State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
Selection of Indicators
for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health
Version 4
Prepared by:
Paul Bertram
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Nancy Stadler-Salt
Environment Canada
March 2000
-------
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
Selection of Indicators
for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health
Version 4
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
March 2000
To download additional copies of this paper please visit our websites:
http://www.cciw.ca/solec/
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
-------
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 4
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 SOLEC Indicators List - Version 3 8
3.4 State of the Great Lakes 1999 8
3.5 SOLEC Indicators List - Version 4 8
3.6 Where Do We Go From Here? 9
3.7 The SOLEC Indicators Database 9
4.0 Indicator Core Groups 10
4.1 Nearshore and Open Waters 10
4.1.1 The Indicator Selection Process 11
4.1.2 Open and Nearshore Waters Indicators 11
4.2 Coastal Wetlands 14
4.2.1 The Indicator Selection Process 15
4.2.2 Problems / Unresolved Issues 15
4.2.3 Coastal Wetland Indicators 16
4.3 Nearshore Terrestrial 17
4.3.1 The Indicator Selection Process 17
4.3.2 Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators 18
4.4 Land Use 20
4.4.1 The Indicator Selection Process 20
4.4.2 Land Use Indicators 20
4.5 Human Health 21
4.5.1 The Indicator Selection Process 21
4.5.2 Human Health Indicators 23
4.6 Societal 24
4.6.1 The Indicator Selection Process 25
4.6.2 Societal Indicators 25
4.7 Unbounded Indicators 27
Appendix 1 Descriptor Information for Indicators in the SOLEC Indicator Suite
Appendix 2 Complete Listing of Indicators (entered into the database)
Appendix 3 Relevancies (or Alternate Indicator Groupings)
Appendix 4 Criteria
Appendix 5 The SOLEC Indicator Database
Appendix 6 Acronyms and Commonly UsedAbbreviations
Appendix 7 Referenced Documents
Appendix 8 SOLEC 2000 Organizational Structure (simplified)
Appendix 9 Comments and Responses
-------
Notice to Readers
This is the fourth version of the SOLEC report Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Health released by the SOLEC steering committee. The four versions of this report
represent a continuum of work on indicators for determining Great Lakes ecosystem health -
continuing the development, refinement and acceptance of a suite of Great Lakes indicators.
The concepts and ideas contained in this paper were first assembled for discussion at SOLEC
98 (October 21-23, 1998). The SOLEC deliberations were an important step in the process.
Participants reviewed the SOLEC 98 document prior to SOLEC and provided comments, specific
information and /or references during the breakout sessions, on the comment forms or directly to
the authors. These comments were considered during the preparation of the revised post-
conference SOLEC Indicator List (Version 3). Major changes included 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.
In Version 4 of Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, a few
indicators have been dropped, added or moved to another category, the short descriptions of
each indicator have been modified and individual indicators have been refined.
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, and
which the Parties can use to report status and trends every two
years. This suite of indicators will also be used to assess the Parties
progress toward achievement of the purpose and general objectives
of the GLWQA.
-------
SOLEC
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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4-
-------
Beginning with SOLEC 2000 and continuing for at least the next decade, progressively more
indicators will be reported at each conference until the entire suite is included. The indicators
presented in this report comprise the SOLEC indicators list for SOLEC 2000. The list should be
considered dynamic, and modifications and adjustments can be expected as the list evolves to
reflect better understanding of Great Lakes ecosystem functioning and human interactions with
and within the ecosystem.
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 overtime,
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.
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.
Endpoint Specific, attainable, quantitative target 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 endpoint or reference
- SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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.
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
StatePressureHuman 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 are intended to be generally applicable on a basin-wide or lake
basin scale. Lake-by-lake differences may exist in endpoints or reference values for some
indicators, but the indicators themselves should be relevant across lakes. Indicators of local
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 3
-------
conditions, as might be presented in Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern, are not the
focus for SOLEC. In addition, the indicators identified for SOLEC 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 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, and which the Parties can use to report status and trends every two years. This suite of
indicators will also be used to assess the Parties
progress toward achievement of the purpose and general
objectives 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 process has assembled 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 Goals and Objectives, and International
Joint Commission (IJC) 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.
- SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 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 ir~ITlU6nC6 TUtlirG
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 pffnrK
characterize the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem should foster
cost-efficient, standardized, and relevant monitoring programs.
...the SOLEC
Indicators List is
expected to
monitoring and
data gathering
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:
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 5
-------
Open waters;
Nearshore waters;
Coastal wetlands;
Nearshore 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
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.
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 list of documents used by the Core Groups.
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 3.7 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.
- SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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), 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
has continued 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 an 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 were 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 www.cciw.ca/solec/ or www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/).
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4-
-------
3.3 SOLEC Indicators List - Version 3
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.
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.
For each indicator in Version 3 of the Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health, a third party assessment against the SOLEC criteria was also undertaken. The results of
this assessment can be found in Appendix 4 of Version 3.
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, 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 was distributed for
broad review to a wide variety of stakeholders. It was reviewed from both a technical standpoint
and a policy standpoint in order to generate an understanding of the project, as well as getting
buy-in and commitment. Comments received from the review were used to generate Version 4 of
the indicator list and report. The majority of these comments, along with responses formulated by
the core groups, can be found in Appendix 9.
3.4 State of the Great Lakes 1999
The State of the Great Lakes reports are produced in an effort to tie together all the information
discussed at the SOLEC conferences. These reports are released about a year after the
respective conference. The 1999 State of the Great Lakes report was released in November
1999 and not only discussed the indicator process but also reported on 19 of the 80 indicators.
3.5 SOLEC Indicators List - Version 4
The major changes to the Indicator List are:
Indicator 72, Fish Entrainment, was removed from the list. This indicator has been
incorporated into indicators, Aquatic Habitat.
- SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Indicator 9001, Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration, was removed
from the list. This indicator was removed as it was not widely viewed as "necessary" in
order to determine the health of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
Indicator 9002, Exotic Species, was added. This indicator has been added as a
placeholder at this time to fill a gap in the previous indicator list. A more fleshed out
indicator is anticipated to be presented at SOLEC 2000.
A list of contaminants of common concern to most Great Lakes regions and ecosystem
components has been determined. These were derived from the priority or critical
contaminant lists from GLWQA, IADN, BNS, and the LaMPs. The list is intended to reflect
contaminants of a basin-wide concern.
The "Purpose" statements for each indicator have been modified to more correctly reflect
the intent of each indicator.
Some of the indicators have been revised based on comments received from the last
review - the most significantly revised indicators are included in the Nearshore and Open
Waters group.
The spreadsheet in Appendix 3 has been modified to better reflect the relevant links to
other works and environmental issues.
Some indicators have re-categorized within different SOLEC core groups, and some have
changed indicator types (pressure, state or human activity)
3.6 Where Do We Go From Here?
We've only just begun the journey! It is anticipated that there may be continual adjustments,
refinements and revisions either to individual indicators or to the list as a whole. The SOLEC
Indicators List is a living list. New emerging issues must be considered as they arise and
potentially the list expanded to include indicators of the issues.
The SOLEC Indicators List currently contains 79 indicators that together can be used to assess
the health of the major ecosystem components of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. However, for
many of the indicators more research or information is needed before the indicator can be used
and data collected for it. Buy-in and commitment to the process by the various Great Lakes
agencies and stakeholders is also necessary. This includes a commitment to monitoring and data
collection.
Data gathering efforts for some of the indicators are underway in order to assess and report on as
many indicators as is possible at SOLEC 2000 and in future State of the Great Lakes reports.
However, the 79 indicators are not organized to answer the questions most frequently asked by
the public: How is the water - is it safe to drink? How is the air - is it safe to breathe? How are the
fish - are they safe to eat? Therefore, for SOLEC 2000, the 79 indicators may be grouped and
reported on within environmental compartments and issues, such as: air, water, land, persistent
toxic chemicals, exotic species...
3.7 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
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 9
-------
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
"Under Consideration." After a decision about an indicator had been reached regarding its
inclusion on the SOLEC list, its status was changed to "Selected," "Not Selected," 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 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 that make
up 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, additional comments, and a list of other groupings for which the indicator is
relevant.
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 on
the database to make it more useable to a broader audience as well as making it more user
friendly. An interactive on-line version is expected to be available by fall 2000. Please check the
SOLEC websites 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," or contact one of the Core
Group leaders.
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." The definitions may be paraphrased
as follows:
10 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
The nearshore waters largely occupy 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...
Currently, the Nearshore and Open Waters indicator list contains 20 indicators (of which one
indicator, 8142, is also grouped with the Nearshore Terrestrial group).
4.1.2 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
Fish Habitat (Indicator #6)
This indicator will assess the quality and amount of aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes
ecosystem, and it will be used to infer progress in rehabilitating degraded habitat and
associated aquatic communities.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4-
11
-------
Salmon and Trout (Indicator #8)
This indicator will show trends in populations of introduced trout and salmon populations,
and it will be used to evaluate the potential impacts on native trout and salmon populations
and the preyfish populations that support them.
Walleye and Hexagenia (Indicator #9)
This indicator will show the status and trends in walleye and Hexagenia populations, and it
will be used to infer 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 #17)
This indicator will assess the abundance and diversity of preyfish populations, and it will
be used to infer the stability of predator species necessary to maintain the biological
integrity of each lake.
Native Unionid Mussels (Indicator #68)
This indicator will assess the population status of native Unionid populations, and it will be
used to infer the impact of the invading Dreissenid mussel on the Unionid mussel.
Lake Trout and Scud (Diporeia hoyi) (Indicator #93)
This indicator will show the status and trends in lake trout and scud populations, and it will
be used to infer the basic structure of coldwater predator and prey communities and the
general health of the ecosystem.
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in Nearshore Fish (lndicator#101)
This indicator will assess the combination of deformities, eroded fins, lesions and tumors
(DELT index) in nearshore fish, and it will be used to infer areas of degraded habitat within
the Great Lakes.
Benthos Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #104)
This indicator will assess species diversity and abundance in the aquatic oligochaete
community, and it will be used to infer the relative health of the benthic community.
Phytoplankton Populations (Indicator #109)
This indicator will assess the species and size composition of phytoplankton populations in
the Great Lakes, and it will be used to infer the impact of nutrient enrichment,
contamination and invasive exotic predators on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Zooplankton Populations (Indicator #116)
This indicator will assess characteristics of the zooplankton community, and it will be used
to infer over time changes in vertebrate or invertebrate predation, system productivity,
energy transfer within the Great Lakes, or other food web dynamics.
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment (Indicator #8142) - this indicator is also a Nearshore
Terrestrial indicator
This indicator will assess the amount of water and suspended sediment entering the Great
Lakes through major tributaries and connecting channels, and it will be used to estimate
the amount of sediment available for transport to nourish coastal ecosystems.
12 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
PRESSURE
Sea Lamprey (Indicator #18)
This indicator will estimate sea lamprey abundance and assess their impact on other fish
populations in the Great Lakes.
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (Indicator #111)
This indicator will assess the total phosphorus levels and loadings in the Great Lakes, and
it will be used to support the evaluation of trophic status and food web dynamics in the
Great Lakes.
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners (Indicator #114)
This indicator will assess the levels of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail
shiners, and it will be used to infer local areas of elevated contaminant levels and potential
harm to fish-eating wildlife.
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (Indicator #115)
This indicator will assess chemical concentration levels in a representative colonial
waterbird, and it will be used to infer the impact of these contaminants on colonial
waterbird physiology and population characteristics.
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals (Indicator #117)
This indicator will estimate the annual average loadings of priority toxic chemicals from the
atmosphere to the Great Lakes, and it will be used to infer potential impacts of toxic
chemicals from atmospheric deposition on the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as well as
to infer the progress of various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics
from the Great Lakes.
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters (Indicator #118)
This indicator will assess the concentration of priority toxic chemicals in offshore waters,
and it will be used to infer the potential impacts of toxic chemicals on the Great Lakes
aquatic ecosystem, as well as to infer the progress of various Great Lakes programs
toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores (Indicator #119)
This indicator will assess the concentrations of toxic chemicals in sediments, and it will be
used to infer potential harm to aquatic ecosystems by contaminated sediments, as well as
to infer 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 #120)
This indicator will estimate loadings of priority pollutants to the Great Lakes, and it will be
used to infer the potential harm these contaminants pose to human, animal and aquatic life
within the Great Lakes, as well as to infer the progress of various Great Lakes programs
toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Wastewater Pollution (Indicator #7059)
This indicator will assess the loadings of wastewater pollutants discharged into the Great
Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e.,
wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 13
-------
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".
Scale
For the purpose of SOLEC, the recommended indicators should be applicable basin-wide. The
IJC suggests that 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
14 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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.
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 actively seek out human
activities indicators.
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.
Currently there are 12 indicators in the Coastal Wetlands indicator list (one of which, 4861, is also
grouped in the Nearshore Terrestrial core group).
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).
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 have not been
explored.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 15
-------
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.
4.2.3 Coastal Wetland Indicators
STATE
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health (Indicator #4501)
This indicator will assess the diversity of the invertebrate community, especially aquatic
insects, and it will be used to infer habitat suitability and biological integrity of Great Lakes
coastal wetlands.
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (Indicator #4502)
This indicator will assess the fish community diversity, and it will be used to infer habitat
suitability for Great Lakes coastal wetland fish communities.
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in Coastal Wetland Fish (Indicator #4503)
This indicator will assess the combination of deformities, eroded fins, lesions and tumours
(DELT index) in fish of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, and it will be used to infer
ecosystem health of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #4504)
This indicator will assess the species composition and relative abundance of frogs and
toads, and it will be used to infer 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 assess the wetland bird species composition and relative abundance,
and it will be used to infer the condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to the health
of this ecologically and culturally important component of wetland communities.
16
- SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Coastal Wetland Area by Type (Indicator #4510)
This indicator will assess the periodic changes in area (particularly losses) of coastal
wetland types, taking into account natural variations.
Presence, Abundance and Expansion of Invasive Plants (Indicator #4513)
This indicator will assess the decline of vegetative diversity associated with an increase in
the presence, abundance, and expansion of invasive plants, and it will be used as a
surrogate measure of the quality of coastal wetlands which are impacted by coastal
manipulation or input of sediments.
PRESSURE
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (Indicator #4506)
This indicator will assess the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in
snapping turtle eggs, and it may be used to infer the extent of organochlorine chemicals
and mercury in food webs of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4516)
This indicator will assess the sediment load to coastal wetlands and its potential impact on
wetland health.
Nitrate and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4860)
This indicator will assess the amount of nitrate and total phosphorus flowing into Great
Lakes coastal wetlands, and it will be used to infer the human influence on nutrient levels
in the wetlands.
Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator #4861) - this is also a Nearshore Terrestrial indicator
This indicator will assess the lake level trends that may significantly affect components of
wetland and nearshore terrestrial ecosystems, and it will be used to infer the effect of
water level regulation on emergent wetland extent.
HUMAN ACTIVITY
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type (Indicator #4511)
This indicator will assess the amount of restored wetland area, and it will be used to infer
the success of conservation and rehabilitation efforts.
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 few reports 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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 17
-------
Currently, there are 14 indicators in the Nearshore Terrestrial indicator list, 2 of which are also
grouped in other core groups - 8142 is also grouped with the Nearshore and Open Waters
indicators, and 4861 is also grouped with the Coastal Wetlands 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.
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 "sentinel
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 kilometre of shore)
STATE
Indicators related to habitats:
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover (Indicator #8136)
This indicator will assess the amount of natural land cover that falls within 1 km of the
shoreline, and it will be used to infer the potential impact of artificial coastal structures,
including primary and 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 assess the changes in area and quality of the twelve special lakeshore
communities, and it will be used to infer the success of management activities associated
with the protection of some of the most ecologically significant habitats in the Great Lakes
terrestrial nearshore.
Nearshore Land Use (Indicator#8132)
This indicator will assess the types and extent of major land uses within 1 km from shore,
and it will be used to identify real or potential impacts of land use on significant natural
features or processes, particularly on the twelve special lakeshore communities.
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.
18 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment (Indicator #8142) - this is also a Nearshore Waters
Indicator
This indicator will assess the amount of water and suspended sediment entering the Great
Lakes through major tributaries and connecting channels, and it will be used to estimate
the amount of sediment available for transport to nourish coastal ecosystems.
PRESSURE
Indicators related to physical stressors:
Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator #4861) - this is also a Coastal Wetland indicator
This indicator will assess the lake level trends that may significantly affect components of
wetland and nearshore terrestrial ecosystems, and it will be used to infer the effect of
water level regulation on emergent wetland extent.
Extent of Hardened Shoreline (Indicator #8131)
This indicator will assess the amount of pQr the purposes of applying
shoreline habitat altered by the construction r r rr J ^
these indicators, the nearshore
terrestrial environment was
defined as those lands within
approximately one kilometer of
the Great Lakes shoreline.
of shore protection, and it will be used to
infer the potential harm to aquatic life in the
nearshore as a result of conditions (i.e.,
shoreline erosion) created by habitat
alteration.
Artificial Coastal Structures (Indicator #8146)
This indicator will assess the number of
artificial coastal structures on the Great Lakes, and it will be used to infer potential harm to
coastal habitat by disruption of sand transport.
Indicators related to biological stressors:
Nearshore Plant and Animal Problem Species (Indicator #8134)
This indicator will assess the type and abundance of plant and wildlife problem species in
landscapes bordering the Great Lakes, and it will be used to identify the potential for
disruption of nearshore ecological processes and communities.
Indicators related to chemical stressors:
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles (Indicator #8135)
This indicator will assess number of fledged young, number of developmental deformities,
and the concentrations of organic and heavy metal contamination in Bald Eagle eggs,
blood, and feathers. The data will be used to infer the potential harm to other wildlife and
human health through the consumption of contaminated fish.
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter (Indicator #8147)
This indicator will assess the contaminant concentrations found in American otter
populations within the Great Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer the presence and
severity of contaminants in the aquatic food web of the Great Lakes.
HUMAN ACTIVITIES (RESPONSE)
Community / Species Plans (Indicator #8139)
This indicator will assess the number of plans that are needed, developed, and
implemented to protect, maintain or restore high quality, natural nearshore communities
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 19
-------
and federally listed endangered, threatened, and vulnerable species. This indicator will be
used to infer the degree of human stewardship toward these communities and species.
Shoreline Management Under Integrated Management Plans (Indicator #8141)
This indicator will assess the amount of Great Lakes shoreline managed under an
integrated management plan, and it will be used to infer the degree of stewardship of
shoreline processes and habitat.
Protected Nearshore Areas (Indicator #8149)
This indicator will assess the kilometers/miles of shoreline in six classes of protective
status. This information will be used to infer 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 habitat
links in the migration (lifecycle) of birds and butterflies.
4.4 Land Use
4.4.1 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 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.
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. source of environmental
Currently, there are eight indicators grouped in the Land Stress in the Great Lakes
Use core group.
Poor land use is a major
basin ecosystem.
4.4.2 Land Use Indicators
STATE
Urban Density (Indicator #7000)
This indicator will assess the human population density in the Great Lakes basin, and it
will be used to infer the degree of inefficient land use and urban sprawl for communities in
the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #7055)
This indicator will provide an index of 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.
20 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Habitat Fragmentation (Indicator #8114)
This indicator will assess the amount and distribution of natural habitat remaining within
Great Lakes ecoregions, and it will be used to infer the effect of human land uses such as
housing, agriculture, flood control, and recreation on habitat needed to support fish and
wildlife species.
PRESSURE
Land Conversion (Indicator#7002)
This indicator will assess the changes in land use within the Great Lakes basin, and it will
be used to infer the potential impact of land conversion on Great Lakes ecosystem health.
Mass Transportation (Indicator #7012)
This indicator will assess the percentage of commuters using public transportation, and it
will be used to infer 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.
HUMAN ACTIVITIES (Response)
Brownfield Redevelopment (Indicator #7006)
This indicator will assess the acreage of redeveloped brownfields, and it will be used over
time to evaluate the rate at which society rehabilitates and reuses former developed land
sites that have been degraded by poor use.
Sustainable Agriculture Practices (Indicator #7028)
This indicator will assess the number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans, and
it will be used to infer environmentally friendly practices in place, such as integrated pest
management to reduce the unnecessary use of pesticides, zero tillage and other soil
preservation practices to reduce energy consumption, and prevention of ground and
surface water contamination.
Green Planning Process (Indicator #7053)
This indicator will assess the number of municipalities with environmental and resource
conservation management plans in place, and it will be used to infer the extent to which
municipalities utilize environmental standards to guide their management decisions with
respect to land planning, resource conservation and natural area preservation.
4.5 Human Health
4.5.1 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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 21
-------
...it is clear that no single
indicator is adequate to
establish associations and
trends between human health
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
were chosen which, as a whole, serve to monitor
human health as it relates to the Great Lakes
environment. The indicators chosen are by no . . pnw:rnnmpnt
means exhaustive but represent an initial effort at ana ine environment.
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) 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. Currently, there are nine indicators in the Human Health indicators list.
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.
22 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
4.5.2 Human Health Indicators
STATE
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence (Indicator #4179)
This indicator will assess geographical and temporal patterns in disease incidences in the
Great Lakes basin population, and it will also b e used to identify areas where further
investigation of the exposure and effects of environmental pollutants on human health is
needed.
PRESSURE (Indicators of Exposure)
Contaminants in Recreational Fish (Indicator #0113)
This indicator will assess the levels of PBT chemicals in fish, and it will be used to infer the
potential harm to human health through consumption of contaminated fish.
E. co//and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore Recreational Waters (Indicator #4081)
This indicator will assess coliform contaminant levels in nearshore recreational waters,
acting as a surrogate indicator for other pathogen types, and it will be used to infer
potential harm to human health through body contact with nearshore recreational waters.
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue (Indicator #4083)
This indicator will assess the concentration of persistent, bioaccumulating, toxic (PBT)
chemicals in Great Lakes fish, and it will be used to infer 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 it will be
used to evaluate 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 assess the chemical and microbial contaminant levels in drinking water,
and it will be used to evaluate the potential for human exposure to drinking water
contaminants and the efficacy of policies and technologies to ensure safe drinking water.
Air Quality (Indicator #4176)
This indicator will monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem, and it will be used
to infer the potential impact of air quality on human health in the Great Lakes basin.
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue (Indicator #4177)
This indicator will assess the concentration of PBT chemicals in human tissues, and it will
be used to infer the efficacy of policies and technology to reduce PBT chemicals in the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Radionuclides (Indicator #4178)
This indicator will assess the concentrations of artificial radionuclides in cow's milk,
surface water, drinking water, and air, and it will be used to estimate the potential for
human exposure to artificial radionuclides.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 23
-------
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.
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.
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.
...stewardship activities are
intended to achieve a sustainable
future a balance between
environmental integrity, economic
viability, and social well-being.
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. It is anticipated that a full suite of Societal indicators will be
presented at SOLEC 2000. Some of these indicators will include examples of their applications.
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 - one 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
24
- SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 requires 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.
4.6.1 The Indicator Selection Process
Stewardship Indicators
This approach assumes that the existence of 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 but belonged
in a group looking at indicators of society. 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.
4.6.2 Societal Indicators
STATE
Aesthetics (Indicator #7042)
This indicator will assess the amount of waste and decay around human activities in the
Great Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer 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 assess the unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin, and it will
be used in association with other Societal indicators to infer the capacity for society in the
Great Lakes region to make decisions that will benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 25
-------
PRESSURE
Water Withdrawal (Indicator #7056)
This indicator will assess the amount of water used in the Great Lakes basin per capita,
and it will be used to infer the amount of wastewater generated and the demand for
resources to pump and treat water.
Energy Consumption (Indicator #7057)
This indicator will assess the amount of energy consumed in the Great Lakes basin per
capita, and it will be used to infer the demand for resource use, the creation of waste and
pollution, and stress on the ecosystem.
Solid Waste Generation (Indicator #7060)
This indicator will assess the amount of solid waste generated per capita per capita in the
Great Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer inefficiencies in human economic activity
(i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem
health.
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.
26 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 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 organizational 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
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #8150)
This indicator will assess the status of breeding bird populations and communities, and it
will be used to infer the health of breeding bird habitat in the Great Lakes basin.
Threatened Species (Indicator #8161)
This indicator will assess the number, extent and viability of threatened species, which are
key components of biodiversity in the Great Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer the
integrity of ecological processes and systems (e.g., sand accretion, hydrologic regime)
within Great Lakes habitats.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 27
-------
PRESSURE
Acid Rain (Indicator #9000)
This indicator will assess the pH levels in precipitation and critical loadings of sulphate to
the Great Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer the efficacy of policies to reduce sulphur
and nitrogen acidic compounds released to the atmosphere.
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms (Indicator #4519)
This indicator will assess the number "extreme storms" each year, and it will be used to
infer the potential impact on ecological components of the Great Lakes of increased
numbers of storms due to climate change.
Global Warming: First Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4857)
This indicator will assess the change over time in first emergence dates of water lilies as a
sentinel of climate change affecting the Great Lakes.
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes (Indicator #4858)
This indicator will assess the temperature and accompanying physical changes to each
lake over time, and it will be used to infer potential impact of climate change on wetlands.
Exotic Species (Indicator #9002)
This indicator will assess the presence, abundance and distribution of invasive exotic
species in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem and their impacts on ecosystem functioning.
This indicator is under development. It has been added to the SOLEC list in response to
suggestions from multiple reviewers of the Version 3 list of SOLEC indicators.
28 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Appendix 1 Descriptor Information for Indicators in the
SOLEC
Indicator Suite
The following pages include more detailed information on each of the proposed indicators.
Nearshore and Open Water Indicators
Fish Habitat (Indicator ID: 6) 1-3
Salmon and Trout (Indicator ID: 8) 1-5
Walleye and Hexagenia (Indicator ID: 9) 1-7
Preyfish Populations (Indicator ID: 17) 1-9
Sea Lamprey (Indicator ID: 18) 1-11
Native Unionid Mussels (Indicator ID: 68) 1-13
Lake Trout and Scud (Diporeia hoyi) (Indicator ID: 93) 1-15
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in Nearshore Fish (Indicator ID: 101) ... 1-17
Benthos Diversity and Abundance (Indicator ID: 104) 1-19
Phytoplankton Populations (Indicator ID: 109) 1-20
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (Indicator ID: 111) 1-22
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners (Indicator ID: 114) 1-24
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (Indicator ID: 115) 1-25
Zooplankton Populations (Indicator ID: 116) 1-27
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals (Indicator ID: 117) 1-29
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters (Indicator ID: 118) 1-32
Concentration of Contaminants in Sediment Cores (Indicator ID: 119) 1-33
Contaminant Exchanges Between Media: Air to Water, and Water to Sediment (Indicator ID: 120) 1-35
Wastewater Pollution (Indicator ID: 7059) 1-37
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment (Indicator ID: 8142) 1-38
Coastal Wetland Indicators
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health (Indicator ID: 4501) 1-39
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (Indicator ID: 4502) 1-41
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in Coastal Wetland Fish (Indicator ID: 4503)1-42
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance (Indicator ID: 4504) 1-43
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (Indicator ID: 4506) 1-45
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator ID: 4507) 1-47
Coastal Wetland Area by Type (Indicator ID: 4510) 1-49
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type (Indicator ID: 4511) 1-50
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants (Indicator ID: 4513) 1-52
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator ID: 4516) 1-53
Nitrate and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator ID: 4860) 1-54
Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator ID: 4861) 1-56
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators
Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator ID: 4861) 1-56
Area, Quality, and Protection of Lakeshore Communities (Indicator ID: 8129) 1-58
Extent of Hardened Shoreline (Indicator ID: 8131) 1-60
Nearshore Land Use (Indicator ID: 8132) 1-61
Nearshore Plant and Animal Problem Species (Indicator ID: 8134) 1-63
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles (Indicator ID: 8135) 1-65
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover (Indicator ID: 8136) 1-66
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability (Indicator ID: 8137) 1-68
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-1
-------
Community/Species Plans (Indicator ID: 8139) 1-70
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans (Indicator ID: 8141) 1-71
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment (Indicator ID: 8142) 1-38
Artificial Coastal Structures (Indicator ID: 8146) 1-72
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter (Indicator ID: 8147) 1-73
Protected Nearshore Areas (Indicator ID: 8149) 1-75
Land Use Indicators
Urban Density (Indicator ID: 7000) 1-77
Land Conversion (Indicator ID: 7002) 1-78
Brownfield Redevelopment (Indicator ID: 7006) 1-79
Mass Transportation (Indicator ID: 7012) 1-80
Sustainable Agricultural Practices (Indicator ID: 7028) 1-82
Green Planning Process (Indicator ID: 7053) 1-83
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (Indicator ID: 7055) 1-84
Habitat Fragmentation (Indicator ID: 8114) 1-86
Human Health Indicators
Contaminants in Recreational Fish (Indicator ID: 113) 1-87
E. coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore Recreational Waters (Indicator ID: 4081) 1-88
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue (Indicator ID: 4083) 1-89
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food (Indicator ID: 4088) 1-90
Drinking Water Quality (Indicator ID: 4175) 1-91
Air Quality (Indicator ID: 4176) 1-92
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue (Indicator ID: 4177) 1-94
Radionuclides (Indicator ID: 4178) 1-95
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence (Indicator ID: 4179) 1-97
Societal Indicators
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships (Indicator ID: 3509) 1-98
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships (Indicator ID: 3510) 1-99
Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles Across Landscapes (Indicator ID: 3511) 1-100
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes (Indicator ID: 3512) 1-101
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities (Indicator ID: 3513) 1-102
Aesthetics (Indicator ID: 7042) 1-103
Economic Prosperity (Indicator ID: 7043) 1-104
Water Withdrawal (Indicator ID: 7056) 1-105
Energy Consumption (Indicator ID: 7057) 1-106
Solid Waste Generation (Indicator ID: 7060) 1-107
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs (Indicator ID: 8140) 1-108
Unbounded Indicators
Climate Change: Number of Extreme Storms (Indicator ID: 4519) 1-110
Climate Change: First Emergence of Water Lily Blossoms in Coastal Wetlands (Indicator ID: 4857D-112
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes (Indicator ID: 4858) 1-114
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator ID: 8150) 1-116
Threatened Species (Indicator ID: 8161) 1-118
Acid Rain (Indicator ID: 9000) 1-120
Exotic Species (Indicator Code: 9002) 1-121
1-2 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Fish Habitat (Indicator ID: 6)
Measure
1) Quality and area of aquatic habitat (e.g., shore, spawning shoals, tributaries, wetlands, etc.) and 2) population of sentinel 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 of fish 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
This indicator will assess the quality and amount of aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes ecosystem, and it will be used to infer
progress in rehabilitating degraded habitat and associated aquatic communities.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator addresses the general Fish Community Goals and Objectives (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
GLWQA calls for the restoration of lost or damaged habitat. The indicator also supports the policy position of the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission (GLFC), 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 endpoints 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 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. 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, municipal and industrial waste disposal, and water withdrawal by power
generation facilities for once-through cooling 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.
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.
Large volumes of water are withdrawn from the Great Lakes and their connecting channels for use by industry and municipalities.
Steam-electric power plants 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. 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. Reduction in water withdrawal rates or the addition of effective
screening devices at existing facilities would reflect an improvement in fish habitat, and hence a reduction in fish entrainment
mortality.
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.
Much more research will be required to recognize critical fish habitat and to understand the relationship between quantity of habitat
and aquatic production. Interpretation of habitat measurements is confounded by issues such as interacting species and
connectivity of habitat between life stages.
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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-3
-------
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. Sentinel species should be the same for each of these
indicators.
Unfinished Business
Need to develop a list of sentinel 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, fish
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
last Revised
Feb. 25, 2000
1-4 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Salmon and Trout (indicator ID: s)
Measure
1) Productivity, yield, or harvest of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout and brown trout using abundance (e.g., catch of each species in
a given unit of sampling effort), or biomass metrics; and 2) populations of these stocked and naturally produced fish.
Purpose
This indicator will show trends in populations of introduced trout and salmon populations, and it will be used to evaluate the
potential impacts on native trout and salmon populations and the preyfish populations that support them.
Ecosystem Objective
"To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by judicious plantings of
hatchery-reared fish, and provide from these communities an optimum contribution of fish, fishing opportunities and associated
benefits to meet needs identified by society for: wholesome food, recreation, cultural heritage, employment and income, and a
healthy aquatic ecosystem."1
In addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
The current Fish Community Goals and Objectives (FCGO) for introduced trout and salmon species establish harvest or yield
targets consistent with FCGO for lake trout restoration, and in Lake Ontario, for Atlantic salmon restoration. The following index
targets for introduced trout and salmon species were provided in the FCGO for the listed lake.
Lake Ontario (1999): Salmon and trout catch rates in recreational fisheries continuing at early-1990s levels.
Lake Erie (1999 draft): Manage the eastern basin to provide sustainable harvests of valued fish species, including. . . lake trout,
rainbow trout and other salmonids.
Lake Huron (1995): A diverse salmonine community that can sustain an annual harvest of 2.4 million kg with lake trout the
dominant species and anadromous (stream-spawning) species also having a prominent place.
Lake Michigan: A diverse salmonine community capable of sustaining an annual harvest of 2.7 to 6.8 million kg (6 to 15 million Ib),
of which 20-25% is lake trout.
Lake Superior (1990): Achieve ... an unspecified yield of other salmonid predators, while maintaing a predator/prey balance which
allows normal growth of lake trout.
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 favourably 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 collected annually by the states for certain segments of the fishery (e.g., Michigan's segment of the
Lake Michigan charter boat fishery) and are available for reporting, but there is no coordinated, basin-wide data collection program.
Reporting occurs as news releases and as reports to the Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. More
analysis of existing data and evaluation of management alternatives through mathematical modelling is needed before more
detailed species-by-species harvest can be defined.
Interpretation
Comments
1 Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, Ann Arbor, Mi.
Pacific salmon and Rainbow and Brown trout are introduced species. Some of these are now naturalized but stocking still
occurs. Atlantic salmon, which were native to Lake Ontario, have been introduced at times to the other four Great Lakes. Atlantic
salmon introductions to the upper four Great Lakes should be treated as potentially beneficial range extensions of the species
within the basin. This valuable species is in decline in most of its historical Western Atlantic range, and the establishment of
naturalized populations in the Great Lakes would help ensure the survival of the Western Atlantic gene pool.
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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-5
-------
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 were used in past to mark introduced fish. Coded wire tags are used mostly on fingerlings, currently. Several other
marking techniques are used less frequently. Otolith, scale, and fin ray abnormalities used for fish smaller at release and for F2
and later recoveries.
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): contaminants & pathogens, 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
last Revised
March 7, 2000
1-6 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Walleye and Hexagenia (indicator ID: 9)
Measure
Abundance, biomass, or annual production of walleye and burrowing mayfly (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
This indicator will show the status and trends in walleye and Hexagenia populations, and it will be used to infer 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. (Paraphrased from Final Report of the Ecosystem Objectives Subcommittee, 1990, to the IJC Great Lakes
Science Advisory Board.) In addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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 (1995): Reestablish and/or maintain walleye . . . with populations capable of sustaining a harvest of 0.7 million kg
Lake Michigan (1995): Expected annual yield: 0.1-0.2 million kg
Lake Erie (1999): Manage the western, central and eastern basin ecosystems to provide sustainable harvests of valued fish
species, including walleye . . .
No reference values available for Lakes Superior 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.
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 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 abundance is strongly
indicative of uncontaminated surficial sediments with adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in the overlying water columns.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-7
-------
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 OMOE 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 by Hexagenia, if surficial sediments are otherwise
uncontaminated.
Unfinished Business
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): contaminants & pathogens, 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, Erie, Huron
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of benthos
Last Revised
March 7, 2000
1-8 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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
This indicator will assess the abundance and diversity of preyfish populations, and it will be used to infer 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 and to Annex 2
oftheGLWQA.
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 bar chart 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
FCGOs 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): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-9
-------
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
Last Revised
March 8, 2000
1-10 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Sea Lamprey (indicator ID: 18)
Measure
Number of spawning run adult sea lampreys; wounding rates on large salmonids.
Purpose
This indicator will 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: To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by
judicious plantings of hatchery-reared fish, and provide from these communities an optimum contribution offish, fishing
opportunities and associated benefits to meet needs identified by society for: wholesome food, recreation, cultural heritage,
employment and income, and a healthy aquatic ecosystem.
The 1955 Convention of Great Lakes Fisheries created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission "to formulate and implement a
comprehensive program for the purpose of eradicating or minimizing the sea lamprey populations in the Convention area."
In addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
This indicator will refer to the index target abundances for sea lamprey populations provided in the most current Fish Community
Goals and Objectives (FCGO) for each lake. The following objectives are listed in the FCGO with the date of issue for each lake.
Lake Huron (1995): 75 % reduction by 2000; 90 % reduction by 2010.
Lake Ontario (1999): Suppression of sea lamprey populations to early-1990s levels, and maintaining sea lamprey marking rates
<0.02 marks per fish for lake trout.
Lake Michigan (1995): Suppress the sea lamprey to allow the achievement of other fish-community objectives.
Lake Erie (1999 draft): Unspecified Objective.
Lake Superior (1990): 50 % reduction in parasitic-phase sea lamprey abundance by 2000; 90 % reduction in parasitic-phase sea
lamprey abundance 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. The GLFC and cooperating biologists attempt to
standardize evaluations as much as possible through workshops and other opportunities to share information.
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
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-11
-------
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
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
Last Revised
March 7, 2000
1-12 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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
This indicator will assess the population status of native Unionid populations, and it will be used to infer 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. In addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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.
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
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-13
-------
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, 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
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 6: Degradation of benthos
last Revised
March 8 , 2000
1-14 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Lake Trout and Scud (Diporeia hoyi) (indicator ID: 93)
Measure
Abundance, yield, or biomass, and self-sustainability of lake trout and scud (D. hoyi) in coldwater, oligotrophic habitats of the Great
Lakes.
Purpose
This indicator will show the status and trends in lake trout and scud populations, and it will be used to infer 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 and stable oligotrophic ecosystem with lake trout as the top aquatic predator
of a coldwater community and the [Diporeia] hoyi as a key organism in the food chain" (GLWQA). Lake trout are also historically
important top predators in the other Great Lakes and should be maintained in accordance with the lake-specific Fish Community
Goals and Objectives. Relates to Annexes 1 and 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
In Lake Superior, lake trout stocks should be self-sustaining with a productivity >0.38 kg/ha/y; Diporeia hoyi should be maintained
throughout the lake at abundances of 220-320/m2 at depths <100m and 30-160/m2 at depths >100m (GLWQA).
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 can perhaps be based on target values provided in the FCGO for each
lake:
Lake Superior (1990): Achieve a sustained annual yield of 4 million pounds of lake trout from naturally reproducing stocks. . .
Lake Huron (1995): Establish a diverse salmonine community that can sustain an annual harvest of 2.4 million kg with lake trout
the dominant species. . .
Lake Michigan (1995): Establish a diverse salmonine community capable of sustaining an annual harvest of 2.7 to 6.8 million kg
(6 to 15 million Ib), of which 20-25% is lake trout. Establish self-sustaining lake trout populations.
Lake Erie (1999 draft): Manage the eastern basin ecosystem to provide sustainable harvests of valued fish species, including. . .
lake trout. . . Continue efforts to restore a self-sustaining population of lake trout to the modest levels of abundance observed
historically. . .
Lake Ontario (1999): Achievement of rehabilitation measures for lake trout (Schneider et al. 1998).
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 scud 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 scud 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. A number of
lakewide surveys and assessments of benthic invertebrates communities, including scud, have been made over the past several
decades in the Great Lakes. The current status of scud 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. However, the availability, or lack thereof, of appropriate lake trout strains may contribute to difficulties
encountered in attempts to rehabilitate lake trout and further complicates the interpretation of "healthy" ecosystem function.
Causative agents of impairment are not addressed by the indicator.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-15
-------
Comments
Most 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 goals
outlined above or in Fish Community Goals and Objectives (FCGO) 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 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.
Schneider, C.P., T. Schaner, S. Orsatti, S. Lary, and D. Busch. 1998. A management strategy for Lake Ontario lake trout. Great
Lakes Fish. Comm. 23 p.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 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
Last Revised
March 13,2000
1-16 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in
Nearshore Fish (indicator ID: 101)
Measure
Frequency of tumors and other related anomalies in nearshore fish.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the combination of deformities, eroded fins, lesions and tumors (DELT index) in nearshore fish, and it
will be used to infer areas of degraded habitat within the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
To restore and protect beneficial uses in Areas of Concern or in open lake waters, including beneficial use (iv) Fish tumors or
other deformities (GLWQA, Annex 2). This indicator also supports Annex 12 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
When the incidence rate offish tumors or other deformities do not exceed rates at unimpacted control sites and when survey data
confirm the absence of neoplastic or preneoplastic liver tumors in bullheads or suckers. (I JC Delisting criteria, see IJC 1996)
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 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 of fish 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). 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, eroded fins, 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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-17
-------
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): contaminants & pathogens
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): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic
substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 4: Fish tumors and other deformities
Last Revised
March 8, 2000
1-18 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Benthos Diversity and Abundance (indicator ID: 104)
Measure
Species diversity and abundance in the aquatic oligochaete community.
Purpose
This indicator will assess species diversity and abundance in the aquatic oligochaete community, and it will be used to infer 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. This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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 oligochaete 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 Diporeia) 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): contaminants & pathogens, 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
last Revised
March 8, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-19
-------
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
This indicator will assess the species and size composition of phytoplankton populations in the Great Lakes, and it will be used to
infer the impact of nutrient enrichment, contamination and invasive exotic predators on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Mesotrophicto oligotrophic conditions are needed to maintain healthy food-web dynamics and habitat integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Goals of phosphorus control are to maintain an oligotrophic state and relative algal biomass of Lakes Superior, Huron
and Michigan, and to maintain algal biomass below that of a nuisance condition in Lakes Erie and Ontario (GLWQA Annex 3).
This indicator also supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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 mesotrophicto 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 enumeration) 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. J. 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. J. Great Lakes Research. 4:462-480
Unfinished Business
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.)
1-20 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control of Phosphorus, 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
last Revised
March 8, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-21
-------
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (indicator ID: 111)
Measure
Total phosphorus levels (ug/L) in the springtime open waters, and annual total phosphorus loads to each lake.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the total phosphorus levels and loadings in the Great Lakes and it will be used to support the evaluation
of trophic status and food web dynamics in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Goals of phosphorus control are to maintain an oligotrophic state and relative algal biomass of Lakes Superior, Huron and
Michigan, to maintain algal biomass below that of a nuisance condition in Lakes Erie and Ontario, and to eliminate algal nuisance
in bays and in other areas wherever they occur (GLWQA Annex 3). 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.'
The indicator also supports Annexes 1, 2 and 13 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Maximum annual phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes that would allow achievement of the stated goals (above) are: Lake
Superior - 3400 tonnes, Lake Huron (main lake) - 2800 tonnes, Lake Michigan - 5600 tonnes, Lake Erie -11,000 tonnes, Lake
Ontario - 7000 tonnes (GLWQA, Annex 3). If these loading rates are maintained, the expected concentration of total phosphorus
in the open waters of each lake are: Lake Superior - 5 ug/l, Lake Huron - 5 ug/l, Lake Michigan - 7 ug/l, Lake Erie Western Basin -
15 ug/l, Lake Erie Central Basin -10 ug/l, Lake Erie Eastern Basin -10 ug/l, Lake Ontario -10 ug/l (IJC 1980).
Features
Analysis of phosphorus concentrations to the Great Lakes is ongoing and reliable, but insufficient monitoring of tributaries has
been undertaken since 1993 to calculate reliable loading estimates. Current methodology used for analysis is adequate. This
indicator provides information to infer the baseline potential productivity of each lake and linkages to future biological problems
related to a potential 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 GLWQA objectives. Biannual survey data are available for 1982 to present.
Illustration
For each lake, a graph will be presented showing total phosphorus concentrations and loadings on the y-axis and years on the x-
axis. A map will be presented showing major, within-lake, spatio-temporal distributions of phosphorus concentrations.
Limitations
Tributary monitoring is currently (2000) insufficient to evaluate loadings of phosphorus.
A research effort should be undertaken to understand the effects of zebra mussels on phosphorus dynamics in the Great Lakes,
and to then incorporate those effects into existing water quality models. The revised models should then be used to reanalyze the
relationships between annual phosphorus loadings, the expected resultant phosphorus concentrations in the open waters, and the
potential for nuisance growths of algae.
Interpretation
Desirable outcomes are the absence of blooms of undesirable algae and total phosphorus concentrations and loadings that do not
exceed the target levels specified in the GLWQA. Remote sensing and satellite imagery can be used to identify algae blooms,
which may then be correlated to phosphorus concentrations or increased loadings.
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).
IJC. 1980. Phosphorus Management for the Great Lakes. Final report of the Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force to
the IJC Great Lakes Water Quality Board and Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.
1-22 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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, 9: Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and
odour problems, 11: Degradation of aesthetics, 13: Degradation of phyto/zooplankton populations
Last Revised
March 8, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-23
-------
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
(Indicator ID: 114)
Measure
Concentration of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the levels of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners, and it will be used to infer local areas
of elevated contaminant levels and potential harm to fish-eating wildlife.
Ecosystem Objective
Forage fish concentrations of PBT chemicals should not pose risk to fish-eating wildlife. This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and
12oftheGLWQA.
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): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): 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):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-24 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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
This indicator will assess chemical concentration levels in a representative colonial waterbird, and it will be used to infer the
impact of these contaminants on colonial waterbird physiology and population characteristics.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and 12 of the GLWQA.
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 over time, 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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-25
-------
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): contaminants & pathogens
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
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-26 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
ZOPplanktOn Populations (Indicator ID: 116)
Measure
1) Community Composition; 2) Mean Individual Size; and 3) Biomass and Production.
Purpose
This indicator will assess characteristics of the zooplankton community, and it will be used to infer over time changes in vertebrate
or invertebrate predation, system productivity, energy transfer within the Great Lakes, or other food web dynamics.
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. This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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 of
fish 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.
Of these measures, composition and mean size are the most important. However, these factors provide the information needed
to calculate biomass and production.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-27
-------
References:
Hanson, J.M. and R.H. Peters. 1984. Empirical prediction 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 to 1995): 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 of fish 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): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, 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): 13: Degradation of phyto/zooplankton populations
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-28 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals _ (indicator ID: 117)
Measure
Annual average loadings of 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
This indicator will estimate the annual average loadings of priority toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to the Great Lakes, and it
will be used to infer potential impacts of toxic chemicals from atmospheric deposition on the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as
well as to infer 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. This indicator
supports Annexes 2, 12, 15 and 17 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
When atmospheric concentrations of toxic chemicals associated with existing water quality criteria are no longer measurable
above naturally-occurring levels by current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentrations of priority toxic chemicals are, as a group, decreasing, staying the same, or
increasing in open waters over time. The chemicals of interest include, but are not limited to, PCBs, deildrin, chlordane, DDT and
metabolites, hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene and mercury. 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 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) (Hoff et 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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 - 1-29
-------
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:
C(ngm2y-l} = vdCapai
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, 1988; Hoff et al. 1996).
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 (Ca^ -1000CJ
where koL (m y"1) 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, andW.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, 101p.
(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 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?
1-30 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, water
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 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):
last Revised
March 8, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-31
-------
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waten&idicator ID: us)
Measure
The concentration of toxic chemicals in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the concentration of priority toxic chemicals in offshore waters, and it will be used to infer the potential
impacts of toxic chemicals on the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as well as to infer 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. This indicator
supports Annexes 1 and 12 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
When concentrations of toxic chemicals associated with existing water quality criteria in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes
are no longer measurable above naturally-occurring levels 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 chemicals of interest include, but are not limited to, PCBs, deildrin, chlordane, DDT
and metabolites, hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene and mercury. 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 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: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
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):
last Revised
March 8, 2000
1-32 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Concentration of Contaminants in Sediment Corqsidicator ID: 119)
Measure
The concentrations of toxic chemicals in sediment cores at selected sites within the Great Lakes at ten year intervals.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the concentrations of toxic chemicals in sediments, and it will be used to infer potential harm to aquatic
ecosystems by contaminated sediments, as well as to infer 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. This indicator also supports
Annexes 2, 7 and 12 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
When sediment concentrations of toxic chemicals associated with existing water quality criteria are no longer measurable above
naturally-occurring levels by current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentrations of the toxic chemicals are, as a group, decreasing, staying the same, or
increasing in open waters over time. The chemicals of interest include, but are not limited to, PCBs, deildrin, chlordane, DDT and
metabolites, hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene and mercury. 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 fish. 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 toxic chemicals.
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.
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 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 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.
Unfinished Business
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-33
-------
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: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): sediments
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 7: Dredging, 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): 6: Degradation of benthos, 7: Restrictions on dredging activities
last Revised
March 8, 2000
1-34 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 toxic chemicals using fugacity based approaches of intermedia
transport.
Purpose
This indicator will estimate the loadings of priority pollutants to the Great Lakes, and it will be used to infer the potential harm these
contaminants pose to human, animal and aquatic life within the Great Lakes, as well as to infer 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. This indicator
supports Annexes 1, 12, 14, 15 and 17 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
When concentrations of priority chemicals within the Great Lakes are no longer measurable above naturally-occurring levels by
current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentration trends of the toxic chemicals between media are, as a group, decreasing, staying
the same, or increasing in open waters over time. The chemicals of interest include, but are not limited to, PCBs, deildrin,
chlordane, DDT and metabolites, hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene and mercury. 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 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 reinterpretation 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- ViZ;
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 = Zwater ' sediment " sediment Koc/1 000
where
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-35
-------
sediment = density of the sediment
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: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, water, sediments
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 14: Contaminated
sediment, 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):
last Revised
March 8, 2000
1-36 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Wastewater Pollution (indicator ID: 7059)
Measure
Loadings of metals, phosphorus, 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 assess the loadings of wastewater pollutants discharged into the Great Lakes basin, and to infer inefficiencies in human
economic activity (i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development and healthy ecosystems through support for Annexes 1, 2, 3 and 12 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 endpointthat 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 Withdrawal, 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): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters
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
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances, 8: Absence of excess phosphorus
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication and undesirable algae, 11: degradation of aesthetics
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-37
-------
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment (indicator ID: 8142)
Note: This indicator is listed as both a Nearshore Waters and Nearshore Terrestrial indicator.
Measure
Streamflow and suspended sediments at the mouth of major tributaries and connecting channels.
Purpose
To assess the amount of water and suspended sediment entering the Great Lakes through major tributaries and connecting
channels, and to estimate the amount of sediment available for transport to nourish coastal ecosystems.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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: state
Environmental Compartment(s): water, sediments
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, 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
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-38 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community HeaIndicator 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, and functional feeding groups (e.g., herbivores, detritivores,
carnivores), working towards the development of an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI).
Purpose
To assess the diversity of the invertebrate community, especially aquatic insects, and to infer 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 and 13).
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 invertebrate IBI will offer information on overall diversity of the invertebrate community and trends
overtime. 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 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
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-39
-------
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): 6: Degradation of benthos
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-40 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (indicator ID: 4502)
Measure
An Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) will be developed based on measures of species richness and abundance, percent exotic species,
percent phytophils and other appropriate parameters.
Purpose
To assess the fish community diversity, and to infer 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 and 13)
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 of fish 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): exotics, 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, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-41
-------
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in
Coastal Wetland Fish (indicator ID: 4503)
Measure
Numbers and percent of DELT in coastal wetland fish.
Purpose
To assess the combination of deformities, eroded fins, lesions and tumours (DELT index) in fish of Great Lakes coastal wetlands,
and to infer ecosystem health of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore the health offish of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. (GLWQA Annexes 2, 12, 13 and 17)
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 sources.
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 the ecoreaches from which representative wetlands that
adequately characterizes each lake basin will be selected. This indicator may also apply to nearshore aquatic areas.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent
toxic substances, 13: Pollution from non-point sources, 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): 4: fish tumors or other deformities
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-42 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance (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 Annex 13)
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. 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, species richness and measures of abundance could be graphically
displayed. As sufficient data become available, graphs showing trends over time 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
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-43
-------
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, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-44 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (indicator ID: 4506)
Measure
Concentrations of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in snapping turtle eggs.
Purpose
To assess the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in snapping turtle eggs, and to infer the extent of
organochlorine chemicals and mercury in food webs 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 concentrations of organochlorine chemicals and
mercury, thereby ensuring hatching success and low abnormality rates. (GLWQA Annexes 1,12 and 13).
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.
Endpoints for mercury have yet to be developed.
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 concentration of organochlorine chemicals and mercury at the uncontaminated reference site (e.g., Algonquin Provincial
Park) superimposed over concentrations from representative sites from the Lakes and connecting channels. This would be
presented as a bar graph showing sites and concentrations, along with the mean concentration 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 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.
Comments
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-45
-------
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): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Pollution from
non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb 23, 2000
1-46 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 assess the wetland bird species composition and relative abundance, and to infer 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 Annex 2)
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 over time, 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
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-47
-------
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): 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):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-48 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 assess the 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 and 13)
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,
recognizing that a reference year needs to be selected.
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
overtime.
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. While some wetlands may decrease in both area
and quality due to the lack of water level fluctuation, as on Lake Ontario, the area of other wetlands could remain within the range
determined by natural water level fluctuations, but be degraded by other factors, such as sedimentation, excessive nutrients, or
invasive species. 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): water, 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): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-49
-------
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Typegndicator ID: 4511)
Measure
Gain in restored wetland area by type.
Purpose
To assess the amount of restored wetland area, and to infer the success of conservation and 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 and 13)
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 overtime.
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): water, land
Related Issue(s): habitat, stewardship
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
1-50 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-51
-------
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
(Indicator ID: 4513)
Measure
Presence, abundance, & expansion of invasive plants (both native and non-native), 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 assess the decline of vegetative diversity associated with an increase in the presence, abundance, and expansion of invasive
plants, and to be used as a surrogate measure of quality of coastal wetlands which are impacted by coastal manipulation or input
of sediments.
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 and 13)
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 over time.
Illustration
Graphs will display the of number of invasive (native and non-native) 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, 2) the coverage value of
coastal wetlands dominated by invasive plant species and 3) whether the invasive plants are native or non-native.
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 that adequately characterize each lake basin will be selected.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): exotics, 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
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-52 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands (indicator ID: 4516)
Measure
Suspended Sediment Unit Area Yield (tonnes/km2 of upstream watershed) for a representative set of existing monitoring sites just
upstream of coastal wetlands.
Purpose
To assess the severity of sediment yields flowing into coastal wetlands and 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 and 13)
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 yields to representative wetlands without sedimentation problems.
Features
Sediment yield is critical to habitat health and is one of the major wetland stressors. Sites throughout the basin can be chosen to
represent stream inflow to individual wetlands and it is possible that there is enough existing monitoring to represent the basin-
wide situation. The data are already collected, analyzed, and maintained comparably in both countries. There is fairly high
variability among the data because stream sediment yields are directly related to flow, which varies depending on precipitation
events. Sediment yields 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, Nitrate and Total Phosphorus into Coastal Wetlands,
and indicator 4519, Number of Extreme Storms. Sediment 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 of sediment per km2 of coastal wetland watersheds (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 stream sediment yields from the reference yield.
The reference yield will be scored as 10. The greater the difference in the monitored yield, the lower the score. Additional
information that could help interpret reasons for stream sediment yield 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): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
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
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-53
-------
Nitrate 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 assess the amount of nitrate and total phosphorus flowing into Great Lakes coastal wetlands, and to infer the human influence
on nutrient levels in the 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 and 13)
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 one 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
1-54 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 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): 8: Absence of excess phosphorus
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-55
-------
Water Level Fluctuations (indicator ID: 4861)
Note: This indicator is listed as 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 and Keddy, 1992).
Purpose
To assess the lake level trends that may significantly affect components of wetland and nearshore terrestrial ecosystems, and to
infer 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 and 17).
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.
1-56 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 modelled elevations of emergents, historical ranges and one index for all parameters and lakes may be
difficult for public understanding.
Painter, S. and P. 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
Related Issue(s): habitat, climate change
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, 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, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-57
-------
Area, Quality, and Protection of 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 assess the changes in area and quality of the twelve lakeshore communities, and to infer the success of management
activities associated with the protection of some of the most ecologically significant habitats in the Great Lakes terrestrial
nearshore.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
No net loss in area or quality of the twelve lakeshore communities.
Features
The twelve 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 lakeshore communities from existing studies (where available), Biological Conservation Databases, remote sensing and
aerial photos, and land use planning data. The quality of the 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 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 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 lakeshore communities using aerial photography
may prove easy for some communities and more difficult for others. Lastly, information on location and quality for some 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 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 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 communities undergoing the
greatest rate of change.
Unfinished Business
1-58 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land, biota
Related Issue(s): habitat, stewardship
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, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-59
-------
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 assess the amount of shoreline habitat altered by the construction of shore protection, and to infer 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. This
indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-60 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Nearshore Land Use (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 assess the types and extent of major land uses within 1 km from shore, and to identify real or potential impacts of land use on
significant natural features or processes, particularly on the twelve special lakeshore communities.
Ecosystem Objective
Healthy nearshore terrestrial ecological communities will be maintained. This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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 over time. 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
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.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
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): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-61
-------
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-62 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Nearshore Plant and Animal Problem Species (indicator ID: 8134)
Measure
Type and abundance of plant and animal 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 assess the type and abundance of plant and animal problem species in landscapes bordering the Great Lakes, and to identify
the potential for disruption 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. This indicator
supports Annexes 2 and 17 of the GLWQA.
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 animal problem species overtime. 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, 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
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-63
-------
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, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
1-64 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 assess the number of fledged young, number of developmental deformities, and the concentrations of organic and heavy metal
contamination in Bald Eagle eggs, blood, and feathers. The data will be used to infer the potential for harm to other wildlife and
human health through the consumption of contaminated fish.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 12 and 17 of the GLWQA.
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 PTS 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 PTS 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 PTS can be measured.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
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
last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-65
-------
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 assess the amount of natural land cover that falls within 1 km of the shoreline, and to infer the potential impact of artificial
coastal structures, including primary and 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. This indicator supports Annex 2
oftheGLWQA.
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.
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 (GIS). 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 over
time.
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 1 km 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.
1-66 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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
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
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-67
-------
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 kilometre (km) of the shoreline.
Purpose
To assess the composition and abundance of plant and wildlife species over time within the nearshore area, and to infer adverse
effects on the nearshore terrestrial ecosystem due to stresses such as climate change and/or increasing land use intensity.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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 overtime. 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 overtime 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
Related Issue(s): exotics
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
1-68 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-69
-------
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 assess the number of plans that are needed, developed, and implemented to protect, maintain or restore high quality, natural
nearshore communities and federally listed endangered, threatened, and vulnerable species, and to infer the degree of human
stewardship toward those communities and species.
Ecosystem Objective
Programs should be responsive to the degradation of shoreline communities and species.
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):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-70 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 assess the amount of Great Lakes shoreline managed under an integrated management plan, and to infer the degree of
stewardship of shoreline processes and habitat.
Ecosystem Objective
Programs should be responsive to the degradation of shoreline communities and species.
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
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):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-71
-------
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 assess the number of artificial coastal structures on the Great Lakes, and to infer potential harm to coastal habitat by disruption
of sand transport.
Ecosystem Objective
Limit impact to natural features and processes in the terrestrial nearshore and nearshore waters environments. This indicator
supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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 over time. 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): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, 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
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-72 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 assess the contaminant concentrations found in American otter populations within the Great Lakes basin, and to infer the
presence and severity of contaminants in the aquatic food web of the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 1,2, 12 and 17 of the GLWQA.
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 overtime, 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.
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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-73
-------
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): contaminants & pathogens
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
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-74 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 assess the kilometres/miles of shoreline in protective status. This information will be used to infer 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 habitat links in the migration (lifecycle) of birds and butterflies.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes shall be free of... net loss offish and wildlife habitat (GLWQA, Annex 2, item xiv). 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 kilometres/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 GIS) 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.
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.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-75
-------
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, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, societal
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):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-76 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Urban Density (indicator ID: 7000)
Measure
Human population per square kilometre of existing and proposed development areas. Total area is adjusted to exclude parks and
other designated greenspace.
Purpose
To assess the human population density in the Great Lakes basin, and to infer 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.
Endpoint
The most efficient and ecologically sustainable conditions will occur when large urban centres are intensively developed with a
high population density. The contrary exists for sparsely populated rural areas the lower the population density the less stress
is imposed on the ecosystem. As a corollary, new growth is best accommodated by adding to the high density area rather than
the lower density rural areas.
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 overtime 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 kilometre).
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 kilometre 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: state
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):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-77
-------
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 assess the changes in land use within the Great Lakes basin, and to infer 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 13
oftheGLWQA.
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 over time 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):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-78 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Brownfield Redevelopment (indicator ID: 7006)
Measure
Total acreage of redeveloped brownfields.
Purpose
To assess the acreage of redeveloped brownfields, and to evaluate over time the rate at which society rehabilitates 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.
Endpoint
Elimination of all brownfield sites.
Features
"Brownfields" are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse
is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Some of the sites contain underground storage tanks; others
have contaminated soils from industrial waste or manufacturing byproducts. Still others may possess no contamination at all, but
the fear of contamination nonetheless scares prospective buyers and lenders away. This creates an incentive for development to
occur in pristine, undeveloped areas.
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. 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 overtime.
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 kilometres 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): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-79
-------
Mass Transportation (indicator ID: 7012)
Measure
Percent of commuters using public transportation.
Purpose
To assess the percentage of commuters using public transportation, and to infer 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 15 of the
GLWQA.
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
periodicity.
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.
Private vehicle commuter traffic is responsible for a significant amount of current smog in cities and is a major contributor to
global climate change through the emission of large quantities of greenhouse gases derived from non-renewable sources.
This 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?
1-80 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, land
Related Issue(s): climate change, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-81
-------
Sustainable Agricultural Practices (indicator ID: 7028)
Measure
Number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans in place.
Purpose
To assess the number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans, and to infer environmentally friendly practices in place,
such as integrated pest management to reduce the unnecessary use of pesticides, zero tillage and other soil preservation
practices to reduce energy consumption, and prevention of ground and surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 3, 12 and 13 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
This indicator requires much further development and refinement. Specific consideration will be given to assessing the
use of conservation tillage, buffer strips and herbicide application.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 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
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 8: Absence of excess phosphorus, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-82 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Green Planning Process (indicator ID: 7053)
Measure
Number of municipalities with environmental and resource conservation management plans.
Purpose
To assess the number of municipalities with environmental and resource conservation management plans in place, and to infer
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 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): water, land
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es): 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-83
-------
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
k
m
Score
= 0.42
2.0 km
Purpo se
To provide an index of 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 2 and 13).
Endpoint
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, and to indicator
1-84 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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, 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 environment integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-85
-------
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 assess the amount and distribution of natural habitat remaining within Great Lakes ecoregions, and to infer 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
supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans
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
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-86 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Contaminants in Recreational Fish (indicator ID: 113)
Measure
Concentration of PBT chemicals in the catch-weighted average, edible tissue of recreational fish.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the levels of PBT chemicals in fish, and it will be used to infer the potential harm to human health
through consumption of contaminated fish.
Ecosystem Objective
Fish should be safe to eat. This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and 12 of the GLWQA.
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. 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): contaminants & pathogens
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, 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
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-87
-------
E. coll and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore Recreational
Waters (Indicator ID: 4081)
Measure
1) Counts of £ co// and/or fecal coliforms (FC) 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 assess £ co// and fecal coliform contaminant levels in nearshore recreational waters, acting as a surrogate indicator for other
pathogen types, and to infer 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 indicator supports Annexes 1,
2 and 13 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
E. co// and fecal coliform 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 £ co// and fecal coliform abundance and the frequency of beach closings overtime 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 £. co// and fecal coliform 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. In addition, variability of weather from year to
year may also affect the variability in bacterial counts. 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 £ co// or fecal coliform 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, biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
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, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 2: Swimmability, 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 10: Recreational water impairment
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-88 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue (indicator ID: 4083)
Measure
Concentration of PBT chemicals targeted by the GLWQA in edible fish tissue.
Purpose
To assess the concentration of persistent, bioaccumulating, toxic (PBT) chemicals in Great Lakes fish, and to infer the potential
exposure of humans to PBT chemicals through consumption of Great Lakes fish caught via sport and subsistence fishing.
Ecosystem Objective
Fish in the Great Lakes ecosystem should be safe to eat; consumption should not be limited by contaminants of human origin.
This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and 12 of the GLWQA.
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.
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): contaminants & pathogens
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, 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
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-89
-------
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 evaluate the potential harm to human health and the
efficacy of policies and technology intended to reduce PBT chemicals.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 12 of the GLWQA.
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): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-90 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Drinking Water Quality (indicator ID: 4175)
Measure
Concentrations of chemical substances such as 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 assess the chemical and microbial contaminant levels in drinking water, and to evaluate the potential for human exposure to
drinking water contaminants and the efficacy of policies and technologies to ensure safe drinking water.
Ecosystem Objective
Treated drinking water supplies should be safe to drink. This indicator supports Annexes 1,2, 12 and 16 of the GLWQA.
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 analyze 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): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients
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, 16: Pollution from contaminated groundwater
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 3: Drinkability, 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 9: Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problems
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-91
-------
Air Quality (Indicator ID: 4176)
Measure
Concentration of chemicals and participate matter in ambient air.
Purpose
To monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem, and to infer the potential impact of air quality on human health in the Great
Lakes basin.
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. This
indicator also supports Annexes 1,13 and 15.
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 sustainable
development by determining the degree to which resources are wasted as pollution, thereby representing inefficiency in human
economic activity.
Unfinished Business
1-92 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point
sources, 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-93
-------
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, urine and adipose
tissues.
Purpose
To assess the concentration of PBT chemicals in human tissues, and to infer the efficacy of policies and technology to reduce
PBT chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 1,12 and 17 of the GLWQA.
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 (both general and at-risk populations) 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
The body burdens of some PBT chemicals in at-risk populations around the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basins can be 2 to 4
times greater than the general population.
Ref. Johnson et al., 1998. Public Health Implications of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Basins. J. Great Lakes Res. 24(2):698-722.
Health Canada, 1998. Health-Related Indicators for the Great Lakes Basin Population: Numbers 1 to 20. Minister of
Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
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):
Last Revised
Feb. 15,2000
1-94 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
RadionucMdeS (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 assess the concentrations of artificial radionuclides in cow's milk, surface water, drinking water, and air, and to estimate the
potential for human exposure to artificial radionuclides.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 1 and 17 of the GLWQA.
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 (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. (Health Canada, 1997). On average, natural radiation accounts for more
than 98% of human exposure to ionizing radiation, excluding medical exposures.
Health Canada. 1997. State of Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Catalogue No. H46-2/97-214E.
International Joint Commission. 1997. Inventory of Radionuclides for the Great Lakes. Nuclear Task Force.
Unfinished Business
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-95
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, water, biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
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):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-96 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incitdtanear 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 assess geographic and temporal patterns in disease incidences in the Great Lakes basin population, and to identify areas
where further investigation of the exposure and effects of environmental pollutants on human health is needed.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator relates to Annex 17 of the GLWQA.
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):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-97
-------
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnership$ndicator ID: 3509)
Measure
Number of partnerships; basin location and geographic coverage; budgets, FTE staff; identification of major projects and
initiatives.
Purpose
To assess the organizational capacities required of local coalitions to act as full partners in ecosystem management initiatives,
including the enumeration of public-private partnerships relating to the pursuit of sustainable ecosystems through environmental
management, staff, and annual budgets.
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, non-point
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
This indicator has not been reviewed or revised since SOLEC 98. A revised indicator will be presented at SOLEC 2000.
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):
last Revised
October 20, 1999
1-98 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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
to assess 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.
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
This indicator has not been reviewed or revised since SOLEC 98. A revised indicator will be presented at SOLEC 2000.
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):
last Revised
October 20, 1999
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-99
-------
Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles 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
To describe the extent to which federal, state/provincial, and regional governments and agencies have endorsed and adopted
ecosystem management guiding principals in place-based resource management programs.
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
This indicator has not been reviewed or revised since SOLEC 98. A revised indicator will be presented at SOLEC 2000.
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):
last Revised
October 20, 1999
1-100 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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
To describe the extent to which federal, state/provincial, and regional governments and agencies have endorsed and adopted
sustainability guiding principals in place-based resource management programs.
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
This indicator has not been reviewed or revised since SOLEC 98. A revised indicator will be presented at SOLEC 2000.
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):
last Revised
October 20, 1999
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-101
-------
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship AgtJMitiefr 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
To reflect the number, vitality and effectiveness of citizen and community stewardship activities. Community activities that focus
on local landscapes/ecosystems provide a fertile context for the growth of the stewardship ethic and the establishment of a
"sense of place."
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
This indicator has not been reviewed or revised since SOLEC 98. A revised indicator will be presented at SOLEC 2000.
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):
Last Revised
October 20, 1999
1-102 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Aesthetics (Indicator ID: 7042)
Measure
Visible waste and refuse in communities around the basin.
Purpose
To assess the amount of waste and decay around human activities in the Great Lakes basin, and to infer 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): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): 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
Last Revised
October 20, 1999
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-103
-------
Economic Prosperity (indicator ID: 7043)
Measure
Unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To assess the unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin, and, when used in association with other Societal indicators, to
infer the capacity for society in 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):
last Revised
October 20, 1999
1-104 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Water Withdrawal (indicator ID: 7056)
Measure
Water use per capita in the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To assess the amount of water used in the Great Lakes basin per capita, and to infer 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.
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 litres/capita within jurisdictions in the basin and the basin as a whole.
The indicator is a measure of both residential and industrial/commercial water use.
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: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 16, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-105
-------
Energy Consumption (indicator ID: 7057)
Measure
Energy use in kilowatt hours per capita.
Purpose
To assess the amount of energy consumed in the Great Lakes basin per capita, and to infer the demand for resource use, the
creation of waste and pollution, and stress on the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal in the Great Lakes basin. This indicator supports Annex 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.
Electrical energy generation is among the largest source of smog related pollutants. In addition, it also generates a major share of
all greenhouse gases that are responsible for global climate change.
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: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, humans
Related Issue(s): climate change, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es): 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
last Revised
Feb. 16, 2000
1-106 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Solid Waste Generation (indicator ID: yoeo)
Measure
Amount of solid waste generated per capita (tons and cubic metres).
Purpose
To assess the amount of solid waste generated per capita in the Great Lakes basin, and to infer inefficiencies in human economic
activity (i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal for Great Lakes basin society. This indicator supports Annex 12 of the GLWQA.
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 metres per capita in jurisdictions and for the basin over time. The
indicator will be for all solid wastes over time.
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.
Solid waste stored in sanitary landfills is a major source of methane, a very important greenhouse gas responsible for global
climate change. Incineration of mixed solid waste has been shown to be a significant source of mercury and dioxins.
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: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, land, humans
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, climate change, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): societal
GLWQA Annex(es): 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
last Revised
Feb. 16, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-107
-------
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 assess the amount of dollars spent annually on Great Lakes programs, and to infer the responsiveness of Great Lakes
programs through 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.
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.
1-108 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-109
-------
Climate Change: 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 assess the number of "extreme storms" each year, and to infer the potential impact on ecological components of the Great
Lakes of increased numbers of severe storms due to climate change.
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.
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 overtime. 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
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.
Unfinished Business
1-110 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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): air
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):
Last Revised
October 20, 1999
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-111
-------
Climate Change: 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 assess the change overtime in first emergence dates of water lilies in coastal wetlands as a sentinel of climate change
affecting the Great Lakes.
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.
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
1-112 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-113
-------
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes (indicator ID: 4858)
Measure
Maximum percentage of Great Lakes area covered by ice each year.
Purpose
To assess the temperature and accompanying physical changes to each lake over time, and to infer potential 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.
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
1-114 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): climate change
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-115
-------
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance (indicator ID: 81 so)
Measure
Diversity and abundance of breeding bird populations and communities in selected habitat types, and an avian index of biotic
integrity.
Purpose
To assess the status of breeding bird populations and communities, and to infer the health of breeding bird habitat in the Great
Lakes basin.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
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.
1-116 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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 USFWS 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): habitat
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, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-117
-------
Threatened Species (indicator ID: s
Measure
Number, extent, and viability of species ranked as G1-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 assess the number, extent and viability of threatened species, which are key components of biodiversity in the Great Lakes
basin, and to infer the integrity of ecological 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. This indicator supports Annexes 2 and 17 of the
GLWQA.
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.
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."
1-118 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
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, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-119
-------
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 assess the pH levels in precipitation and critical loadings of sulphate to the Great Lakes basin, and to infer the efficacy of
policies to reduce sulphur and nitrogen acidic compounds released to the atmosphere.
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. This indicator
supports Annexes 1 and 15 of the GLWQA.
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, water, land
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
1-120 SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Exotic Species (Indicator Code: 9002)
Measure
Purpose
This indicator will assess the presence, abundance and distribution of invasive exotic species in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem
and their impacts on ecosystem functioning. This indicator is under development. It has been added to the SOLEC list in
response to suggestions from multiple reviewers of the Version 3 list of SOLEC indicators.
Ecosystem Objective
Endpoint
Features
Illustration
Limitations
Interpretation
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Last Revised
Feb. 25, 2000
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 1-121
-------
Appendix 2 Complete Listing of Indicators (entered into the
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, and
whether the indicator has been proposed for the SOLEC Indicator List (C.R. means Concept
Retained in another indicator). Note - those indicators that are included in the SOLEC Indicator
List are shown shaded for ease of identification.
Ind.
code
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Indicator name
Lake herring
Lake trout
Non-depleted native fishes
Depleted native fishes
Sea lamprey
Fish 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
Salmon and trout
Planktivores (preyfish)
Inshore fish
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 2010
1) Quality and area of aquatic habitat (e.g., shore, spawning shoals,
tributaries, wetlands, etc.) and 2) population of sentinel 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 of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout and brown
trout using abundance (e.g., catch of each species in a given unit of sampling
effort), or biomass metrics; and 2) populations of these stocked and naturally
produced fish.
Abundance, biomass, or annual production of walleye and burrowing mayfly
(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
Establish diverse community yielding 6-15Mlbs/y
Match to primary production and predator demand
Maintain self-sustaining stocks; yield >2-4Mlbs/y
No
C.R. (93)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-1
-------
Ind.
code
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
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Indicator name
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
Biological community integrity and
diversity
Virtual elimination persistent toxics
Phosphorus
Physical environment integrity
Loss of native species
Ecosystem imbalance
Reproductive impairment
Nutrient stress
Measure
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 of fish.
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 sentinel species at each plant in
each lake.
Contaminant levels in fish; fish advisories
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
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
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(112)
C.R.(111)
No
No
No
No
C.R.(111)
2-2
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
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
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Indicator name
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 (Diporeia 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, Eroded Fins, Lesions
and Tumours (DELT) in Nearshore
Fish
Tainting offish flavor
Exotics
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Tributaries
Dredging activities
Contaminant levels to protect aquatic
life
Eutrophication
Phytoplankton Populations
Measure
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 scud
(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
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.
Zero discharge and emission of 9 toxic contaminants
Phosphorus Concentrations
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
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in
Offshore Waters
Total phosphorus levels (ug/L).
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 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 toxic chemicals in the offshore waters of the Great
Lakes.
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.(112)
C.R.(117,
118,119,
120)
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-3
-------
Ind.
code
120
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
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
Indicator name
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
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
Measure
Estimates of air to water and water to sediment loadings of 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
PCB, DDE, dieldrin, HCB, BaP
P4501A1
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
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
No
No
No
No
2-4
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
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
4081
4082
4083
4084
Indicator name
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
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 Principles Across
Landscapes
Integration of Sustainability Principles
Across Landscapes
Citizen/Community Place-Based
Stewardship Activities
Drinking Water Quality
Drinking Water Quality
£. co// and Fecal Coliform Levels in
Nearshore Recreational Waters
Contaminants in Air
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminants in Human
Tissue 1
Measure
Algal cells, etc.
Chorophyte - Cladophora
Partial pressure/escaping tendency of chemical
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
1) Counts of £. co// and/or fecal coliforms (FC) 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
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
C.R.(4175)
C.R.(4175)
C.R.(4176)
C.R.(4177)
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-5
-------
Ind.
code
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
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4142
4143
4144
4145
Indicator name
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
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
Measure
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
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
No
C.R.(4177)
C.R.(4177)
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
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)
2-6
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
Indicator name
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
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
Measure
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
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 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, urine 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.
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)
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)
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-7
-------
Ind.
code
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
Indicator name
Coastal Wetland Fish Community
Health
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions
and Tumors (DELT) in Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
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
Climate Change: Number of Extreme
Storms
Development Adjacent to
Representative Wetlands
Buffers and Land Use Adjacent to
Coastal Wetlands
Measure
An Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) will be developed based on measures of
species richness and abundance, percent exotic species, percent phytophils
and other appropriate parameters.
Numbers and percent of 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.
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 (both native and non-
native), 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 Yield (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 - 1 000 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.
No
No
No
No
C.R.(7007)
C.R. (4854,48
55,4856)
No
C.R. (4861)
No
C.R. (7054)
2-8
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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
4553
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
Rates of loss of particular habitat
types
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
No
No
C.R. (4857,48
58)
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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-9
-------
Ind.
code
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
4584
4585
4586
4587
Indicator name
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
Status of Individual Plant Taxa
Leaf Area, Solar Transmittance, &
Greenness
Algae blooms
August diatom to blue green algae
ratio
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
Changes in canopy characteristics (e.g., premature leaf drop and yellowing of
leaves) and solar transmittance
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
No
No
No
No
2-10
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
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
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
Indicator name
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
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
Measure
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
Selected list includes: Wood Turtle, Blanding's Turtle, W. and N. Ribbon
Snake, Queen Snake, E. Massasauga
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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-11
-------
Ind.
code
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
Indicator name
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
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
Measure
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
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
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
2-12
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
Indicator name
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
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: 70-1 00;
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)
Measure
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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-13
-------
Ind.
code
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
Indicator name
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
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
Measure
Laboratory testing of pollutant effects on organisms
Contaminant bioaccumulation in plant and animal tissues
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R. (451 6,48
54,4855,4856
)
No
No
No
C.R. (451 6)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C.R. (4854,
4855, 4856)
C.R. (4854,
4855, 4856)
No
No
No
No
No
No
2-14
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
Indicator name
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
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
Measure
Herring Gull contaminant levels
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
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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-15
-------
Ind.
code
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
Indicator name
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)
DMA Alteration: Adducts
DNA Alteration:Secondary
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)
Measure
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.
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
No
No
No
No
No
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)
2-16
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
4785
4786
4787
4788
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
Indicator name
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
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
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
No
No
No
C.R.(4516)
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)
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-17
-------
Ind.
code
4817
4818
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
Indicator name
Shoreline Modification (% of
shoreline-wetland interface that is
modified)
Diking (% of total wetland area that is
diked)
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)
Measure
Number of days of inundation per year
C.R.(4521)
C.R.(4521)
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)
2-18
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
4849
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
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
Indicator name
Climate change (water depth/from
nearest climate station their annual
trend indicator for temperature
compared to historical standard)
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
Climate Change: First Emergence of
Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the
Great Lakes
Reproductive output of mink
Nitrate 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
Beach closings
Environmental land legacies
Water discharge quality
Environmental illness and mortality
Fish advisories
Outdoor recreation - opportunity
Outdoor recreation
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 kilometre 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
% 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
C.R.(4857,
4858)
No
No
No
No
No
C.R.(4860)
C.R.(4860)
No
C.R.(7000)
C.R.(7002)
C.R.(7000,
7043)
C.R.(7043)
C.R.(7056,
7057)
C.R.(7007)
C.R.(7007)
C.R.(7007)
No
C.R.(7012)
C.R.(7012)
C.R.(7012)
No
C.R.(7058,
7059, 7060)
C.R.(7017)
C.R.(7006)
C.R.(7017)
No
C.R.(7017)
C.R.(7042)
C.R.(7042)
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-19
-------
Ind.
code
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
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
Indicator name
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
Ground surface hardening
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Water Withdrawal
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
Measure
% 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.
Percentage of land that is covered by buildings, roads, parking lots and other
hardened surfaces.
Land use within 1 kilometre (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, phosphorus, 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 metres).
% 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
C.R.(7042)
C.R.(7012,
7042)
No
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)
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)
No
C.R.(4176)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2-20
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
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
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
8068
8069
Indicator name
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
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
Wildlife population viability
Wildlife population viability
Measure
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
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
Pitcher's thistle, L. Huron tansy, dwarf lake iris
Insect biomass by species or guild
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
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-21
-------
Ind.
code
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
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
Indicator name
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
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
Measure
# 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 10% 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
% 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
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
No
No
No
2-22
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ind.
code
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
Indicator name
Available resources
Pollution of terrestrial ecosystems
Soil erosion
Urban sprawl
Nearshore threatened species
Area, Quality and Protection of
Lakeshore Communities
Habitat distribution
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use
Lake Level Fluctuations
Nearshore Plant and Animal Problem
Species
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of
Bald Eagles
Extent and Quality of Nearshore
Natural Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and
Stability
Expected diversity
Community / Species Plans
Financial Resources Allocated to
Great Lakes Programs
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated
Management Plans
Sediment Available for Coastal
Nourishment
Interior species
Agricultural land use: Key Best
Management Practices (BMP)
Forest certification
Measure
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 <1 km 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 animal 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
kilometre (km) of the shoreline.
% of sites with >90% expected diversity/population
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
No
No
No
No
C.R.(8161)
No
C.R.(4861)
No
No
C.R.(7028)
No
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
2-23
-------
Ind.
code
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8160
8161
9000
9001
Indicator name
Contaminants Affecting the American
Otter
Nearshore endemic species
Protected Nearshore 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)
Agricultural Land Use: Livestock
density
Threatened Species
Acid Rain
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of
Significant Deterioration
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.
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.
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).
C.R.(8161)
C.R.(8161)
C.R.(8161)
No
No
No
2-24
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
ID#
Indicator
Name
Nearshore and Open Waters Indicators
6
8
9
17
18
68
93
101
104
109
111
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
7059
8142
Fish Habitat
Salmon and Trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Lake Trout and Scud (Diporeia hoyi)
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in
Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Contaminants In Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Zooplankton Populations
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediments Cores
Contaminant Exchanges Between Media: Air to Water,
and Water to Sediment
Wastewater Pollution
Sediment Available for Coastal Nurishment
Coastal Wetland Indicators
4501
4502
4503
4504
4506
4507
4510
4511
4513
4516
4860
4861
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in
Coastal Wetland 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
Nitrate and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators3
8129
Area, Quality, and Protection of Lakeshore Communities
Indicator
Type
0
8
f)
X
X
X
X
X
X
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
I"
<
13
I
X
Environmental
Com
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
03
X
X
X
partments
Sediments
X
X
X
X
Biota (excluding fish & humans)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-C
u_
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Humans
Great Lakes
Issues
Contaminants & Pathogens
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
Exotics
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Climate Change
X
Stewardship
X
X
SOLEC
Grou
Open Waters
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
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
jinas1
Land Use
Human Health
8
0
1
Unbounded
GLWQA
A
1 Spec Objctvs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2LaMPs/RAPs/BUIs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
X
X
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
nne
b
Q.
o
f£
CO
X
X
X
X
0
6
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
3-4
-------
5 Wastes - Vessels
GLWQA Annex
(con'd)
6 Shipping / Pollution
7 Dredging
X
8 Facilities
9 Contingency Plan
10 Hazard. Poll. List
O)
£
0
S
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
12 Pers. Toxic Subs.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13 Non-point Sources
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14Contam. Sed's
X
X
1 5 Airborne Toxic Subs.
X
X
16 Groundwater
17 Res. & Devel.
X
X
X
X
IJC Desired Outcomes
1 Fishability
2 Swimmability
3 Drinkability
4 Healthy Humans
5 Economic Viability
1
ci
ffi
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
t
E
Qj
ti
>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 Excess Phos.
X
X
X
X
9 Physical Env. Integ.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GLFC
Ob
Ontario
X
X
X
X
X
X
CD
LU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ectives
0
13
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
CO
D)
o
S
X
X
X
X
X
b
1
CO
X
X
X
X
X
Beneficial Use Impairments
1 F&W Consumption
2 Tainting
3 F&W Pop's
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
I
^r
X
X
5 Deformities/Reprod.
X
6 Benthos
X
X
X
X
X
X
7 Dredging
X
8 Eutrophication
X
X
X
9 Drinking Water
X
W)
g
1
O
CO
CD
CO
0
11 Aesthetics
X
X
B
y)
o
O
"K
13
T3
c
d>
<
CM
13 Phyto-/ Zoo-plankton
X
X
X
14 F&W Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(fl
1
[
17
16
17
17
14
10
19
10
12
13
18
10
14
11
11
8
13
14
14
10
10
12
12
10
9
10
11
12
11
12
10
12
11
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
3-5
-------
ID#
8131
8132
8134
8135
8136
8137
8139
8141
8146
8147
8149
Indicator
Name
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use
Nearshore Plant and Animal 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
Protected Nearshore Areas
Land Use Indicators
7000
7002
7006
7012
7028
7053
7055
8114
Urban Density
Land Conversion
Brownfield Redevelopment
Mass Transportation
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Green Planning Process
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Habitat Fragmentation
Human Health Indicators
113
4081
4083
4088
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
E. co// and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore
Recreational Waters
Contaminants in Edible 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
Societal Indicators
3509
3510
3511
3512
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape
Partnerships
ntegration of Ecosystem Management Principles Across
Landscapes
ntegration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes
Indicator
Type
S
8
f)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pressure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I"
<
13
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental
Com
<
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T3
c
03
_1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
partments
Sediments
^
c
05
E
o3
03
f:
03
c
T3
"o
^
1
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-C
.03
u_
X
X
Humans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Great Lakes
Issues
Contaminants & Pathogens
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nutrients
X
Exotics
X
X
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Climate Change
X
Stewardship
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOLEC
Grou
03
c
03
Q.
O
X
X
X
X
Nearshore Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coastal Wetlands
X
X
Nearshore Terrestrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
sinas1
Land Use
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Human Health
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
03
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Unbounded
GLWQA
A
1 Spec Objctvs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2LaMPs/RAPs/BUIs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
nne
03
b
Q.
03
O
f£
CO
X
^
03
03
>
6
^r
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
3-6
-------
5 Wastes - Vessels
GLWQA Annex
(con'd)
6 Shipping / Pollution
7 Dredging
8 Facilities
9 Contingency Plan
10 Hazard. Poll. List
O)
£
0
S
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
13 Non-point Sources
X
X
X
X
X
X
14Contam. Sed's
1 5 Airborne Toxic Subs.
X
X
16 Groundwater
X
17 Res. & Devel.
X
X
X
X
X
X
IJC Desired Outcomes
1 Fishability
X
X
2 Swimmability
X
3 Drinkability
X
4 Healthy Humans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5 Economic Viability
1
ci
ffi
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
t
E
Qj
ti
>
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 Excess Phos.
X
9 Physical Env. Integ.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GLFC
Ob
Ontario
X
X
0
LU
X
X
ectives
0
13
I
X
X
c
CO
D)
O
S
X
X
b
1
CO
X
X
Beneficial Use Impairments
1 F&W Consumption
X
X
2 Tainting
3 F&W Pop's
X
X
X
X
2
I
^r
5 Deformities/Reprod.
X
X
6 Benthos
7 Dredging
8 Eutrophication
X
9 Drinking Water
X
W)
g
1
O
03
CD
CO
0
X
11 Aesthetics
B
y)
o
O
"K
13
T3
c
d>
<
CM
13 Phyto-/ Zoo-plankton
14 F&W Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(fl
1
[
9
10
12
14
9
8
6
6
9
14
11
4
6
5
9
13
8
11
8
20
13
20
8
15
10
10
10
5
4
4
4
4
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
3-7
-------
ID#
3513
7042
7043
7056
7057
7060
8140
Indicator
Name
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Water Wthdrawal
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Generation
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
Unbounded Indicators
4519
4857
4858
8150
8161
9000
9002
79
Climate Change: Number of Extreme Storms
Climate Change: First Emergence of Water Lily Blossoms
in Coastal Wetlands
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Threatened Species
Acid Rain
Exotic Species
COUNT
Indicator
Type
03
S
f)
X
X
X
X
30
Pressure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
36
Human Activity
X
X
13
Bold X designates the primary SOLEC Grouping for each indicator
Environmental
Com
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
19
T5
C
05
X
X
19
partments
Sediments
4
c
05
E
03
O3
C
T5
"o
1
CO
X
X
X
X
24
-C
.0!
LL
X
X
14
Humans
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Great Lakes
Issues
Contaminants & Pathogens
X
X
29
Nutrients
11
Exotics
X
X
14
Habitat
X
X
27
Climate Change
X
X
X
X
X
7
Stewardship
X
X
X
X
X
X
19
SOLEC
Grou
03
c
0
O.
o
X
21
Nearshore Waters
X
24
2 o = Some LaMPs /RAPs are incorporating these measures into their plans even though the indicators do not have an associated BUI
Coastal Wetlands
X
X
X
21
Nearshore Terrestrial
X
18
jinas1
Land Use
X
X
13
3 #8142 Sediment Available for Coastal Nurishment and #4861 Water Level Fluctuations are a so co-grouped with Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators
Human Health
9
S
0
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
Unbounded
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
GLWQA
A
1 Spec Objctvs
X
18
2 LaMPs/ RAPs / BUIs
X
X
X
49
nne
03
b
a.
03
o
CO
5
03
0
6
0
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
3-8
-------
5 Wastes - Vessels
0
GLWQA Annex
(con'd)
6 Shipping / Pollution
0
7 Dredging
1
8 Facilities
0
9 Contingency Plan
0
10 Hazard. Poll. List
0
O)
£
0
S
X
X
X
X
58
12 Pers. Toxic Subs.
X
19
13 Non-point Sources
17
14Contam. Sed's
2
1 5 Airborne Toxic Subs.
X
X
6
16 Groundwater
1
17 Res. & Devel.
X
11
IJC Desired Outcomes
1 Fishability
2
2 Swimmability
1
3 Drinkability
1
4 Healthy Humans
9
5 Economic Viability
X
1
X
17
8 Excess Phos.
5
9 Physical Env. Integ.
X
X
X
X
X
30
GLFC
Ob
Ontario
8
0
LU
9
ectives
0
13
I
8
C
CO
D)
O
S
7
b
1
CO
7
Beneficial Use Impairments
1 F&W Consumption
2
2 Tainting
0
3 F&W Pop's
X
X
15
2
I
^r
2
5 Deformities/Reprod.
3
6 Benthos
6
7 Dredging
1
8 Eutrophication
4
9 Drinking Water
2
01
g
1
o
05
0
CQ
0
1
11 Aesthetics
X
3
£
U)
o
O
to
=3
T5
C
O)
<
CM
0
13 Phyto-/ Zoo-plankton
3
14 F&W Habitat
X
X
22
U)
1
i
4
7
3
6
8
10
4
7
5
8
10
13
10
5
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
3-9
-------
Appendix 4 Criteria
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*
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?
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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
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.
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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Appendix 5 The SOLEC Indicator Database
This appendix provides details of the fields and features of the SOLEC Indicator Database
(described briefly in Section 3.7 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, how it will be displayed
graphically, 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" in these three fields
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 (response)), 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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4 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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
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.
Reference Document. What document did the indicator 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)
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 Waters, Nearshore Waters, Coastal Wetlands, Nearshore Terrestrial,
Land Use, Human Health, Societal and Unbounded.
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,
sediments, biota, fish, humans), Great Lakes issues (e.g., contaminants and pathogens,
nutrients, exotics, habitat, climate change, stewardship), GLWQA Annexes, GLWQA Beneficial
Use Impairments, IJC Desired Outcomes, and Great Lakes Fishery Commission Fish
Community Objectives.
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4 5-3
-------
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. " Under Consideration"
applies to those indicators under consideration for the SOLEC List. " Selected" applies to those
which are included in the SOLEC list. " Not Selected" 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 bracketsi.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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Appendix 6: Acronyms and Commonly Used Abbreviations
AoC Area of Concern
BIA Biodiversity Investment Area
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
BUI Beneficial Use Impairment
CAPMoN Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network
Cd cadmium
Cs cesium
CO carbon monoxide
CWS Canadian Wildlife Service
DELT Deformities, Eroded fins, Lesions and Tumors
DDE metabolite of DDT
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
F2 2nd generation: offspring from successful mating
FCGO Fish Community Goals and Objectives
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (U.S.)
FFG Functional Feeding Groups
FTE Full Time Equivalent (with respect to number of employees)
GIS Geographic Information System
GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended by Protocol signed
November 18, 1987
ha hectare; 10,000 square metres; 2.47 acres
Hg mercury
IADN International Atmospheric Deposition Network
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
IJC International Joint Commission
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
LaMP Lakewide Management Plan
LRTAP Long-Range Transport of Atmospheric Pollutants
MAB Man and the Biosphere. Initiated by UNESCO to address problems relating to
conservation of resources, resources systems, and human settlement
development.
MMP Marsh Monitoring Program
NDDN National Dry Deposition Network (U.S. Park Service)
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NOX Nitrogen Oxides (nitrous, nitric)
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
6-1
-------
O3 Ozone
Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Pb lead
PBT Persistant, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic chemicals
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDD polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins
PCDF polychlorinated dibenzo furans
PTS Persistent Toxic Substance
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.
RAP Remedial Action Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SP Suspended Particulates
spp. species
Sr strontium
TRS Total Reduced Sulfur
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service
6-2
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Appendix 7 Documents
The following table lists most of the documents and reports used by the Core Groups to extract
indicators and other information. Please go to the end of the table for a list of the acronyms used here.
(Note that the document reference number has been revised since Version 3 ).
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Document
Sponsor
GLFC
GLFC
GLFC
GLFC
GLFC
GLFC
Michigan
LaMP
Michigan
LaMP
Ontario LaMP
Ontario LaMP
Ontario LaMP
Superior
LaMP
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
Document
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.
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
X
X
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
7-1
-------
Ref.
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Document
Sponsor
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
SOLEC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
IJC
EC
EC
EC/CMHC/
ICURR
Document
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.
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
7-2
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
Ref.
No.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Document
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
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). 1 17 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.
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
X
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
7-3
-------
Ref.
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Document
Sponsor
Health
Canada
OCTRF
OMH
GLPF/
USATSDR/
NYGLRC
NYSDEC
UofT
UofT
GLC
OMMAH
USEPA
Document
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 Lake s-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
Acronyms
CCFM
CMHC
EC
GLC
GLFC
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Commission
Environment Canada
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
7-4
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
-------
GLPF Great Lakes Protection Fund
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
NNC The Nature Conservancy of Canada
NYGLRC New York Great Lakes Research Consortium
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 Selection of Indicators, Version 4
7-5
-------
Appendix 8 SOLEC 2000 Organizational Structure
(simplified)
The chart below depicts a simplified SOLEC 2000 organizational structure. The members of
the Indicator Group, the six Core Groups, and the Steering Committee as of October 1998 are
listed in the Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 3. These
groups are dynamic in nature, therefore membership changes have occurred since SOLEC 98.
This report does not discuss the Biodiversity Investment Area group or the papers produced by
this groupfor 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 Bertram
Nancy Stadler-Salt
Co-authors:
Joe Koonce
Ken Minns
Heather Morrison
Co-authors:
Dennis Albert
PatChow-Fraser
Open&
Nearshore
Waters
Coastal
Wetlands
Nearshore
Terrestrial
Co-leads: Co-leads: Lead:
Tom Edsall Duane Heaton Karen Rodriguez
Murray Charlton Nancy Patterson
Lesley Dunn
Land
Use
Lead:
Ray Rivers
Human
Health
Co-leads:
Doug Haines
Mark Johnson
Societal
Co-leads:
Ron Baba
Henry Lickers
Unbounded
Leads:
All Core Group Leads
SOLEC Selection of Indicators, Version 4
8-1
------- |