The SOLEC Indicator
Day 2 Edition: Thursday, October 22, 1998
INDICATORS FOR GREAT LAKES HEALTH
Dear SOLEC Delegates:
Our second newsletter reports on the first day of
SOLEC 98. You will notice when you look inside
that we have concentrated mostly on the workshops,
rather than reporting on the plenary proceedings.
And, you will note, that the workshop proceedings
are very abbreviated: the "top three" highlights of
your collective deliberations. The workshops were
recorded in much greater detail than is provided here.
What we are giving you here is just a glimpse into
your "top of mind" responses.
And, you were clear in your messages .... BASIN-
WIDE INDICATORS ARE MUCH NEEDED
AND NECESSARY, but... are these the right ones?
And, you stressed the need to communicate to
various audiences (please see "Basin Wide Indicator
Overview session — Communications Triangle on
page 3.); that there appear to be too many indicators;
and yet we'll have a challenge to agree on which ones
to drop. Discussions ranged from high level process
talks, to detailed discussion by indicator number. We
identified some "forgotten" indicators, some which
cross cut into other areas — such as phosphorus.
Several sessions were very full — human health
attracted the most delegates. Interestingly, early
registrations showed that the Introduction to
Indicators session would be fully attended — and yet
only 16 participated - thanks to Paul Betram and
Nancy Stadler-Salt for an excellent overview in the
morning plenary!
So, we're off to a great start. You may think we've
only scratched the surface in the indicator discussions
but we have a full day today to look at the indicators
from a lake wide perspective. On behalf of the
SOLEC organizers, we thank you for your
participation, and we are looking forward to the
results of today's deliberations.
Sincerely,
The Highlights were put together by
members of SOLEC's Steering Committee.
These people met last night and shared
common findings and key themes.
• The need for clear, up front goals, as to what
these indicators are trying to show. There is need
for clarity on the overall purpose of why we're
developing indicators: Who is the audience?
What are these indicators intended to do?
• The need for some sort of tiered or organized
structure for the indicators e.g. by scale or by
audience needs.
• Linkages both within and between indicator
categories are needed.
• Endpoints — the need for refinement, specifics,
clarity.
WHAT'S INSIDE
SOLEC 94 and 96 Update
Opening Plenary
Basin-wide Overview
Dr. Bill Rees
Open Waters
Nearshore Waters
Coastal Wetlands
Land Use
Human Health
Crossword
Stewardship
Nearshore Terrestrial
Paul Horvatin
Co-Chair
HIGHLIGHTS
Harvey Shear,
Co-Chair
-------
The SOLEC Indicator
SOLEC 98
BACK TO OUR ROOTS - The PARTIES
COMMITMENT TO THE GREAT LAKES
WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT...
Ron Shimizu and Peter Wise — gave a stimulating
retrospective — about the history of the GLWQA and
its meaning. Ron stressed that developing indicators
is more timely and relevant than ever - that the
ecosystem approach requires a broader perspective
than just water quality. He stated that we need more
advanced management practices and noted the
significance of these practices since 1987 -e.g.
pollution prevention, sustainable development,
biodiversity, ecosystem health, and exotic species.
"The Great Lakes are a priceless resource that has
suffered much abuse, and in the last 26 years has
become a model for change that other nations are
looking to replicate."
-------
SOLEC 98
The SOLEC Indicator
BASIN-WIDE INDICATOR OVERVIEW
Adele Freeman, Facilitator
1. All comments that have been provided
should be considered in the next steps. A
major concern is that some of the
information will not be considered.
2. All current work is very much
appreciated. Nevertheless, there is still a
lot of work to do.
3. Current categorization is good but there is
a need for a cross-categorization including
linkage to beneficial use.
Big theme between two sessions: Regroup
indicators by scale and by audience.
BASIN-WIDE INDICATOR OVERVIEW
Suzanne Barrett, Facilitator
1. We need well-defined end points to focus
the key indicators which can be reported.
Stressor and activity (response) indicators
are useful but they are not end points.
2. There is a need to "know your audience"
- to understand which indicators are
relevant to general public, government
managers, and monitoring scientists etc.
Indicators need to MOTIVATE and
encourage individual behavior. Don't
lose the richness of information provided
by the suite of indicators.
3. When considering end points, the
question of SCALE becomes very
important: are the end-points local in
scale, lake by lake, or basin wide?
Note that many of the proposed indicators are at
the local (canoe-view) scale.
Few
Indicators
Many
Indicators
Media
and
General
Public
Policy-Makers
Managers
Scientists
Focus and
Motivate
Public
Attention
and Action
PYRAMID OF AUDIENCES
Richness of
data
mandate for
good
science
Patch-Disturbance Species: Any organism
which, usually by central place foraging,
degrades a small "central place" greatly and
disturbs a much larger area away from this
central core to a lesser extent. (Human
beings are a particularly adaptive, highly
innovative, and therefore competitively
successful patch-disturbance species.)
- Dr. William Rees Key Note Address, SOLEC 98 -
Wednesday's key note speaker, Dr. William Rees,
delivered an energized and thought-provoking
address titled "Where on Earth is the Great Lakes
Basin?" Contrasting the economic world view
with the environmental world view, Dr. Rees
identified humans as a "patch-disturbance
species" (see definition above) whose
consumptive habits are supported by a massive
ecological deficit. His ecological footprint
analysis translates our consumption habits into a
land area measure — a "footprint" which reflects
the area required to support that consumption.
The Great Lakes Basin population generates an
ecological footprint half the area of the lower
forty-eight states (or 10 ha per person).
(Insert picture of footprint)
-------
The SOLEC Indicator
SOLEC 98
OPEN WATERS I and II - Tom Hersey,
Helen Domske, Facilitators
1. Keep ecosystem objectives in focus and
reduce the list of indicators to a more
manageable number.
2. We must understand the relationships
between state indicators and pressure
indicators.
3. Agency dollars need to be allocated to
accomplish goals.
4. Endpoints need to be better researched,
and must include peer review.
NEARSHORE WATERS - Tija Luste, E.
Marie Phillips & Marcia Damato,
Facilitators
Common themes from Nearshore Waters I, II &
IV:
1. Overall, the purpose of the indicators is still
unclear.
2. More specifics and refinement are needed
regarding scope and targets for indicators (e.g.
exotics — not just sea lanprey; fish entrainment
should not stand alone).
3. Prioritized/tiered/nested indicators would
help focus and tie actions together, and avoid
competing or contradictory indicators (e.g.
dams to control sea lamprey, but would also
fragment fish diversity).
4. In terms of next steps: I) need to market
indicators, get buy-in and start now; ii) there is
concern that the basin-wide indicators will
displace other established monitoring
programs; iii) need a reality check on
feasibility of collecting data; some indicators
may be appropriate for research at a small
scale, but not realistic for basin-wide
monitoring.
COASTAL WETLANDS I - Sheila Greene,
Facilitator
1. Most important indicator is 4510 -
wetland area by type. Critical indicator
basin wide and binationally. All in
agreement. (Natural and human induced
changes included).
2. Group proposed having a tiered structure
for looking at indicators — look at basin-
wide view and then more narrowed (site
specific). If you see a trend in tier 1, look
at tier II to see why.
3. Certain cross-cutting issues are of critical
importance to wetlands but have been
handled by other indicator groups, e.g.
wetland buffers, wetland dependant fish,
hardened shoreline.
COASTAL WETLANDS II
Eric Carlson, Facilitator
1. We need comparable methodologies for
basin-wide monitoring and data collection.
2. Wetlands-dependent fish communities are
distinct from nearshore fish communities.
("We want the fish back.")
3. Work needs to be done at the extensive and
intensive levels.
-------
SOLEC 98
The SOLEC Indicator
LAND USE I - Cathy Keenan, Facilitator
1. Make land use indicators relevant,
measurable, digestable, credible - so they
will be endorsed and implemented by
local land use decision-makers. (As well,
frame the indicators to highlight the costs
of urban sprawl).
2. Link land use with nearshore terrestrial,
stewardship. Make the links more clear
and do more exploration across indicator
categories.
3. What are the cumulative impacts of
population increase and land-use change
that municipalities are planning for the
next 20 years, i.e. extra few million in
GTA - "What is the big picture"?
LAND USE II - Cathy Keenan, Facilitator
1. Incorporate forestry and mining in
indicators — need simpler indicator of
state of land use e.g. forest cover, open
vs. impervious surfaces, land cover, etc.
2. Make the link between land use and
ecological footprint.
3. What are questions indicators are trying
to address? Need to start with a very
general framework.
Human Health I - Sandra Owens,
Facilitator
1. The group was not comfortable identifying
highlights due to the range of opinions and
issues raised.
2. There were many different views on the kinds
of indicators that would be appropriate:
indicators of effects (causal linkages) or
exposure; potential of exposure. As a result,
the discussion did not focus on the specific
indicators, but on broader questions - such as
what is the overall purpose of the indicators?
Targets or baseline values are needed to
measure against (i.e. values in humans, not
standards).
3. The group felt strongly that this was an
important activity, but that the session did not
provide enough time to answer the questions
adequately. It was suggested that a process of
some kind be set up to assess human health
indicators in a systematic, detailed way.
Human Health II - Sandra Owens &
Marcia Damato (Facilitators)
\. We need to put the indicators in a larger context to
increase understandability. Look at health
indicators in the context of North American
population (has not been useful to concentrate on
Great Lakes effects only).
2. Need to choose resilient indicators which are
independent of management and changing
resource decisions (e.g. beach closing data depends
on having monitoring in place). We need to adopt
indicators that have applicability across borders,
sectors, populations. This requires consistent data
collection methods so that data are "sharable",
comparable, usable over time, space, and social
structures.
3. We need indicators which treat the public as a
partner, and which lead to outreach, education,
buy-in, and partnerships. We need to be aware of
the communications opportunities and the
messages passed on through indicators. We must
not mislead people, and need to be sensitive to the
impact that communication of the indicators will
have.
-------
The SOLEC Indicator
SOLEC 98
SOLEC INDICATORS
activity
attainment
biological
chemical
criteria
data
data point
database
diagnostic
early warning
endpoint
environmental
Feasible
goal
illustration
indicator
limitations
measurement
milestone
monitoring
necessary
objective
Dhysical
pressure
response
.ounces
spectrum
state
stressors
sufficient
target
vision
Across
Down
3.
10.
11.
13.
17.
18.
Enough to
characterize
ecosystem
components
General description
of desired ecosytem
condition
Sensitive to
beginning
deterioration (2
words)
Interim target toward
objective
Example of indicator
presentation
Achievment of an
objective
20.
21.
24.
26.
27.
29.
30.
31.
Indicators to analyze
causes of ecosystem
status
Human response
Non-biological,
non-chemical
components of
ecosystem
Existing condition or
status of ecosystem
component
Human reaction to
status and pressure
indicators
Recorded
measurements
Stressor
Within the realm of
possibility
1. Indicator based on
ecosystem measurement
2. Features restricting the
usefulness of an indicator
4. Set of guidelines for
indicator selection
5. Qualitative statement of
desired condition to be
attained
6. Single measurement value
(2 words)
7. Living ecosystem
components
8. Quantitative end point
9. Single quantitative
determination of status or
condition
12. Needed
13. Activity to collect
environmental data
14. Desired reference value
15. Statement of condition
needed to achieve goal
16. Things that influence the
status of ecosystem
components
19. Measureable evidence of
environmental quality or
trends
22. Ecosystem component
associated with biological
and physical
23. Computerized collection of
information
25. Series of indicator types
28. Origins of stressors
-------
SOLEC 98 The SOLEC Indicator
Update on SOLEC 94 and 96 - State of the Great Lakes
SOLEC is currently in a period of transition C changing from the ad hoc indicators developed and
used in SOLEC 94 and 96 to a more widely accepted suite of indicators being proposed at SOLEC
98. It was thought that rating the old indicators would lead to confusion. Therefore, presented in
this paper are brief updates on past SOLEC background papers without any indicator ratings.
Further details will be provided in the 1999 State of the Great Lakes report.
1. THE AQUATIC COMMUNITY
All Lakes are still undergoing changes in community structure due to the effects of invasive exotic
species and other anthropogenic factors.
1.1 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE:
Lake Superior
Lake Superior's lake trout population continues its recovery. However, deep-water cisco populations
are decreasing and the recovery of the lake herring population has halted.
Lake Michigan
Yellow perch and bloater chub populations are undergoing prolonged reproductive and recruitment
failure. Consequently, Lake Michigan's yellow perch fisheries are now at risk at various locations.
Lake Erie
Hexagenia abundance is increasing in Western Lake Erie, and stronger year-classes of yellow perch
and walleye have recently been observed. However, there are concerns about the stability of Lake
Erie fisheries due to multiple influences such as increasing densities of zebra and quagga mussels,
increasing water clarity, decreasing abundance of smelt, and increasing populations of round goby.
Lake Huron
The fish community of Lake Huron has become very stressed due to increased pressure from exotic
species, from pathogens introduced from hatchery stocks, and from an increasing incidence of
parasites. High abundance of sea lamprey (presumably from the St. Marys River) is suppressing
populations of burbot and lake trout. A new control program is beginning for the St. Marys River
that promises to reduce the abundance of parasitic phase of sea lamprey in Lake Huron. Bloater chub
recruitment is declining as well.
Lake Ontario
The biological productivity of Lake Ontario is returning to historic levels as a result of reduced
loadings of phosphorus from Lake Erie and Lake Ontario basin sources, together with effects of
zebra mussels. Ecosystem dynamics continue to shift as alewife, the principal prey for salmon and
trout, and Diporeia, an important benthic invertebrate (in eastern Lake Ontario at 25 to 50 m depth),
abundances decline, while lake trout reproduction continues to increase. More sightings of deepwater
sculpin (Myoxocephalus quadricornis), which was thought to be extirpated, have been reported.
-------
The SOLEC Indicator
SOLEC 98
1.2 SPECIES IN THE NEWS:
• Zebra and quagga mussels: Zebra and quagga mussels continue their range extensions in the
Great Lakes. Soft sediment colonization has become extensive.
• Ruffe: Ranges of this nuisance fish species in Lake Superior and Lake Huron appear to be
expanding.
• Round goby: The round goby continues to increase in abundance in the Great Lakes. Its rate of
increase in Lake Erie is more rapid than any other exotic species. Local densities in Lake Erie
have become so high that native sculpins are being displaced.
• Diporeia: Diporeia is an amphipod found in deep-water habitats of the Great Lakes and is an
important component of the food chain. Their decline in abundance has been most noticeable in
eastern Lake Erie where beds of quagga mussel have become established on soft sediments.
Diporeia decline has also been observed in the Bay of Quinte and eastern areas of Lake Ontario,
in southeastern Lake Michigan.
• Hexqgenia: The recovery of the mayfly of the genus Hexagenia in western Lake Erie is quite
dramatic. The mayfly recovery was observed in 1993 and showed major advances in 1996 and
1997.
2. NUTRIENTS
Concentrations of nutrients remain relatively stable throughout the open waters of the Great Lakes.
However, chlorophyll a concentrations, an indicator of biological productivity, are generally much
reduced, probably due to effects of zebra mussel infestations.
Total Phosphorus
Concentrations of total phosphorus in the open waters of the Great Lakes have remained nearly
stable since the mid-1980's. Observed concentrations in the western basin of Lake Erie continue to
fluctuate widely, while those in the central and eastern basins slightly exceed expected
concentrations based on annual target loadings of phosphorus. Concentrations in Lakes Superior,
Michigan, Huron, and Ontario are at or below expected levels.
Nitrate-Nitrite
Concentrations of nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen in 1996 and 1997 have generally remained stable from
those of previous years. A small increase was observed only for the eastern basin of Lake Erie.
Chlorophyll a
Summer chlorophyll a concentrations in 1996 were lower throughout the Great Lakes than were
observed from the mid-1980's to early-1990's. The reductions were especially evident for all three
basins of Lake Erie and for Lake Michigan.
-------
SOLEC 98 The SOLEC Indicator
3. TOXIC CONTAMINANTS
After a decade or more of decline, the concentration of some contaminants appears to be leveling
off whereas other contaminant concentrations are fluctuating. Concentrations of toxaphene-like
chemicals and mercury appear to be increasing in Lake Superior.
Mercury
• Concentrations of mercury in fish have not changed significantly for most of the Great Lakes in
the last decade. There is little difference in mercury levels for lake trout between Lakes. Mercury
levels in forage fish species such as smelt tend to be higher in the upper Great Lakes.
DDT
• Concentrations of DDT in fish have remained relatively stable for the last several years. DDT
levels are still highest in Lake Ontario fish and lowest in those of Lake Superior. There are
currently no fish consumption advisories for DDT in Great Lakes fish.
PCB
• Although total PCB concentrations in top predator fish (lake trout, salmon and walleye) remain
at levels approximately one-tenth that of their peak in the mid-1970's, concentrations are still so
high that fish consumption advisories remain in place for all five Great Lakes. Fluctuations in
PCB concentrations that have been observed in Lake Erie and Lake Michigan fish may be
caused by changes in the composition of the food web.
Toxaphene
• Elevated concentrations of toxaphene-like chemicals in fish from Lake Superior have caused fish
consumption advisories to be issued. Research is currently underway to investigate potential
sources and pathways for this group of chemicals to enter Great Lakes= food webs. Analysis of
current fish samples and retrospective analysis of archived samples has identified an increase in
Lake Superior lake trout toxaphene burdens since 1986.
4. NEARSHORE TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM
Upon reviewing the factors contributing to shoreline physical structure and the diversity of living
communities in the nearshore terrestrial ecosystem, the conclusion drawn at SOLEC 1996 was that
the health of the land by the lakes, nearshore terrestrial ecosystems, is degrading throughout the
Great Lakes. The situation two years later remains the same. However, there are a number of efforts
underway to help strengthen our understanding of ecosystem processes and functions in order to
better identify the requirements for protecting and restoring biodiversity:
• The Chicago Region Biodiversity Council produced The Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Atlas.
• The Ontario Natural Heritage Information Center published Rare Communities of Ontario:
Freshwater Coastal Dunes in their winter 1997-1998 newsletter.
-------
The SOLEC Indicator
SOLEC 98
The Ontario Natural Heritage Information Center has also tracked the status of the arctic-alpine
communities along the north shore of Lake Superior (1998).
The Federation of Ontario Naturalists and The Nature Conservancy's Great Lakes Program
convened at the Great Lakes Alvar Conservation Workshop.
The first State of the Great Lakes Islands Report compiled for the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes
Islands Project of Michigan State University is being released in the fall of 1998.
4. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The effects of urban sprawl and rural development continue to be dominant stresses on
the environment. Development pressure is still radiating outwards from city centers,
moving to rural areas encroaching onto fertile agricultural land. City centers are
suffering from deteriorating economies as a result and available agricultural land for
food production is shrinking. Wildlife populations and wetlands are being severely
affected by widespread development.
Population.
• Within the last two years the human population of Ontario has increased by almost seven
percent. This rate is much higher than that predicted at SOLEC 1996, i.e., a growth of 20%
over the next 20 years.
Development.
• Sprawl continues as the conversion of land to urban uses greatly exceeds the rate of
population growth. Automobile distances driven per capita and highway congestion increase
as sprawl continues.
5. HUMAN HEALTH
There is growing awareness of the endocrine disrupter issue.
• U.S. legislation in 1996 requires U.S. EPA to evaluate up to 80,000 chemicals for their ability to
act as endocrine disrupters. The Endocrine Disrupters Screening and Testing Advisory
Committee (EDSTAC) was formed, and a report was released in 1998. Recommendations were
proposed for developing a process to prioritize, screen and test chemicals for endocrine
disrupting activity.
There is strengthening evidence of the relationship between ambient air pollution and health effects
as measured by cardiorespiratory hospital admission.
-------
SOLEC 98
The SOLEC Indicator
STEWARDSHIP - Joanna Kidd, Facilitator
Animated discussions were held on stewardship
indicators. Many suggestions were made on
indicators, metrics, ways to improvement
communication, and potential next steps to further
develop indicators.
Stewardship I
1. There is a need to develop a clear definition of
the partnerships we are talking about — they are
focused on achieving sustainability and ecosystem
integrity in a particular ecosystem-based
geographic location (e.g. a watershed).
2. Stewardship indicators need to operate at varying
scales, and for both the horizontal and vertical
axis (across landscapes and upwards to
government agencies).
3. There is an opportunity to integrate stewardship
indicators with those developed by the indicator
core groups.
Stewardship II
1. Effective partnership organizations are those
that: provide individuals with an opportunity to
be involved; encourage individuals to take
responsibility for their actions; and foster the
respect of other participants.
2. Indicators that measure place-based partnerships
are necessary, but not sufficient to capture all
aspects of sustainability.
3. The stewardship indicators need to be packaged
in a way to inspire pride and encourage action by
individuals and organizations..
4. Metrics should measure change in individuals
over time (awareness/beliefs/actions).
NEARSHORE TERRESTRIAL I - Vicki
Barron, Facilitator
1. The proposed indicators represent a good
start however, the participants did not
consider in their comments and input the
issues of implementation and feasibility.
These need to be considered after indicators
are more focused.
2. The indicators need to be focused (selecting
species, etc.) and cross-referencing needs to
take place both within the terrestrial
indicators as well as between indicator
groups.
3. Next steps - the indicators could be divided
by topics and fine tuned with agencies that
are active in the topic to test pilot the
implementation.
NEARSHORE TERRESTRIAL II -
Barron, Facilitator
Vicki
1. Generally speaking the proposed indicators
are good. However, it appears there is
overlap in indicators both within the
nearshore terrestrial as well as with other
workshop topics.
2. The indicators are not, and are not meant to
be, proactive and responsive. However,
some prioritization should take place in
recognition of impending change.
Management programs are not stemming the
loss of the nearshore terrestrial environment.
3. We lack a comprehensive and systematic
inventory of the nearshore terrestrial
environment.
-------
The SOLEC Indicator
SOLEC 98
QUOTES
From the Recorder to the facilitator — "where is
everybody?"
"The stewardship indicators are on an intellectual
plane that is too high for the public to grasp."
"A good indicator will draw money" David
Rockwell
"If you measure it, they will come" —Joe De
Pinto
"We agree to delete mink (laughter)— not the
species, but the indicator!" (CW)
"Just because there are programs for monitoring
in place, it doesn't mean they are the right
indicators" — Dave Ullrich
"Wetlands are the indicator of Great Lakes
ecosystem health".
"There is a danger when you use language to
describe a system — ecosystem does not pause
out like the English language".
"What we need in economic terms, is an "index"
made up indicators, made up of measurements".
------- |