
In the SOLEC '96 paper, nearshore land areas are examined from three perspectives:
as 17 geographic ecological regions which cover the area; from the perspective of 12
special ecological community types such as sand dunes that occur in one or more of
SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
the regions; and on a lake by lake basis for the 5 lake basins. The quality of each area
or community is ranked based upon indicators.
Ecoregions were ranked from A to D based upon a set of factors. One area in the Lake
Superior basin has an overall rank of "A" or relatively undisturbed while one area each
in Lakes Michigan and Ontario together with two in Lake Erie are ranked as "D" or
severely disturbed.
The 12 special lakeshore ecological communities were evaluated and rated based up
on the percent of the community remaining in a healthy state, major stressors and
sources of stressors, species and communities endangered or threatened, and
stewardship indicators in place..
The twelve special ecological community types represent some of the unique features
of the Great Lakes nearshore lands. They are:
• Sand beaches are formed when waves and wind deposit sand eroded from other
places on exposed shoreline. These beaches are important areas for migrating
shorebirds to stop and feed on algal mats and a variety of microcrustaceans and
insect larvae. Shoals, sandbars, and spits are specific types of sand beaches
that protect lagoons and coastal marshes from wind and wave action. Rating C
Sand dunes form where sand is abundant, the wind blows constantly and there
is a place for sand to be deposited. They are continually reshaped over time
and support diverse vegetation. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Lake
Michigan and Grand Sable Dunes National Lakeshore, Lake Superior are
particularly striking examples of sand dunes. Rating D
• Bedrock and cobble beaches are rocky beaches shaped by wave and ice
erosion. These rocky shorelines contain rare mosses, lichens, and thin-soiled
plants. Acidic bedrock beaches intergrade into coastal gneissic rocklands in
Georgian Bay. Rating D
Unconsotidated shore bluffs are primarily composed of unconsolidated clay, till,
or other sediments, and provide a fascinating geological record of the history of
the area. Some shore bluffs, such as the Scarborough Bluffs on Lake Ontario,
are home to rare plants such as Indian Paintbrush, Yellow Lady's-slipper, and
Queen's Lady-slipper. Rating C
• The ancient acidic rocks of the Algonquin Arch are made mostly of a banded
rock called gneiss. These areas thus make up the coastal gneissic rocklands
and are home to several threatened species such as Prairie Warblers and
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake. Rating C
• Limestone cliffs and talus slopes dominate the Niagara Escarpment. Extensive
forests associated with the cliffs play host to many forest interior birds. The
10 SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
slopes themselves contain a mix of many rare and unusual species of plants.
Rating B
Lakeplain prairies consist of deep soil on which a variety of tall grasses and
flowers grow. Some of the best examples of prairie are found along Saginaw
Bay, western Lake Erie, and the St. Clair River Delta. Rating F
Sand barrens are areas of deep sands with scattered oak and pine trees. They
are defined by poor soils and frequent, intense fires. Both types of barrens are
found in northern Wisconsin and on the southern and eastern Lake Michigan.
Rating D
Arctic-alpine disjunct communities are isolated pockets along the north shore of
Lake Superior. These communities are home to rare plants adapted to severe
weather and isolated, due to glacial retreat, from their primary range. Rating B
Atlantic coastal plain disjunct communities occur only in sand or peaty shore with
fluctuating water levels. Many of these plants are rare or threatened at the local
level, and are vulnerable to shoreline developments and stabilized water levels.
They are concentrated around the southern end of Lake Michigan. Rating C
Shoreline alvars in North America occur only within the Great Lakes basin. They
are naturally occurring areas of thin soil over limestone or marble bedrock.
Many of the communities that alvar habitats support are considered by the
Nature Conservancy to be globally rare. Major alvar areas include Corden
Plains and Napanee Plains of southern Ontario. Rating F
Thousands of islands exist within the Great Lakes. Because of their isolation,
they are primary nesting sites for gulls, cormorants, terns, herons, and egrets.
Islands are scattered throughout the Great Lakes. Rating C
In terms of rates of change, limestone cliffs were found to be improving and arctic
alpine areas were found to be stable. In contrast, lakeplain prairies and shoreline
alvars were found to be severely degrading. The 8 others were ranked as moderately
degrading.
Each individual lake was also evaluated according to four indicators: loss of significant
ecological communities and species, interruption of shoreline processes by lake edge
armoring, representation of coastal biodiversity within protected and stewarded areas,
and gains in biodiversity investment habitats protected through public ownership or
policy. Lake Superior was rated "good" for all indicators except gains in biodiversity,
while indicators for the remaining lakes were considered mostly mixed/deteriorating or
poor.
Over all, the evaluation shows the land near the lakes to be significantly degraded and
SOLEC '96 - Highlights 11
-------
continuing to degrade. This lead the evaluators to conclude that existing efforts to
protect the nearshore lands from the impacts of human activities are inadequate.
The authors of the SOLEC '96 paper conclude that the most pressing need is a
conservation strategy for Great Lakes coastal areas that protects ecologically
significant areas and restores degraded ecosystems back to health. A key element of
this is seen to be focusing efforts to protect ecosystems within 19 geographic
"biodiversity investment areas" which have exceptionally unique and diverse species,
communities, and physical features. This would not be to the exclusion of protection
and restoration of other areas.
The authors also conclude that an effective conservation and management plan for the
nearshore terrestrial zone requires more than just the identification of threatened
ecosystems to be saved. Education, public participation, partnerships with private
landowners, information management, and cooperation between various agencies,
governments and jurisdictions are essential for healthy management of the Great Lakes
coastal lands.
12 SOLEC '96 - Highlights
-------
Impacts of Changing Land Use
In the near shore zone of the Great Lakes nothing affects ecosystem health more than
the way people use the land. In preparation for SOLEC '96, land use practices and
trends were reviewed and evaluated for their impact on the nearshore areas of the
lakes. The basic finding is that development of farm and natural lands in both urban
and rural areas presents the single largest threat to the basin ecosystem.
Further findings are that land use in coastal areas of the Great Lakes is changing in
response to the region's evolving economy and industrial restructuring as well as the
relentless forces of urban sprawl. The aesthetic and recreational attraction of the
shores is also spurring renewed public appreciation and use, in both urban waterfronts
and rural locations.
Since the end of World War II, residential and commercial development has moved
away from the city centers and into suburban areas replete with strip malls. The
central cities with rail transportation and multi-story buildings have given way to truck
transport, one story buildings, sprawling office parks and generally extravagant use of
land. For example, in northeastern Illinois, residential land use increased by
approximately 46% between 1970 and 1990 while population increased by only 4.1%.
This pattern has taken over vast stretches of land that were once either untouched or
used for agriculture. A spread out community increases transportation and
decentralizes industry. Where once there were enormous factories that stood several
stories high, we now see low-lying buildings that cover the same area horizontally as
the old ones did vertically. Former industrial areas abandoned in the move, now exist
by the thousands as brownfields throughout the basin. Brownfields are empty and
blighted, many housing sources of toxic pollution that thwart attempts to reclaim them
for some practical use.
Sprawling growth is not limited to the major metropolitan areas, but is occurring around
small towns as well, particularly where there are aesthetic attractions. The trend of our
relatively prosperous society to commute increasingly far to work and to acquire
second or "cottage country" homes is a management challenge for rural communities.
They must trade off the benefits from new developments against the ecological impacts
and other costs associated with growth or they must find ways to achieve sustainable
growth. In areas of rapid growth, it is sprawl that predominates rather than more
efficient forms of development. This form of growth results in greater conversion of
natural habitat areas including wetlands, increased surface and groundwater pollution,
and continuing air quality reduction associated with extensive use of auto and truck
transport.
Agriculture also has a major impact on the land and water, covering 24% of the area of
the basin. As populations have expanded, farmers have intensified their food
production and changed the manner in which the soil is tilled. Erosion depletes the
soil resource and causes problems in the water. It clouds the waters preventing
SOLEC '96 • Highlights 13
-------
sunlight from reaching submerged plants and injuring fish populations and the
creatures they eat. It also buries valuable habitat.
Chemicals can also be a of concern. The World Wildlife Fund estimated 26 million kg
of pesticides are used annually in the Great Lakes basin. Some of these chemicals are
non-target specific and persistent, staying in the waters and the soil for a long time,
possibly harming native plants and animals. Fortunately, usage of chemicals is
declining due to the development of more effective, target-specific, and less persistent
compounds and the adoption of innovative pest management strategies.
Farm animals can also cause serious impacts on land and waters. The domestic animal
population in the Great Lakes basin produces an estimated 80 million tons of manure
each year and has become concentrated in larger operations. Large amounts of
manure from animal concentrations degrades water quality through runoff and related
phosphorus loadings as well as nitrate leaching into groundwater. Although numerous
farms reuse the manure for fertilizer, the production has far outstripped the need.
Each of these sources alone might not cause a serious impact upon the lakes. But
when all of these them act in concert, there are serious implications for the land by the
lakes. Water is being fed large amounts of nutrients from agricultural runoff. Toxins
are leaching into the ground water from road ways and abandoned industrial sites. The
shorelines are disappearing under armoring as new harbors and stormwalls are built.
Individually, the resilience of the Lakes might be able to handle each problem.
However it is the combination of all that is most destructive.
The SOLEC '96 background paper on changing land use evaluated several indicators
related to categories of desired outcomes: efficient urban development, the protection
of human health the protection of natural resources. Each of these was described in
terms of their present state, the likely changes given current trends, the data used to
evaluate these indicators and the quality of the data available. In general, most of the
indicators were considered to be in mixed or poor condition with some trends
improving. Those with improving trends include wastewater quality, air pollution levels,
pollution prevention programs, and energy use. However, other indicators, such as
traffic congestion, wetland habitat, and suburban land conversion, show deteriorating
trends.
The SOLEC '96 paper on land use also suggests ways to develop more ecologically
sound cities. Public transportation networks can be enhanced to reduce the number of
cars on the road. Environmentally sensitive agricultural practices are being developed
and can be adopted. In some Great Lakes harbors, such as Toronto and Cleveland ,
Ohio, redevelopment efforts along the harborfront are underway. New recreational,
commercial, and residential uses for waterfronts and port facilities have revitalized the
cities located along the coasts. Low-impact uses of shoreline land, such as
recreational walkways or light commercial development, can improve both the urban
and natural landscape. Land-use planners should look at such redevelopment efforts
as models for the future.
14 SOLEC'96 - Highlights
-------
In addition to these efforts, future land-use planning and development must become
more creative, coordinated and regionally focused. In the United States, planning has
traditionally been done at the local level, and neighboring municipalities sometimes
have vastly different goals. As a result, U.S. efforts have been fragmented and
disjointed. In addition, the present incentives of relatively low market prices for
agricultural and natural lands, and the ease of conversion of those lands to other uses,
encourage the low-density development of sprawl.
To preserve the Great Lakes nearshore ecosystem, an ecoregional approach to
planning and development should be adopted. Conservation easements, the transfer
of development rights, the purchase of development rights, improved transportation
systems, cluster developments, financial incentives and new tax regulations all can be
employed to make land use in the Great Lakes nearshore ecosystem more ecologically
sound. Sustainable and regional land-use planning systems can control urban sprawl,
enhance economic development, protect the environment and improve human quality
of life.
Finally, improved awareness of the relationship between land use and the nearshore
ecosystem through education and open public discussion is essential and a good
starting point for the effort.
SOLEC '96 - Highlights 15
-------
Information and Information Management
Although the Canadian and U.S. governments are committed to an ecosystem
approach to management of the Great Lakes, without data to adequately assess
ecosystems, the approach will falter. One of the most valuable functions of the State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference is to bring this information together for people
involved in Great Lakes decisions. The reports on nearshore waters, the land by the
lakes, coastal wetlands and land use summarize and analyze available data on the
nearshore zone. In addition, studies on everything from commercial fish harvests to
drinking water quality are regularly conducted on both sides of the border. An
extensive appendix that lists sources of known available information according to
subject areas and sponsoring agencies or institutions is presented in the background
paper on Information and Information Management prepared for SOLEC. The appendix
describes the purpose and content of each database.
Timely access to reliable data is critical for determining not only the past and current
state of nearshore ecosystems, but also for defining and achieving future ecosystem
management goals. To be most useful for ecosystem assessment, data should be
directly related to indicators chosen to reflect ecosystem states. Unfortunately, widely
agreed-upon indicators for measuring the state of the nearshore do not exist. Such
indicators would help define the type of information needed and enhance the value of
the information for making decisions. Without those indicators, it is unclear what the
data we do have tell us. Vast quantities of data do exist regarding the physical,
chemical and biological components of the Great Lakes ecosystem, but for
system-wide analyses data must not only give information that is ecologically relevant,
but it must also be in forms which are consistent and comparable across the entire
Great Lakes and over time. Yet because data have generally been collected for limited
purposes by individual agencies, its value in system wide assessments are
questionable. Two problems must be addressed: how to make the best use of available
data to allow wise resource decisions, and how to insure that future monitoring and
research are designed with the needs of an ecosystem approach to management in
mind.
The optimal data for evaluating the nearshore zone would :
• be geographically complete;
• cover the entire Great Lakes nearshore area;
• be current;
• be part of ongoing monitoring programs which cover a long enough period to
allow for comparisons over time and are regularly updated;
• be applicable, and collected to measure specific ecosystem indicators;
16 SOLEC '96 • Highlights
-------
* be accessible and usable, having multiple applications related to several
indicators.
Existing information was evaluated in preparation for SOLEC according to these criteria
and found to be only "fair." Just a few data sets cover the entire Great Lakes shoreline.
Most are lake specific. Data collected as part of coordinated binational efforts under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Lakewide Management Plans, Great Lakes
International Surveillance Plan) are the most complete. Unfortunately, a number of
these efforts have been ended in recent years, and few new Great Lakes-wide
initiatives are in the offing. Some long term programs, such as water level monitoring
are up-to-date, but much data are collected on a one-time basis for specific purposes,
and quickly become out-of-date. In addition, since data are rarely coordinated with
ecosystem indicators, their applicability and usability is only fair.
Even if standard ecosystem indicators could be selected and data gaps remedied, a
daunting task remains: information management. Information management involves
the collection, storage, manipulation and transfer of information and data. Today's age
of fast computers and networking technology provides a means for accessing
information instantly. Yet, anyone who has spent time surfing the World Wide Web
knows that gigabytes of information in cyberspace do no good without the knowledge of
what the information is all about and where or how to access them. This is especially
true with scientific research.
Standard methods for collecting, storing and maintaining Great Lakes data should be
developed and made consistent across a range of computer systems in use in the
region. One way to do this, recommended by the SOLEC background paper on
information management, is a database on the World Wide Web that contains
references for all available Great Lakes data. The data itself need not actually be
located there. Instead details about a data set or information holding, or "metadata"
would be used. Decision-makers and scientists from all over the basin would then be
able to query from their own offices and learn where information exists about a given
nearshore topic. By forming a partnership using some already established web sites,
such as the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) or the Great Lakes Information
Management Resource (GLIMR), and the Great Lakes National Protection Office
(GLNPO) website, data could be organized in such a way to make the task of
protecting and understanding the Great Lakes more rational and manageable.
The information age offers an enormous opportunity for sharing, storing, collecting and
analyzing scientific data. If people who manage ecologically relevant information
throughout the Great Lakes basin can work with those who use ecosystem indicators to
inform their decision-making, much more can be done to aid in the preservation and
management of the unique ecosystems of the basin.
SOLEC '96 - Highlights 17
------- |