DRAFT FOR REVIEW
NOVEMBER2000
-------
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2000
Implementing Indicators
Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2000
Assembled by:
Nancy Stadler-Salt
Environment Canada
Office of the Regional Science Advisor
867 Lakeshore Rd.
Burlington, ON L7R 4A6
Canada
nancy.stadler-salt@ec.gc.ca
Paul Bertram
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
USA
bertram.paul@epa.gov
October 2000
-------
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Discussion, October 2ooo)
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Walleye [and Hexagenia] - SOLEC Indicator #9 2
[Walleye and] Hexagenia - SOLEC Indicator #9 4
Preyfish Populations - SOLEC Indicator#17 6
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey Abundance- SOLEC Indicator #18 10
Native Unionid Mussels - SOLEC Indicator #68 13
Lake Trout [and Scud (Diporeia hoyi)] - SOLEC Indicator #93 16
[Lake Trout and] Scud (Diporeia hoyi) - SOLEC Indicator #93 18
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumours (DELT) in Nearshore Fish - SOLEC Indicator #101 20
Phytoplankton Populations - SOLEC Indicator#109 22
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings - SOLEC Indicator #111 24
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds - SOLEC Indicator #115 27
Zooplankton Populations - SOLEC Indicator #116 29
Atmospheric Deposition ofToxic Chemicals - SOLEC Indicator #117 31
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters - SOLEC Indicator #118 34
Coastal Wetland Indicators
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance - SOLEC Indicator #4504 37
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs - SOLEC Indicator #4506 40
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance - SOLEC Indicator #4507 43
Coastal Wetland Area by Type-SOLEC Indicator #4510 45
Effect ofWater Level Fluctuations - SOLEC Indicator #4861 48
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar Communities - SOLEC Indicator #8129 (in part) 52
Extent of Hardened Shoreline - SOLEC Indicator #8131 54
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles - SOLEC Indicator #8135 56
Population Monitoring and Contaminants affecting the American Otter - SOLEC Indicator #8147 59
Land Use Indicators
Urban Density-SOLEC Indicator #7000 61
Brownfields Redevelopment - SOLEC Indicator #7006 63
Mass Transportation - SOLEC Indicator #7012 65
Sustainable Agricultural Practices - SOLEC Indicator #7028 67
Human Health Indicators
E. coli and Fecal Coliform in Recreational Waters - SOLEC Indicator #4081 70
Chemical Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue - SOLEC Indicator #4083 73
Drinking Water Quality-SOLEC Indicator #4175 75
Air Quality-SOLEC Indicator #4176 79
Societal Indicators
Economic Prosperity- SOLEC Indicator #7043 83
Water Use - SOLEC Indicator #7056 87
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Discussion, October 2ooo)
-------
Unbounded Indicators
Acid Rain - SOLEC Indicator #9000 89
Under Construction 92
Exotic Species Introduced into the Great Lakes - SOLEC Indicator #9002 93
APPENDIX 1 — BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INDICATORS LIST 101
APPENDIX 2 — RELEVANCIES (OR ALTERNATE INDICATOR GROUPINGS) 109
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Discussion, October 2ooo)
-------
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2000 -
Implementing Indicators
Introduction
This report is a collection of summary reports on [25]
Great Lakes environmental indicators. Its purpose is to
provide SOLEC participants an advanced look at the
status of Great Lakes ecosystem components based on the
suite of 80 indicators proposed at SOLEC 1998.
Each indicator report was authored by one or more
people who are familiar with the subject area and data
sources. Acknowledgments are included in each report.
SOLEC organizers provided the authors with guidelines
for the preparation of the report. The indicator reports
have been reformatted to a common page layout style,
but the content has not been edited. These indicator
reports should be considered DRAFT - for SOLEC
Review.
These indicators will be presented and discussed at
SOLEC 2000. Participants will have opportunities to
provide additional data or data sources, contribute overall
assessments about the status of the Great Lakes, and
debate implications of the indicators and assessments for
environmental management. Based on the information
in these indicators, on feedback and analyses received at
SOLEC 2000, and on additional information obtained
after SOLEC 2000, a State of the Great Lakes 2001
report will be prepared which will contain both the final
indicator summary reports and assessments of Great
Lakes ecosystem components based on the indicators.
The indicators in this report are grouped according to
the SOLEC categories of nearshore and offshore open
waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial (including
land use), human health, and unbounded. Other
groupings are equally valid, depending on the perspective
of the user. A table is included in Appendix A of this
report that lists all the SOLEC indicators and identifies
to which of several alternate groupings each indicator is
relevant. Previous versions of this table have appeared in
the State of the Great Lakes 1999 report and in the
Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health - Version 4.
This is the first attempt to assemble data and to present
summary assessments for the SOLEC indicators. Not all
the SOLEC indicators are included in this report.
Several reasons are possible for SOLEC indicators to be
absent from this report:
•• The data exist but they were not retrieved and
summarized by the time this report was
assembled and printed. These indicator
summaries should be available for distribution at
SOLEC 2000.
•• The data exist, but they were not accessible to
indicator authors within the constraints of time
and personnel available. The information might
be available for the State of the Great Lakes
2001 report, but not for consideration at
SOLEC 2000.
•• The required data have not been collected.
Changes to existing monitoring programs or the
initiation of new monitoring programs are
needed to collect and analyze the data.
•• The indicator is still under development. More
research and/or testing is needed before the
indicator can be implemented.
Also, not all indicators presented here are complete.
Some have data for selected geographic areas, but not for
all the Great Lakes. Some present only part of the data
that are proposed for a complete indicator.
Over the next several years, more of the SOLEC
indicators will be phased in. Monitoring programs will
be adjusted, information management systems put into
place, and research and testing completed to refine the
indicators. Meanwhile, readers are encouraged to assist
in the biennial assessment of the Great Lakes by reading
the indicator reports and providing constructive feedback
on their content, format, data, conclusions and
implications for management.
For further details of the indicator development process
and of previous SOLEC conferences can be found on the
web at: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/ and
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Walleye [and Hexagenia]
SOLEC Indicator #9
Purpose
Trends in walleye fishery yields indicate changes in overall
fish community structure, the health of percids, and the
stability and resiliency of the Great Lakes aquatic ecosys-
tem.
Ecosystem Objective
Protection, enhancement, and restoration of historically
important, mesotrophic habitats that support walleye as
the top fish predator are necessary for stable, balanced,
and productive elements of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Reductions in phosphorus loadings during the 1970s
substantially improved spawning and nursery habitat for
many fish species in the Great Lakes. Improved
mesotrophic habitats (i.e., western Lake Erie, Bay of
Quinte, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay), along with
interagency fishery management programs that increased
adult survival, led to a dramatic recovery of walleyes in
many areas of the Great Lakes, especially in Lake Erie.
High water levels also may have played a major role in the
recovery. Fishery endpoints, established for these areas by
Lake Committees within the Great Lakes Fishery Com-
mission, were attained or exceeded in nearly all areas by
the mid-1980s and then declined during the 1990s.
Total yields were highest in Lake Erie (averaged nearly
4,800 kilotons, 1975-1999), intermediate in Lakes
Huron and Ontario (<300 kilotons in all years), and
lowest in Lakes Michigan and Superior (<10 kilotons).
Declines in the 1990s were likely related to shifts in
environmental states (i.e., from mesotrophic to less
favorable oligotrophic conditions), changing fisheries,
and, perhaps in the case of Lake Erie, a population
naturally coming into balance with its prey base. The
effects of exotic species on the food web or on walleye
behavior (increased water clarity can limit daytime
feeding) also may have been a contributing factor. In
general, walleye yields tended to peak during periods of
ideal environmental conditions (mid-1980s) and remain
substantially improved from levels of the 1970s.
Future Pressures
Natural, self-sustaining walleye populations require
adequate spawning and nursery habitats. In the Great
Lakes, these habitats lie in tributary streams and
nearshore reefs, wetlands, and embayments. Loss of these
habitats is the primary concern for future health of
walleye populations. Environmental factors that alter
water level, water temperature, water clarity, and flow
(currents) can substantially affect nearshore habitats.
Thus, global warming and its subsequent effects on
temperature and precipitation in the Great Lakes basin
may become increasingly important determinants of
walleye health. Exotic species, like zebra mussels, ruffe,
and round gobies may disrupt the efficiency of energy
transfer through the food web, potentially affecting
growth and survival of walleye. Moreover, alterations in
the food web can affect environmental characteristics (like
water clarity), which can in turn affect fishery catches of
walleye. Human disturbance of tributary and nearshore
habitats through activities like dredging, diking, farming,
and filling of wetlands will continue to pose threats to all
fish species that require these habitats for reproduction.
Future Activities
Research is needed to further identify critical reproduc-
tive habitats and how they are being affected by environ-
mental and anthropogenic disturbances. This informa-
tion is crucial to develop management plans that carefully
balance human demands with ecosystem health. Annual
harvest assessments should be continued for walleye
fisheries in all areas and should be reported in a standard
unit (pounds).
Further Work Necessary
Fishery yields can serve as appropriate indicators of
walleye health but need to include all types of fisheries
(i.e., recreational, commercial, tribal) in the areas of
interest. Yield assessments are lacking for some fisheries
or in some years for most of the areas. Moreover,
measurement units are not standardized among fishery
types (i.e., commercial fisheries are measured in pounds
while recreational fisheries are measured in numbers),
which means additional conversions are necessary and
may introduce errors. Therefore, trends in yields across
time (years) are probably better indicators than absolute
values within any year, assuming that any introduced bias
is relatively constant over time. It may be useful to also
compile index net survey estimates of relative abundance
from all areas (where available) to augment the yield data.
Sources
Fishery harvest data were obtained from Tom Stewart
(Lake Ontario-OMNR), Tom Eckhart (Lake Ontario -
NYDEC), Karen Wright (Upper Lakes tribal data-
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
COTFMA),Dave
Fielder (Lake Huron-
MDNR), Terry
Lychwyck (Green
Bay-WDNR),
various annual
OMNRandODNR
Lake Erie fisheries
reports, and the
GLFC commercial
fishery data base.
Gene Emond
(ODNR) collated
data into a standard-
ized form. Fishery
data should not be
used for purposes
outside of this
document without
first contacting the
agencies that col-
lected them.
Acknowledgments
Author: Roger
Knight, Ohio
Department of
Natural Resources,
OH.
Lake Erie Walleye Harvest
Year
Lake Huron Walleye Harvest
Year
LakeOntario Walleye Harvest
Year
Lake Michigan Walleye Harvest
S
o
D Tribal
D Sport
• Commercial
Year
Lake Superior, Walleye
Harvest
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Year
Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron
Walleye Harvest
200
180
160
in 14°
is
= 80
^ 60
40
20
D Tribal
D Sport
• Commercial
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Year
Bay of Quinte Walleye Harvest
Year
Green Bay, Lake Michigan
Walleye Harvest
D Tribal
D Sport
• Commercial
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Year
FCGOs
Lake Huron: 0.7 million kg
Lake Michigan: 0.1 to 0.2 million kg
Lake Erie: sustainable harvests in all basins
Achievement of these targets will require healthy walleye stocks in each lake.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
[Walleye and] Hexagenia
SOLEC Indicator #9
6000
Purpose
The distribution, abundance, and annual production
of the burrowing mayfly Hexagenia in mesotrophic
Great Lakes habitat is measured directly and used as
the indicator. Hexagenia is proposed for use as an
indicator of ecosystem health because it is intolerant of
pollution and is thus a good reflection of water and
lakebed sediment quality in mesotrophic Great Lakes
habitats, where it was historically the dominant, large,
benthic invertebrate and an important item on the diets
of many valuable fishes.
Ecosystem Objective
Historically productive Great Lakes mesotrophic habitats
like western Lake Erie; the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario;
Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron; and Green Bay, Lake Michi-
gan, should be restored and maintained
as balanced, stable, and productive
elements of the Great Lakes ecosystem
with Hexagenia as the dominant, large,
benthic invertebrate.
State of the Ecosystem
Major declines in the abundance of
Hexagenia and low abundance or
absence in some Great Lakes habitats
where they were historically abundant
have been linked to eutrophication and
low dissolved oxygen in bottom waters
and to pollution of sediments by metals
and petroleum products. For example,
Hexagenia was abundant in the western
and central basins basins of Lake Erie in
the 1930s and 1940s but an extensive
mortality occurred in 1953 in the
eastern portion of the western basin.
The population there recovered in
1954, but extinction followed through-
out the western and central basins by
the early 1960s. Improvements in water
and sediment quality in historical
Hexagenia habitat following the imposi-
tion of pollution controls in the 1960s
were not immediately followed by the
recovery of Hexagenia populations.
However, there is now evidence of the
beginnings of recovery of Hexagenia in
Green Bay, Lake Michigan, and full
recovery of the population in western Lake Erie is
predicted to occur in 2000, indicating the health of these
mesotrophic habitats is improving substantially. Most of
Lake St. Clair and portions of the Upper Great Lakes
Connecting Channels support populations of Hexagenia
with the highest biomass and production measured
anywhere in North America (Fig. 1). In sharp contrast,
Hexagenia has been extirpated in polluted portions of
these same Great Lakes waters and no recovery is pres-
ently evident.
The recovery of Hexagenia in western Lake Erie is a
signal event, which shows clearly that properly imple-
mented pollution controls can bring about the recovery
of a major Great Lakes mesotrophic ecosystem. With its
full recovery, the Hexagenia population in western Lake
500 1000 1500 2000
Biomass (mg dry weight/m2)
Figure 1. Mean annual biomass and production of Hexagenia populations in
North America.
Biomass values >500 (production values > about 1000) represent populations
from unpolluted portions of Lake St. Clair, the St. Marys River, and eastern
Lake Superior. Lower values represent populations from polluted areas else-
where in the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels and populations from
polluted and clean habitats elsewhere in North America.
(Source: T A. Edsall, unpublished data.)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Erie will probably reclaim its functional status as a
primary agent in sediment bioturbation and as a trophic
integrator directly linking the detrital energy resource to
fish, and particularly the economically valuable percid
community. The recovery of the Hexagenia population in
western Lake Erie also helps remind us of one outstand-
ing public outreach feature associated with using
Hexagenia as an indicator of ecosystem health—the
massive swarms of winged adults that are typical of
healthy, productive Hexagenia populations in areas of
historical abundance in the Great Lakes. These swarms
will be highly visible to the public who can use them to
judge the success of water pollution control programs and
the health of Great Lakes mesotrophic ecosystems.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
The virtual extinction and delayed recovery of the
Hexagenia population in western Lake Erie was attributed
to the widespread, periodic occurrence of anoxic bottom
waters resulting from nutrient inputs in sewage and
runoff from agricultural lands, and to toxic pollutants,
including oil and heavy metals, which accumulated and
persisted in the lakebed sediments. Most point source
inputs are now controlled, but in-place pollutants in
lakebed sediments appear to be a problem in some areas.
Paved surface runoff and combined sewer overflows also
pose a major problem in some urban areas. Phosphorus
loadings still exceed guideline levels in some portions of
the Great Lakes and loadings may increase as the human
population in the Great Lakes basin grows.
The effects of exotic species on Hexagenia and its useful-
ness as an indicator of ecosystem health are unknown and
may be problematic. It has been postulated that the
colonization of the western basin by the zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha) and the recovery of Hexagenia are
linked causally, but no specific mechanism has yet been
proposed. Support for zebra mussel as a major factor in
the recovery of Hexagenia in the western basin is perhaps
eroded by the fact that Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, is also
heavily colonized by the zebra mussel, but the Hexagenia.
population there, which collapsed in 1955-1956, still has
not shown signs of recovery.
Future Actions
Regulate point sources and non-point sources of
pollution in the basin to improve and maintain Great
Lakes water and sediment quality consistent with the
environmental requirements of healthy, productive
populations of Hexagenia. Continue development and
application of technology and practices designed to
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
remediate lakebed and riverbed sediments in AOCs and
critical Hexagenia habitat areas that have problem levels
of persistent, in-place pollutants.
Further Work Needed
Develop a monitoring program and baseline data for
Hexagenia populations in all major, historical, Great
Lakes mesotrophic habitats so that changes in ecosystem
health can be monitored and reported, management
strategies evaluated and improved, and corrective actions
taken to improve ecosystem health and to judge progress
toward reaching interim and long term targets and goals.
Conduct studies needed to describe the interactions
between Hexagenia and introduced aquatic species and
the effect of those species, if any, on the utility of
Hexagenia as an indicator of ecosystem health.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas Edsall, US Geological Survey, Biological
Resources Division, Ann Arbor, MI.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Preyfish Populations
SOLEC Indicator #17
Purpose
To directly measure the abundance and diversity of
preyfish populations, especially in relation to the stability
of predator species necessary to maintain the biological
integrity of each lake.
Ecosystem Objective
The importance of preyfish populations to support
healthy, productive populations of predator fishes is
recognized in the FCGOs for each lake. As example, the
fish community objectives for Lake Michigan specify that
in order to restore an ecologically balanced fish commu-
nity, a diversity of prey species at population levels
matched to primary production and predator demands
must be maintained. This indicator also relates to the
1997 Strategic Great Lakes Fisheries Management Plan
Common Goal Statement for Great Lakes fisheries
agencies.
This assemblage of fishes form important trophic links in
the aquatic ecosystem and constitute the majority of the
fish production in the Great Lakes. Preyfish populations
in each of the lakes is currently monitored on an annual
basis in order to quantify the population dynamics of
these important fish stocks leading to a better under-
standing of the processes that shape the fish community
and to identify those characteristics critical to each
species. Populations of lake trout, Pacific salmon, and
other salmonids in have been established as part of
intensive programs designed to rehabilitate (or develop
new) game fish populations. These valuable predator
species sustain an increasingly demanding and highly
valued fisheries and information on their status is crucial.
In turn, these apex predators are sustained by forage fish
populations. In addition, the bloater and the lake her-
ring, native species, and the rainbow smelt are also
directly important to the commercial fishing industry.
Therefore, it is very important, based on (1) lake trout
restoration goals, (2) stocking projections, (3), present
levels of salmonid abundance and (4) commercial fishing
interests, that the current status and estimated carrying
capacity of the fish populations be fully understood.
State of the Ecosystem
The segment of the Great Lakes' fish communities that
we classify as preyfish comprises species that, as mature
adults, prey essentially on zooplankton. Those species
that depend on diets of invertebrates, typically crustacean
zooplankton, for their entire life history are those fish
considered in this section — including both pelagic and
benthic species. This convention also supports the
recognition of particle-size distribution theory and size-
dependent ecological processes. Based on size-spectra
theory, body size is an indicator of trophic level and the
smaller, short-lived fish that constitute the planktivorous
fish assemblage discussed here are a discernable trophic
group of the food web. At present, bloaters (Coregonus
hoyi), lake herring (Coregonus artedi), rainbow smelt
(Osmerus mordax), alewife (Alosapseudoharengus), and
deepwater sculpins (Myoxocephalus thompsoni), and to a
lesser degree species like ninespine sticklebacks (Pungitius
pungitius) and slimy sculpins (Cottus cognatus) constitute
the bulk of the preyfish communities.
In Lake Erie, the prey fish community is unique among
the Great Lakes in that it is characterized by relatively
high species diversity. The prey fish community com-
prises primarily gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and
alewife (clupeids), emerald (Notropis atherinoides) and
spottail shiners (TV. hudsonius), silver chubs (Hybopsis
storeriana), trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus), round
gobies (Neogobius melanostomus), and rainbow smelt (soft-
rayed), and age-0 yellow (Perca flavescens) and white perch
(Morone americana), and white bass (M. chrysops)(sp'my-
rayed).
Lake Michigan —
Alewives remain at consistently lower levels as compared
to previous years. Some increase in abundance is noted
with strong 1995 and 1998 year classes, but the current
low population levels appear to be driven in large part by
predation pressure. Rainbow smelt have declined and
remain at lower levels, possibly due to predation. Bloater
biomass continues to decline due to lack of recruitment
and slow growth. Bloaters are expected to decline
further, but may rebound as part of an anticipated natural
cycle in abundance. Sculpins remain at the same level of
abundance and continue to contribute a significant
portion of the preyfish biomass.
Lake Huron —
Similar to Lake Michigan, the decline in bloater abun-
dance has resulted in shift in an increased proportion of
alewives in the preyfish community. The changes in the
abundance and age structure of the prey for salmon and
trout to predominantly younger, smaller fish suggests that
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
25
1978198019821984198619881990199219941996199i
19791981 19831985198719891991 199319951997
Rainbow smelt
isc
1990 1992 1994
Year
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
predation pressure is an important force in both alewife
and rainbow smelt populations. Sculpin populations have
varied, but have been at lower levels in recent years.
Lake Ontario —
Alewives and to a lesser degree rainbow smelt dominate
the preyfish population. Alewives remain at same low
level; though this species has exhibited a strong 1998 year
class. Rainbow smelt show some increase due to influ-
ence of 1996 year class, but the paucity of large individu-
als indicates heavy predation. Overall, shifts to deeper
water have been noted in fish distributions and may be
related to establishment of Dreissena. Sculpin
populations have declined and remained at low levels in
since 1990.
Lake Superior —
Lake herring populations have declined recently to be less
dominant in the preyfish community. Lake herring
biomass is controlled by production of young, which is
mediated by environment rather than parental stock size.
In contrast, rainbow smelt biomass has remained low and
is likely controlled by predation from trout and salmon.
Continued low forage biomass will result in declining
growth and survival rates of trout and salmon. Sculpins
remain at low but consistent levels of abundance.
Lake Erie —
Recently, the prey fish community in all three basins of
Lake Erie has shown declining trends. In the eastern
basin, rainbow smelt have shown significant declines in
abundance coupled with alternate year high abundance
pattern, as well as declines in growth rate over the past
several years. These declines have been attributed to lack
of recruitment associated with Driessenid colonization
and reductions in productivity. The western and central
basins also have shown declines in forage fish abundance
associated with declines in abundance of age-0 white
perch and rainbow smelt. The clupeid component of the
forage fish community has shown no overall trend in the
past decade, although gizzard shad and alewife abundance
has been quite variable across the survey period.
Future Pressures
The influences of predation by salmon and trout on
preyfish populations appear to be common across all
lakes. Additional pressures from Dreissena populations
are apparent in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and "bottom
up" effects on the prey fishes may be expected from a
dramatic decline recently observed in Diporeia
populations in Lake Michigan as well as newly expanded
populations of Dreissena in this lake.
Future Activities
Recognition of significant predation effects on preyfish
populations has resulted in recent salmon stocking
cutbacks in Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario.
However, even at lower populations, alewives have
exhibited the ability to produce strong year classes such
that the continued judicious use of artificially propagated
predators seems necessary to avoid domination by the
alewife. It should be noted that this is not an option in
Lake Superior since lake trout and salmon are largely
lake-produced. Potential "bottom up" effects on prey
fishes would be difficult in any attempt to mitigate
owing to our inability to affect changes — this scenario
only reinforces the need to avoid further introductions of
exotics into the Great Lake ecosystems.
Further Work Necessary
It has been advanced that in order to restore an ecologi-
cally balanced fish community, a diversity of prey species
at population levels matched to primary production and
predator demands must be maintained. However, the
current mix of native and naturalized prey and predator
species, and the contributions of artificially propagated
predator species into the system confounds any sense of
balance. The metrics of ecological balance as the conse-
quence offish community structure are best defined
through food-web interactions. It is through under-
standing the exchanges of trophic supply and demand
that the fish community can be described quantitatively
and ecological attributes such as balance be better defined
and the limits inherent to the ecosystem realized.
Continued monitoring of the fish communities and
regular assessments of food habits of predators and prey
fishes will be required to quantify the food-web dynamics
in the Great Lakes. This recommendation is especially
supported by continued changes that are occurring not
only in the upper but also in the lower trophic levels.
Recognized sampling limitations of traditional capture
techniques has prompted the application of acoustic
techniques as another means to estimate absolute abun-
dance of prey fishes in the Great Lakes. Though not an
assessment panacea, acoustics has provided additional
insights and has demonstrated utility in the estimates of
preyfish biomass.
It is obvious that protecting or reestablishing rare or
extirpated members of the once prominent native prey
fishes, most notably the various members of the white-
fish family (Coregonus spp), should be a priority in all the
Great Lakes. This recommendation would include the
8
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
deepwater cisco species and should be reflected in future
indicator reports.
With the continuous nature of changes that seems to
characterize the prey fishes, the appropriate frequency to
review this indicator is on a 5-year basis.
Acknowledgements
Author: Guy W. Fleischer, USGS Great Lakes Science
Center, Ann Arbor, MI.
Contributions from Robert O'Gorman and Randy W.
Owens, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Ontario
Biological Station, Oswego NY, Charles Madenjian, Gary
Curtis, RayArgyle and Jeff Schaeffer, USGS Great Lakes
Science Center, Ann Arbor, MI, and Charles Bronte and
Mike Hoff, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Lake
Superior Biological Station, Ashland, WL, and Jeffrey
Tyson, Ohio Div. of Wildlife Sandusky Fish Research
Unit, Sandusky, OH.
All preyfish trend figures are based on annual bottom
trawl surveys performed by USGS Great Lakes Science
Center, except Lake Erie, which is from surveys con-
ducted by the Ohio Division of Wildlife.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
o
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey Abundance
SOLEC Indicator #18
Purpose
This indicator estimates the abundance of sea lampreys in
the Great Lakes, which has a direct impact on the
structure of the fish community and health of the aquatic
ecosystem. In particular, populations of large, native,
predatory fishes are negatively affected by mortality
caused by sea lampreys.
Ecosystem Objective
The 1955 Convention of Great Lakes Fisheries created
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) "to formu-
late and implement a comprehensive program for the purpose
of eradicating or minimizing the sea lamprey populations in
the Convention area". Under the Joint Strategic Plan for
Great Lakes Fisheries, lake committees, consisting of all
fishery management agencies, have established Fish
Community Objectives (FCOs) for each of the lakes.
These FCOs cite the need for sea lamprey control to
support objectives for the fish community, in particular,
objectives for lake trout, the native top predator. The
FCOs include endpoints for sea lampreys of varying
specificity:
Superior (1990) - 50% reduction in parasitic-phase sea
lamprey abundance by 2000, and a 90% reduction by
2010;
Michigan (1995) - Suppress the sea lamprey to allow the
achievement of other fish-community objectives;
Huron (1995) - 75% reduction in parasitic sea lamprey by
the year 2000 and a 90% reduction by the year 2010 from
Erie (1999 draft) - Sea lamprey are a pest species requiring
control;
Ontario (1999) - Suppress sea lamprey to early-1990s levels,
and maintaining marking rates at <. 02 marks/lake trout.
State of the Ecosystem
The first complete round of stream treatments with the
lampricide TFM resulted in early success in most all of
the Great Lakes. Measures of spawning-phase
populations showed a reduction to less than 10% of their
pre-control abundance in Lakes Superior, Michigan,
Huron, Erie, and Ontario.
The numbers of sea lamprey migrating up rivers to spawn
provides an indicator of the abundance of parasites
feeding in the lakes during the previous year. Estimates
of individual spawning runs are used to estimate lake-
wide abundance from a new regression model that relates
run size to stream characteristics. Figure 1 presents
these lake-wide estimates for the past 20 years.
Lake Superior: During the past 20 years, populations
have fluctuated but remain at levels less than 10% of peak
abundance. The FCO for sea lampreys was met in 1994
and 1995, but abundance has increased since 1995-
Recent increased abundance estimates have raised concern
in all waters. Marking rates have not shown the same
relatively large increase except in some areas of Canadian
waters. Survival objectives for lake trout continue to be
met but may be threatened if these increases persist.
Lake Michigan: Over the majority of the lake,
populations have been relatively stable. Marking rates on
lake trout have remained low for the period and the
general FCOs are being met. However, a gradual increase
in the lake population is continuing through the present.
This change is due to increases in the north caused by an
expansion of the large population in Lake Huron into
Lake Michigan.
Lake Huron: Following the success of the first full round
of stream treatments during the late 1960s, sea lamprey
populations were suppressed to low levels (<10%)
through the 1970s. During the early 1980s, populations
increased in Lake Huron, particularly the north. This
increase continued through to a peak in abundance
during 1993- Through the 1990s Lake Huron contained
more sea lamprey than all the other lakes combined.
FCOs were not being achieved. The Lake Huron Com-
mittee had to abandon its lake trout restoration objective
in the northern portion of the lake during 1995 because
so few lake trout were surviving attacks by sea lamprey to
survive to maturity. The St. Marys Pviver was identified
as the source of this increase. The size of this connecting
channel made traditional treatment with the lampricide
TFM impractical. A new integrated control strategy
including targeted application of a new bottom-release
lampricide, enhanced trapping of spawning animals, and
sterile-male release was initiated in 1997- A decline in
spawning-phase abundance is predicted for 2001 as a
result of the completion of the first full round of
lampricide spot treatments during 1999-
Lake Erie: Following the completion of the first full
round of stream treatments in 1987, sea lamprey
populations collapsed. Lake trout survival wounding
10
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
500,000 |
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
e
0
a
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
c
c
c
500,000 -
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
c
a
a
100,000 -,
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
e
0
a
500,000 -
400,000
300,000
200,000 -
100,000 i
0
c
01
0
Figure 1.
Superior
JL
'V-^^V
) 00 00 00 00 O) O) O)
> 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
Michigan
^— , XX—. ^x — ^^
9 00 00 00 00 0> O) O)
1) O) 0> O) O) O) O) O)
w
0> 0>
0> 0>
-^^
0> 0>
0> 0>
Huron yi
^/^v^/w^
CM *± o>
o> o>
Erie*
) 00 00 00 00 O) O) O)
> O) O) O) O) O) O) O)
0> 0>
0> 0>
Ontario
•^^-^__
1 00 00 00 00 O) O) O)
i O) O) O) O) O) O) O)
0> 0>
0> 0>
Total annual abundance of sea
lamprey estimated during the spawning
migration. Note the scale for Lake
1/5 larger than the other lakes.
Erie is
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
rates declined and survival increased to levels sufficient to
meet the rehabilitation objectives in the eastern basin.
However lamprey abundance has increased since the early
1990's to levels that threaten the lake trout success. A
major assessment effort during 1998 indicated that the
source of this increase were several streams in which
treatments had been deferred due to low water flows or
concerns for non-target organisms. These critical streams
have been treated during 1999 and 2000 and sea lamprey
abundance is predicted to decline by 2002.
Lake Ontario: Abundance of spawning-phase sea lam-
preys has continued to decline to low levels through the
1990s. The FCOs for both sea lamprey abundance and
lake trout marking continue to be achieved.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
Since parasitic-phase sea lampreys are at the top of the
aquatic food chain and inflict high mortality on large
piscivores, population control is essential for healthy fish
communities. As water quality improves so does the
potential for sea lampreys to colonize new locations.
Increasing abundance in Lake Erie demonstrates how
short lapses in control can result in rapid increases of
abundance and that continued effective stream treatments
are necessary to overcome the reproductive potential of
this invading species.
As fish communities recover from the effects of lamprey
predation or overfishing, there is evidence that the
survival of parasitic sea lampreys increases due to prey
availability. Better survival means that there are more
residual sea lamprey to cause harm. Significant additional
control efforts, like those on the St. Marys River, may be
necessary to maintain suppression.
The GLFC has a goal of reducing reliance on lampricides
and increasing efforts to integrate other control tech-
niques, such as the sterile-male-release-technique or the
installation of barriers to stop the upstream migration of
adults. This philosophy is consistent with sound prac-
tices of integrated pest management, but can put addi-
tional pressures on the ecosystem such as limiting the
passage offish upstream of barriers. Care must be taken
in applying new alternatives or in reducing lampricide use
to not allow sea lamprey abundance to increase.
Future Actions
The GLFC continues to focus on research and develop-
ment of alternative control strategies including new meth-
J o o
ods like the use ofpheromones to disrupt migration and
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
spawning. Computer models, driven by empirical data, are
being used to best allocate treatment resources, and research
is being conducted to better understand the variability in
sea lamprey population.
Further Work Necessary
Targeted lampricide treatments are predicted to reduce
sea lamprey to acceptable levels in Lakes Huron and Erie.
The sources of increases in Lake Superior need to be
identified and dealt with. Continuing improvements in
monitoring sea lamprey populations will ensure control is
applied where it is most needed. In addition, research to
better understand lamprey/prey interactions, the popula-
tion dynamics of lampreys that survive control actions,
and refinement alternative methods are all key to main-
taining sea lamprey at tolerable levels.
Acknowledgments
Author: Gavin Christie, Great Lakes Fishery Commis-
sion, Ann Arbor, MI.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Native Unionid Mussels
SOLEC Indicator #68
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Purpose
Unionids are of unique ecological value, functioning as
natural biological filters, providing food for fish and
wildlife, and indicators of good water quality. As our
largest freshwater invertebrate, they are key players in the
movement of organic and inorganic particulate matter
between the water column and the sediment. Unionid
mussels are long-lived, relatively sedentary animals, which
are highly sensitive to habitat degradation, organic,
inorganic, and metal pollutants, and bio fouling by zebra
mussels. Thus, unionid distribution and abundance
patterns provide a rapid assessment tool indicating the
general health of the aquatic ecosystem. Since native
mussel shell have historically formed the backbone of
museum invertebrate collections, more historical data
exists for freshwater unionids than for any other group of
aquatic invertebrates, with many records available from
even before the 1860's.
Ecosystem Objective
The ultimate goal is to identify, protect and enhance
critical unionid populations and key habitats to ensure
the future survival of these animals, particularly the
endangered and threatened species in the Great Lakes,
their tributaries and connecting channels. This goal
relates to the IJC Desired Outcome 6: Biological com-
munity integrity and diversity. The diversity of native
invertebrate fauna should be maintained in order to
stabilize ecosystem habitats throughout the Great Lakes
drainage basin.
A number of federal-and state/province listed species are
found in the Great Lakes within both Canadian and
United States jurisdictions. In Canada, the northern
riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), rayed bean
(Villosa fab alls), and the wavy-rayed lampmussel
(Lampsilisfasciola) have been designated as federally
endangered and the first two species are provincially
endangered (L.fasciolawas designated as threatened in
Ontario).The mudpuppy mussel (Simpsonaias
ambigua)and the snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra)a.K under
evaluation and will likely be designated as endangered in
2001. In the United States, a number of mussels are state
and federally listed within the Great Lakes watershed,
including the clubshell (Pleurobema clava), fat pocketbook
(Potamilus capax), northern riffleshell (E. torulosa
rangiana), and the white catspaw (Epioblasma obliquata
perobliqua).
State of the Ecosystem
Unionid mussels are the most endangered animals in
North America. Approximately 70% of all North Ameri-
can species are state/province or federally listed as endan-
gered or threatened. Most unionid populations in the
Great Lakes and associated watersheds have declined as a
result of decades of habitat alteration such as dredging,
urbanization, increased sedimentation, shoreline
armoring, changes in fish distribution, and the in action
of chemical pollutants in the water column and
sediments.
The introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes
has led to the rapid extirpation of unionids in many
areas. Unionid species diversity and density has severely
declined in the open waters of Lake Erie, the Detroit
River, and Lake St. Clair since the arrival of zebra
mussels in the mid-1980s. Densities have dropped from
an average of 16 individuals/square meter to less than 1
(Figure 1). Many sites contain no live unionids at all.
Unionid mortality results both from biofouling and food
resource competition and drastic declines in populations
often occur within two years of the initial dreissenid
invasion.
While unionids have been extirpated in many areas due
to zebra mussel induced mortality, some remnant
populations have survived in certain habitats. Healthy
and diverse communities were recently discovered in lake
Erie in nearshore areas with firm substrates (Schloesser et
al. 1997), in soft sediments associated with coastal
marshes (Nichols and Amberg 1999), and in a coastal
marsh in the St. Clair River delta (Mackie et al. 2000).
The protective mechanisms in these shallow lake zones
vary. In wetland areas, unionids often escape extirpation
by burrowing in the soft sediments and suffocating
biofouling zebra mussels. Wave action may also play a key
role in preventing permanent zebra mussel colonization.
Since zebra mussels have a planktonic larval stage (veliger)
which requires an average of 20-30 days to develop into a
benthic stage, rivers and streams have limited coloniza-
tion potential. Such areas can provide natural refugia to
unionid populations. Regulated streams and rivers, those
containing reservoirs, may not provide refugia. Reser-
voirs with water retention times great than 20-30 days
will allow veligers to develop and settle, after which the
impounded populations will seed downstream reaches on
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
1961
1972
• 14
1982
1991
Figure 1. Abundance of freshwater mussels (numbers/m2) collected in 1961, 1972, 1982 and 1991 from 17 sites in the
western basin of Lake Erie.
Source: Nalepa et al. (1991) and Schloesser and Nalepa (1994).
an annual basis. It is vital to prevent the introduction of
zebra mussels into these reservoirs.
Future Pressures
Zebra mussel expansion is the main threat facing
unionids in the Great Lakes drainage basin. Zebra
mussels are now found in all the Great Lakes, and in
many associated water bodies. As of the year 2000, 180
inland lakes in the region were known to be colonized by
zebra mussels. Most of these infested lakes, 130,are
located in Michigan. Other exotics may also negatively
affect unionid survival through the reduction of native
fish fauna. Unionid reproductive cycles contain a para-
sitic larval stage requiring specific fish hosts. Exotic fish
such as the European ruffe and the round goby are known
to totally displace native fish, thus causing the functional
extinction of local unionid populations.
Continuing changes in land-use, with increasing urban
sprawl, development of factory farms, and elevated use of
herbicides to remove aquatic vegetation from lakes for
recreational purposes will continue to have a negative
impact on unionid populations in the future.
Future Activities
Unionid populations need to be self-sustaining wherever
practical throughout their historic range in the Great
Lakes, and associated major riverine habitats, including
the connecting channels.
1. The first activity needed is to prevent the further
introduction of exotic species into the Great Lakes.
2. The second critical activity is to prevent the further
inland expansion of exotic species such as zebra
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
mussels, European ruffe, and round gobies. Over-
land expansion of these exotics can be minimized
through greater emphasis on education of water user
groups.
Future Work Necessary
1. Review and compile information on existing surveys
of all watersheds.
2. Determine the present distribution and abundance of
unionid populations in key watersheds using stand-
ardized sampling techniques.
3- Target known populations of endangered and threat-
ened species for inventory, habitat analysis, and yearly
monitoring of habitat changes.
4. Existing unionid refugia found in zebra mussel areas
need to be documented and protected from future
disturbance.
5. Legislative and educational efforts throughout
Canada and the United States need to be imple-
mented to protect river systems from zebra mussel
colonization in order to protect critical unionid
populations that might be key to future restoration
efforts. Without self-sustaining river populations,
reestablishing lake populations will not be possible.
6. Consolidate in an easily accessible format databases
on unionid distribution and abundance. Such
information can be gleaned from various museum
collections as demonstrated by the work done on the
Canadian side of the lower Great Lakes basin. This
data needs to be centralized, electronically accessible,
and GPS integrated to maximize its usability as a
management and environmental assessment tool to
resource managers and regulatory agencies. Once the
database has been collated, habitat-specific popula-
tion models can be developed to determine popula-
tion health, reproductive output, and species-richness
within various watersheds leading to the develop-
ment of criteria to assess habitat and population
status.
7- Standardize sampling efforts and measures. Several
different methods are used for surveying unionid
populations. These methods need to be standardized
and a consistent protocol developed. Such standardi-
zation is already under discussion by the Freshwater
Mollusk Conservation Society. Their protocols
should be considered for recommendation and
implementation. Use of non-lethal methods for
determining the health status of unionids, such as the
use of glycogen levels, or other physiological analyses,
needs to be recommended.
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Sources
Naimo T, E. Damschen, R. Rada, E. Monroe. 1998.
Nonlethal evaluation of the physiological health of
unionid mussels: methods for biopsy and glycogen
analysis. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society. 17(1):121-128.
Mackie G, D. Zanatta, J. Smith, J. Di Male, S. Seton.
2000. Toward developing strategies for re-habilitating/re-
establishing Unionidae populations in southwestern
Ontario. Report for National Water Research Institute,
Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario,
Canada. 136pp.
NalepaT, B. Manny, J. Roth, S. Mozley, D. Schloesser.
1991 Long-term decline in freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of the western basin of Lake Erie. Journal of
Great Lakes Research. 17(2):2l4-219-
Nichols S., and J. Amberg. 1999- Co-existence of zebra
mussels and freshwater unionids; population dynamics of
Leptodea fragilis in a coastal wetland infested with zebra
mussels. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77(3):423-432.
Schloesser D. andT Nalepa. 1994. Dramatic decline of
unionid bivalves in offshore waters of western Lake Erie
after infestation by the zebra mussel, Dreissena
polymorpha. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences. 51(10):2234-2242.
Schloesser D., R. Smithee, G. Longton, and W Kovalak.
1997- Zebra mussel induced mortality of unionids in
firm substrata of western Lake Erie and a habitat for
survival. American Malacological Bulleting 14:67-74.
Acknowledgements
Authors: S. Jerrine Nichols, USGS Great Lakes Science
Centre, Ann Arbor, MI and Janice Smith, Environment
Canada, Burlington, ON.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Lake Trout [and Scud (Diporeia hoy/)]
SOLEC Indicator #93
Purpose
This indicator will track the status and trends in lake
trout and it will be used to infer the basic structure of
cold water predator and prey communities, and the
general health of the ecosystem. Lake trout historically
were the principal salmonine predator in all the Great
Lakes, and maintained predatory control on native and
introduced prey fishes. Populations in all the Great
Lakes, with the exception of Lake Erie, supported large
food- and sport fisheries, that were integral to the
economies of lake-shore communities. By the late 1950s,
sea lamprey predation and overfishing extirpated lake
trout throughout most of the Great Lakes with remnant
stocks in Lake Superior, and a few sites in Lake Huron
surviving. Intensive management through control of
fisheries, reductions in sea lamprey, and stocking of
hatchery-reared fish have restored standing stocks in all
the Great Lakes. Full restoration will not be achieved
until natural reproduction is established and maintained,
and to date only Lake Superior has that distinction.
Ecosystem Objective
Self-sustainability through the establishment of naturally
reproducing populations the goal of the lake trout
restoration program in all the Great Lakes. Target fishery
yields based on natural reproduction are articulated for
each lake, except Lake Ontario. These approximate
historical production or lower yields that recognize and
accommodate stocked and naturalized non-native
salmonines. These targets are 4 million pounds from
Lake Superior, 2.5 million pounds from Lake Michigan,
2 millions pounds from Lake Huron, and 110,000 Ibs
from Lake Erie. Lake Ontario has no specified fishery
yield, but instead states an interim objective of 0.5-1.0
million adult fish with females 7-5 years old and able to
produce 100,000 yearling recruits annually through
natural reproduction. Regulatory controls on the fisheries
generally preclude measures to attainment yield
objectives, even in Lake Superior were self-sustaining
populations predominate. Interagency cooperative stock
assessment programs are carried out annually in each lake
to measure changes in relative abundance, size and age
structure, survival, and extent of natural reproduction.
The measures are just now being compared to historical
surrogate measures were possible to gauge the extent of
restoration, especially in Lakes Michigan and Superior.
State of the Ecosystem
Lake trout stock sizes have dramatically increased in all
the Great Lakes shortly after the initiation of sea lamprey
control, stocking, and harvest control. Natural
reproduction is now wide spread in Lake Superior, for
both nearshore and offshore stocks, and stocking has
been discontinued throughout most of the lake.
Densities of wild fish have exceeded that of hatchery-
reared fish since the mid 1980s. Recent comparisons
with historical data indicate that lake trout densities are
now at or exceed those measured during 1929-43 (the
pre-lamprey period). Unfortunately natural reproduction
is at very low levels or non-existent in the rest of the
Great Lakes, therefore populations in these waters are
maintained solely by stocking. Populations there are
large enough to support tightly regulated sport and
commercial fisheries.
Potential Limitations to Restoration
Several potential causes for the lack of natural
reproduction have been proposed. Predation on newly
hatched lake trout larvae by native and non-native
predators is thought to prevent significant recruitment,
especially in Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Ontario. In Lake
Huron, excessive sea lamprey predation results in few fish
reaching sexual maturity, hence there are inadequate
parental stock sizes. Hatchery-reared fish appear unable
to select suitable substrate for egg deposition, and recent
evidence from Lake Superior suggests that these fish are
50% less reproductively efficient compared to wild lake
trout. Historically, many morphotypes were present that
were uniquely adapted to specific habitats. That genetic
diversity is lacking in the strains of hatchery-reared fish
stocked, and may be contributing to the lack of
colonization of certain areas. Early mortality syndrome
(EMS) has been identified as a significant bottleneck to
lake trout restoration. EMS of larvae though to be due
to thiamine deficiencies as the result of the parental diet
of alewives, which contain thaiminase, a thiamine-
degrading enzyme.
Future Actions
Because of the uncertainty of the bottlenecks to
reproduction, several research priorities have been
identified (Eshenroder et al. 1999). These include 1)
Evaluate the performance of stocking early-life history
stages of lake trout as imprinting to natal areas likely
occurs sometime between the egg and fry stage; 2)
16
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Promote the reintroduction
of a full range of Great Lakes
phenotypes (principally
found only in Lake
Superior), and assess their
reproductive performance; 3)
Develop a predictive model
for thiamine/thiaminase
transfer between forage fishes
and lake trout; 4) Determine
how fetch, water depth, and
interstitial depth interact to
limit survival of lake trout
embryos; and 5) Assess
biotic effects of predation in
fish communities altered by
exotics, and unbalanced
predator/prey ratios.
Sources
Eshenroder, R. L., Peck, J.
W. , and Olver, C. H. 1999-
Research priorities for lake
trout rehabilitation in the
Great Lakes: a 15-year
retrospective. Great Lakes
Fish. Comm. Tech. Rp. 64.
Acknowledgments
Author: Charles Bronte,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Green Bay, WI
Contributions by James
Bence, Michigan State
University, East Lansing,
MI, Donald Einhouse, New
York Department of
Environmental
Conservation, Dunkirk, NY,
and Robert O'Gorman, U.S.
Geological Survey, Oswego,
NY.
C
.g
1,
(f>
J§
E
g
CD
LO
CD
O)
CO
A
Lake Superior
Hatchery-reared
1984
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
\
5 -
0
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1970
1975
1980 1985
Lake Erie
1990
1995
1992 1994
Lake Ontario
1996
1998
1980 1982 1984 1986
1988 1990
Year
1992 1994 1996
1998
Figure 1.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
17
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
[Lake Trout and] Scud (Diporeia hoyt)
SOLEC Indicator #93
Purpose
This indicator provides a measure of the biological
integrity of the offshore regions of the Great Lakes and
consists of assessing the abundance of the benthic
macro invertebrate Diporeia. This glacial-marine relict
is the most abundant benthic organism in cold,
offshore regions (> 30 m) of each of the lakes. It is
present, but less abundant in nearshore regions of the
open lake basins, and is naturally absent from shallow,
warm bays, basins, and river mouths. Diporeia occurs
in the upper few centimeters of bottom sediment and
feeds on algal material that freshly settles to the
bottom from the water column (i.e. mostly diatoms). In
turn, it is fed upon by most all species offish. In par-
ticular, Diporeia is fed upon by many forage fish species,
and these species serve as prey for the larger piscivores
such as trout and salmon. For example, sculpin feed
almost exclusively upon Diporeia, and sculpin are fed
upon by lake trout. Thus, Diporeia is an important
pathway by which energy is cycled through the ecosys-
tem, and a key component in the food web of offshore
regions. The importance of this organism is recognized
in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Supple-
ment to Annex 1 — Specific Objectives).
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem goal is to maintain a healthy, stable
population of Diporeia in offshore regions of the main
basins of the Great Lakes, and to maintain at least a
presence in nearshore regions. On a broad scale, abun-
dances are directly related to the amount of food settling
to the bottom, and population trends reflect the overall
productivity of the ecosystem. Abundances can also vary
somewhat relative to shifts in predation pressure from
changing fish populations. In nearshore regions, this
species is sensitive to local sources of pollution.
State of the Ecosystem
Populations of Diporeia are currently in the state of
dramatic decline in portions of Lakes Michigan,
Ontario, and eastern Lake Erie. Populations appear to
be stable in Lake Superior, while data are currently not
available to assess long-term trends in Lake Huron. In
the first three Lakes, abundances have decreased in both
nearshore and offshore areas over the past 10 years, and
large areas are now nearly devoid of this organism. Areas
where Diporeia is known to be rare or absent include the
southeastern portion of Lake Michigan from Chicago to
Grand Haven at water depths < 70 m (Figure 1), all of
Lake Ontario at depths < 70 m except for some areas
along the northern shoreline, and all of the eastern basin
of Lake Erie. In other areas of Lakes Michigan and
Ontario, Diporeia is still present, but abundances have
decreased by one-half or more. Spatial patterns of these
declines coincided with the introduction and rapid spread
of the zebra mussel, Dreissenapolymorpha, and the quagga
mussel, Dreissena bugensis. These species were introduced
into the Great Lakes in the late 1980s via the ballast
water of ocean-going ships. Reasons for the negative
response of Diporeia to these mussel species are not
entirely clear. At least one initial hypothesis was that
dreissenid mussels were outcompeting Diporeia for
available food. That is, large mussel populations were
filtering food material before it reached the bottom,
thereby decreasing amounts available to Diporeia. More
recent evidence suggests that the reason for the decline is
more complex than a simple decline in food: \) Diporeia
is completely absent from areas where food is still settling
to the bottom and there are no local populations of
mussels; 2) the physiological condition of individual
animals show no sign of food deprivation even though
population numbers are decreasing; 3) rates of decline are
greatest in depositional areas; these are areas with the
highest amounts of settling food.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
As populations of dreissenid mussels continue to expand,
it may be expected that populations of Diporeia will
continue to decline. In the open lakes, mussels tend to
be most abundant at water depths of 30-50 m. This is
the same depth interval where Diporeia has historically
been most abundant, and forage fish populations are at
their highest.
Future Actions
Because of its key role in the food web of offshore
regions of the Great Lakes, trends in Diporeia
populations should be closely monitored. In particular,
efforts should be made to document the continued
decline in Lakes Michigan and Ontario, and to assess the
status of the population in Lake Huron. Continued
monitoring will not only provide information on the
extent of the decline, but also provide a better under-
standing of linkages to dreissenid populations. In
addition, impacts on the offshore food web need to be
further examined. While recent evidence suggests that
18
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
fish species most dependent upon Diporeia as a food
source are affected directly, secondary impacts on other,
alternate prey items and other fish species are a real
possibility.
Further Work Necessary
Because of the rapid rate at which Diporeia is declining
and its significance to the food web, agencies committed
to documenting trends should report data in a timely
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
manner. The population decline has a defined natural
pattern, and studies of food web impacts should be
spatially well coordinated.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas Nalepa, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, GLERL, Ann Arbor, MI.
Diporeia
uskeqon
..Grand Hav&n
.ugatuck
Waukegan
South Haven
St. Jos&ph
Chicago A*
Michigan City
12 15
Density (No. m* x103)
Figure 1. Density (no. m~2 x 103) of Diporeia in the southern basin of Lake Michigan
between 1980 and 1998. Note recent declines in the southeastern portion of the basin.
(Source: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA)
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
19
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumours (DELT) in Nearshore Fish
SOLEC Indicator #101
Purpose
This indicator (101) will assess the prevalence of
external anomalies in nearshore fish. It will be used to
infer areas where fish are exposed to contaminated
sediments within the Great Lakes. The presence of
contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern (AOCs)
has been correlated with an increased incidence of
anomalies in benthic fish species (brown bullhead and
white suckers), that may be associated with specific
families of chemicals.
Ecosystem Objective
As a result of clean-up efforts some AOCs that histori-
cally have had a high incidence offish with external
anomalies currently, now show fewer abnormalities.
Using an index based on prevalence of external anomalies
will help identify nearshore areas that have populations of
benthic fish exposed to contaminated sediments, and will
help assess the recovery of AOCs following remediation.
Thus the objective is to help restoration and protection
of 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.
State of the Ecosystem
Elevated incidence of liver tumors (histopathologi-
cally verified neoplastic growths) were frequently
identified during the past two decades. These
elevated frequencies of liver tumors have been shown
to be useful indicators of beneficial use impairment
of Great Lakes aquatic habitat. External raised
growths (sometime as histopathologicaly verified
tumors on the body or lips), such as papillomas,
may also be useful as an indicator. Field and labora-
tory studies have correlated chemical carcinogens
found in sediments at some AOCs in Lakes Erie,
Michigan, and Huron with an elevated incidence of
liver and external tumors. Other external anomalies
may also be used to assess beneficial use impairment;
however, they must be carefully evaluated. An
external lesion index will provide a tool for follow-
ing trends in fish population health that can be
easily used by resource managers or by community-
based monitoring programs.
a metric for the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and
has been successfully used for inland waters (Sanders et al
1999). All species offish are used to compile the DELT
index, not just benthic species or mature fish. Although
the DELT index looks at the entire fish community, its
inclusion of all species and age groups lessens its discrimi-
natory power in distinguishing among levels of contami-
nant exposure in fish from various tributaries .
ELF Index — The external lesion frequency (ELF)
index is being developed as a single species, mature
fish estimate of contaminant exposure. Brown
bullhead have been used to develop the index, since
they are the most frequently used benthic indicator
species in the southern Great Lakes and they have
been recommended by the IJC as the key indicator
species (IJC 1989). The most common external
anomalies found in bullhead over the last twenty years
(Figure 1) are raised Growths (RG on the body (B) or
lips (L) — often called tumors), focal discoloration
(FD, called melanistic spots), and stubbed or shortened/
missing barbels (SB).
Lake Erie - External Anomalies
Figure 1. External anomalies on brown bullhead collected from
1980s through 2000. DF- deformities, FN-fm erosion, LE-
lesions, RG-B-raised growth-body, SB-stubbed barbell, FD-focal
discoloration, and RG-L — raised growth-lip.
DELT Index — The deformities, eroded fins, lesions,
and tumors (DELT) index (Ohio EPA) was developed as
Using some of these external anomalies we have recently
examined bullhead populations in several Lake Erie
contaminated tributaries and a reference site. Knobbed
2o
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
barbels have not been as consistently reported in the
historical database, but also appears to be a useful param-
eter. Preliminary findings indicate that single anomalies
occurring at >0.4 per fish or multiple anomalies occurring
at greater than O.8 per fish would indicate possible
impairment (Figure 2). More research is needed to define
this index and demonstrate correlation to the exposure
levels offish populations to contaminants.
Future Pressures
As the Great Lakes AOCs and the tributaries may con-
tinue to remain in a degraded condition, exposure of the
fish populations to contaminated sediments will continue
to cause elevated incidence of external anomalies.
Future Activities
Additional remediation to clean-up contaminated
sediments will help to reduce rates of external anomalies.
The external anomalies index, particularly for bullheads
and white suckers, will help follow trends in fish health to
help address any current AOCs that may be eligible for
delisting. (IJC Delisting criteria, see IJC 1996)
Future Work Necessary
The single benthic species indicator has the potential in
defining habitats that are heavily polluted. Joint U.S.-
Canada studies over a gradient of polluted to pristine
Great Lakes habitats using standardized methodology to
design an external survey for both bullhead and white
sucker would help create a common index useful as an
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
indicator of ecosystem health.
Sources
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-
International Joint Commission. 1989- Guidance on
characterization of toxic substances problems in areas of
concern in the Great Lakes Basin. Report of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Board. Windsor, ON, Canada.
International Joint Commission. 1996. Indicators to
evaluate progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Indicators for Evaluation Task Force.
ISBN 1-895058-85-3-
Sanders, R.E., R.T. Miltner, C.O Yoder, and E.T
Rankin. 1999- The use of external deformities, erosion,
lesion, and tumors (DELT anomalies) in fish assem-
blages for characterizing aquatic resources: a case study
if seven Ohio streams. In: Assessing the Sustainability
and Biological Integrity of Water Resources using Fish
Communities. CRC Press. 225-246.
Acknowledgements
Authors: Stephen B. Smith, US Geological Survey,
Biological Resources Division, Reston, VA, and Paul C.
Baumann, US Geo-
logical Survey, Biologi-
cal Resources Divi-
sion, Columbus, OH.
Brown Bullhead Abnormalities per Fish
5*
c
3 1.5
LJ_
1
1
rrfl
ill £in ^
EL
• KB
GSB
E E § 8 iS K 1
1 1 g" g" * & 1
2 I ° ° 3 ° f
Site:Year
Figure 2. External lesion frequency for brown bullheads in Lake Erie, 1999-2000. OWC-Old
Woman Creek-reference, Guy- Cuyahoga River. RG-raised growth, KB-knobbed barbells, SB-
stubbed barbels.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Phytoplankton Populations
SOLEC Indicator #109
Purpose
This indicator involves the direct measurement of
phytoplankton species composition, biomass, and
primary productivity in the Great Lakes, and indi-
rectly assesses the impact of nutrient/contaminant
enrichment and invasive exotic predators on the
microbial food-web of the Great Lakes. It assumes
that phytoplankton populations respond in tractable,
quantifiable ways to anthropogenic inputs of both
nutrients and contaminants. Therefore, inferences can
be made about system perturbations through the
assessment of phytoplankton community size and
structure and productivity.
Ecosystem Objective
Desired objectives are phytoplankton biomass size and
structure indicative of oligotrophic conditions (i.e. a
state of low biological productivity, as is generally
found in the cold open waters of large lakes) for Lakes
Superior, Huron and Michigan; and of mesotrophic
conditions for Lakes Erie and Ontario. In addition,
algal biomass should be maintained below that of a
nuisance condition in Lakes Erie and Ontario, and in
bays and in other areas wherever they occur. There are
currently no guidelines in place to define what criteria
should be used to assess whether or not these desired
states have been achieved.
State of the Ecosystem
Given the substantial gaps in existing data, trends in
phytoplankton biomass and community composition
can only be assessed with caution. Records for the
three basins of Lake Erie suggest that substantial
reductions in summer phytoplankton standing crops
occurred in the late 1980's in the eastern basin, and in
the early 1990's for the central and western basins.
The considerable variability of the data, however,
preclude assessments of potential changes in commu-
nity composition. In general, phytoplankton
biovolume in Lake Michigan was lower in the 1990s
than in the 1980's, though again considerable
interannual variability and gaps in the data preclude
definitive conclusions. The timing of these declines in
phytoplankton biomass suggest the possible impact of
zebra mussles in Lake Erie, and perhaps also Lake
Michigan. No trends are apparent in phytoplankton
biovolume in Lakes Huron or Ontario; while only a
single year of data exists for Lake Superior. Data on
primary productivity is no longer being collected.
No assessment of "ecosystem health" is currently
possible on the basis of phytoplankton community
data, since reference criteria and endpoints have yet to
be developed.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
The two most important potential sources of future
pressures on the phytoplankton community are
changes in nutrient loadings and continued introduc-
tions/expansions of exotic species. Increases in nutri-
ents can be expected to result in increases in primary
productivity, which is not currently being measured,
and possibly also in increases in phytoplankton
biomass. In addition, increases in phosphorus concen-
trations might result in shifts in phytoplankton
community composition away from diatoms and
towards other taxa. Continued expansion of zebra
mussel populations might be expected to result in
reductions in overall phytoplankton biomass, and
perhaps also in a shift in species composition, al-
though these potential effects are not clearly under-
stood. It is unclear what effects, if any, might be
brought about by changes in the zooplankton com-
munity.
Future Actions
The effects of increases in nutrient concentrations tend
to become apparent in nearshore areas before offshore
areas. The addition of nearshore monitoring to the
existing offshore monitoring program might therefore
be advisable. Given the greater heterogeneity of the
nearshore environment, any such sampling program
would need to be carefully thought out, and an
adequate number of sampling stations included to
enable trends to be discerned.
Further Work Necessary
A highly detailed record of phytoplankton biomass
and community structure has accumulated, and
continues to be generated, through regular monitoring
efforts. However, a substantial amount of this data is
either inaccessible or unusable due to problems with
data storage and processing. It is essential that current
gaps in the data be filled where in fact that data exists.
In spite of this database, the interpretation of this data
22
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
currently remains problematical. While the use of
phytoplankton data to assess "ecosystem health" is con-
ceptually attractive, there is currently no objective,
quantitative mechanism for doing so. Reliance upon
literature values for nutrient tolerances or indicator status
of individual species is not recommended, since the
unusual physical regime of the Great Lakes makes it likely
that responses of individual species to their chemical
environment in the Great Lakes will vary in fundamental
ways from those in other lakes. Therefore, there is an
urgent need for the development of an objective, quanti-
fiable index specific to the Great Lakes to permit use of
phytoplankton data in the assessment of "ecosystem
health".
I Near-shore & Open Water Indicators
Acknowledgements
Authors: Richard P. Barbiero, DynCorp I&ET, Alexan-
dria, VA, and Marc L. Tuchman, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL.
Other
Dinolage Nates
C'jjanophytes
Figure 1. Trends in phytoplankton biovolume (gm/m3) and community composition in the Great Lakes 1983-1998
(Summer, Open Lake, Epilimnion) (Blank indicates no data).
(Source: Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2000)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
SOLEC Indicator #111
Purpose
This indicator assesses total phosphorus levels in the
Great Lakes, and it is used to support the evaluation of
trophic status and food web dynamics in the Great Lakes.
Phosphorus is an essential element for all organisms and
is often the limiting factor for aquatic plant growth in
the Great Lakes. Although phosphorus occurs naturally,
the historical problems caused by elevated levels have
originated from man-made sources. Phosphate detergent
use, sewage treatment plant effluent, agricultural and
industrial sources have released large amounts into the
Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The goals of phosphorus control are to maintain an
oligotrophic state in Lakes Superior, Huron and Michi-
gan; 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). Maximum annual phosphorus
loadings to the Great Lakes that would allow achievement
of these objectives are listed in the GLWQA.
The expected concentration of total phosphorus in the
open waters of each lake, if the maximum annual loads
are maintained, are listed in the following table:
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Erie - Western Basin
Erie - Central Basin
Erie - Eastern Basin
Ontario
Lake Phosphorus Guideline
Mg/L
5
5
7
15
10
10
10
State of the Ecosystem
Strong efforts begun in the 1970s to reduce phosphorus
loadings have been successful in maintaining or reducing
nutrient concentrations in the Lakes, although high
concentrations still occur locally in some embayments and
harbours. Phosphorus loads have decreased in part due
to changes in agricultural practices (e.g., conservation
tillage and integrated crop management), promotion of
phosphorus-free detergents, and improvements made to
sewage treatment plants and sewer systems.
Average concentrations in the open waters of Lakes
Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Ontario are at or below
expected levels. Concentrations in all three basins of
Lake Erie exceed phosphorus guidelines and recent data
suggest an increasing trend (Figure 1). In Lake Erie,
approximately 75% of the stations sampled exceeded the
recommended guideline. In Lakes Ontario and Huron,
although almost all offshore waters meet the desired
guideline, some offshore and nearshore areas and
embayments experience elevated levels (Figure 2) which
could promote nuisance algae growths such as the at-
tached green algae, Cladophora.
Summarizing the information into an indicator is too
subjective until the specifics regarding the metric have
been defined.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
The trend toward increasing phosphorus concentrations
in Lake Erie may be an early warning that the current
control measures are no longer sufficient. Even if current
phosphorus controls are maintained, additional loadings
can be expected. Increasing numbers of people living
along the Lakes will exert increasing demands on existing
sewage treatment facilities, possibly contributing to
increasing phosphorus loads.
Future Actions
Because of its key role in productivity and food web
dynamics of the Great Lakes, phosphorus concentrations
continue to be watched by environmental and fishery
agencies. Future activities that are likely to be needed
include assessing the capacity and operation of present
and future sewage treatment plants in the context of
increasing human populations being served. Additional
upgrades in construction or operations may be required.
Further Work Necessary
The analysis of phosphorus concentrations in the Great
Lakes is ongoing and reliable. However, a coordinated
enhanced Great Lakes monitoring program is required
with agreement on specifics such as analytical and field
methodologies, sampling locations, inclusion of nearshore
and embayment sites, determination of the indicator
metric and its complimentary subjective index.
A binationally coordinated effort to compute phosphorus
loads to the Great Lakes, or at least Lake Erie, is also
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
required. Loading estimates for the Great Lakes have not
been computed since 1991 in all lakes except Erie, which
has loadings information up to 1994. An evaluation of
non-point and point source monitoring programs and the
adequacy of the resulting data to calculate annual loads by
source category will be required. Otherwise, the loadings
component of this SOLEC indicator will remain unre-
ported, and changes in the different sources of phospho-
rus to the Lakes may go undetected.
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Acknowledgments
Authors: Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Environ-
mental Conservation Branch, Burlington, ON, and
Glenn Warren, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Programs Office, Chicago, IL
Superior
Huron
Total Phosphorus Trends
in the Great Lakes
1970 to 2000
Ontario
Figure 1. Total Phosphorus Trends in the Great Lakes 1971-2000 (Spring, Open Lake, Surface) (Blank indicates No
Sampling).
(Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada and Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
• Pass
• Fail
<»--
Total Phosphorus Concentrations
compared to Guidelines
Figure 2. Total phosphorus concentrations in the Great Lakes for the most recent year data were available in each lake.
(Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "Novembeir 2ooo)
-------
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
SOLEC Indicator #115
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Purpose
This indicator will assess current chemical concentration
levels and trends as well as ecological and physiological
endpoints in representative colonial waterbirds (gulls,
terns, cormorants and/or herons). These features will be
used to infer and measure the impact of contaminants on
the health, i.e. the physiology and breeding characteris-
tics, of the waterbird populations. This indicator is
important because colonial waterbirds are the top of the
aquatic food web predators in the Great Lakes ecosystem
and they are very visible and well known to the public.
They bioaccumulate contaminants to the greatest concen-
tration of any trophic level organism and they breed on
all the Great Lakes. Thus, they are a very cost efficient
monitoring system and allow easy inter-lake comparisons.
The current Herring Gull Egg Monitoring program is the
longest continuous-running annual wildlife contaminants
monitoring program in the world (1974-present). It
determines concentrations of up to 20 organochlorines,
65 PCB congeners and 53 PCDD and PCDF congeners.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective of monitoring colonial waterbirds on the
Great Lakes is to discover the point when there is no
difference in contaminant levels and related biological
endpoints between birds on and off the Great Lakes.
When colonial waterbirds from the Great Lakes do not
differ in chemical and biological parameters from birds
off the Great Lakes, e.g. birds in northern Saskatchewan
or the Maritimes, then our clean-up objective will have
been reached.
State of the Ecosystem
The Herring Gull Egg Monitoring Program has provided
researchers and managers with a powerful tool to evaluate
change in contaminant concentrations in Great Lakes
wildlife for more than 25 years. The extreme longevity of
the egg database makes it possible to calculate temporal
trends in contaminant concentration in wildlife and to
look for significant changes within those trends. Con-
taminant "hot spots" for wildlife have been identified by
testing for spatial patterns. The database shows that most
contaminants in gull eggs have declined a minimum of
50% and many have declined more than 90% since the
program began in 1974. Presently it shows that in more
than 70% of cases, contaminants levels are decreasing as
fast or faster than they did in the past. In less than 20%
of cases, the rate of decline has slowed in recent years.
Spatially, gull eggs from Lake Ontario and the St. Law-
rence River continue to have the greatest levels of mirex
and dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD), those from the upper lakes
have the greatest levels of dieldrin and heptachlor epox-
ide, those from Lake Michigan have the greatest levels of
DDE and those from Lake Michigan and the Detroit
Pviver-Western Lake Erie area have the greatest levels of
PCBs.
In terms of gross ecological effects of contaminants on
colonial waterbirds, e.g. eggshell thinning, failed repro-
ductive success and population declines, most species
seem to have recovered. Populations of most species have
increased over what they were 25-30 years ago. Interest-
ingly, Double-crested Cormorants, whose population
levels have increased more than 400-fold, have been
shown to still be exhibiting some shell thinning. Al-
though the gross effects appear to have subsided, there
are many other subtle, mostly physiological and genetic
endpoints that are being measured now that were not in
earlier years. For example, porphyrins, retinoids and
germline minisatellite DNA mutations have been found
to correlate with contaminant levels in Herring Gulls.
However, the bottom line is that the colonial waterbirds
of the Great Lakes are much healthier than they were
during the 1970s.
Future Pressures
Future pressures for this indicator include all sources of
contaminants which reach the Great Lakes. This includes
those that are already well known, e.g. re-suspension of
sediments, as in western Lake Erie, and atmospheric
inputs, such as PCBs in Lake Superior as well as less
known ones, e.g. underground leaks from landfill sites.
Future Activities
The annual collection and analysis of Herring Gull eggs
from 15 sites on both sides of the Great Lakes and the
assessment of that species' reproductive success is a
permanent part of the CWS Great Lakes surveillance
activities. Likewise, so is the regular monitoring of
population levels of most of the colonial waterbird
species.; the plan is to continue these procedures. Re-
search work on improving and expanding the Herring
Gull Egg Monitoring program is done on a more oppor-
tunistic, less predictable basis (see below, Further Work
Necessary).
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Further Work Necessary
We have learned much about interpreting the Herring
Gull egg contaminants data from associated research
studies. However, much of this work is done on an
opportunistic basis, when funds are available. Several
research activities should be incorporated into routine
monitoring, e.g. tracking ofporphyria, vitamin A
deficiencies and evaluation of the avian immune
system. Likewise, more research should focus on new
areas, e.g. the impact of endocrine disrupting sub-
stances and factors regulating chemically-induced
genetic mutations.
Acknowledgements
Author: D.V. Chip Weseloh, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON.
Thanks to other past and present
staff at CWS-Ontario Region
(Burlington and Downsview), as
well as staff at the CWS National
Wildlife Research Centre (Hull,
Que.) and wildlife biologists Ray
Faber, Ralph Morris, Jim Quinn,
Jihn Ryder, Brian Ratcliff and Keith
Grasman for egg collections, prepa-
ration, analysis and data manage-
ment over the 27 years of this
project.
DDE in Herring Gull Eggs, Toronto Harbour, 1974-1999
Figure 1. Temporal trends.
PCBs in Great Lakes Herring Gull Eggs, 1999
Colonies (arranged Wto E)
Figure 2. Spatial trends.
Double-crested Cormorant nests (breeding pairs) in
Lake Ontario, 1979-2000
25000-
22500-
20000-
17500-
15000-
12500-
10000-
7500-
5000-
2500-
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
L
ml"
Figure 3. Population trends.
28
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Zooplankton Populations
SOLEC Indicator #116
Purpose
This indicator directly measures changes in commu-
nity composition, mean individual size and biomass of
zooplankton populations in the Great Lakes basin, and
indirectly measures zooplankton production as well as
changes in food-web dynamics due to changes in
vertebrate or invertebrate predation; changes in system
productivity, and changes in the type and intensity of
predation and in the energy transfer within a system.
Suggested metrics include zooplankton mean length,
the ratio of calanoid to cladoceran and cyclopoid
curstaceans, and zooplankton biomass.
Ecosystem Objective
Ultimately, analysis of this indicator should provide
information on the biological integrity of the Great
Lakes, and lead to the support of a healthy and diverse
fishery. However, the relationship between these objec-
tives and the suggested metrics have not been fully
worked out, and no specific criteria have yet been identi-
fied for these metrics.
A mean individual size of 0.8 mm has been suggested as
"optimal" for zooplankton communities sampled with a
153 |lm mesh net, although the meaning of deviations
from this objective, and the universality of this objective
remain unclear. In particular, questions regarding its
applicability to dreissenid impacted systems have been
raised.
In general, calanoid/cladoceran+cyclopoid ratios tend
to increase with decreasing nutrient enrichment.
Therefore high ratios are desirable. As with individual
mean size, though, clear objectives have not presently
been defined.
State of the Ecosystem
The most recent available data (1998) suggests that
mean individual lengths of offshore zooplankton
populations in the three upper lakes and the central
basin of Lake Erie exceed the objective of 0.8 (Fig. 1),
suggesting a fish community characterized by a high
piscivore/planktivore ratio. Mean individual lengths
of zooplankton populations in the western and eastern
basins of Lake Erie, as well as most sites in Lake Ontario,
were substantially below this objective. Interquartile
ranges for most lakes (considering the three basins of
Lake Erie separately) were generally on the order of 0.1 -
099
* ce» cl1
1=1
SU Ml HU
ON
ER
Figure 1. Average individual mean length of zooplankton
for the five Great Lakes. Lake Erie is divided into
western, central and eastern basins. Length estimates
were generated from data collected with 153|lm mesh net
tows to a depth of 100 m or the bottom of the water
column, whichever was shallower. Numbers indicates
arithmetic averages.
(Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office, August, 1998.)
0.2 mm, although Lake Ontario was substantially greater.
Historical data from the eastern basin of Lake Erie, from
1985 to 1998, indicate a fair amount of interannual
variability, with values from offshore sites ranging from
about 0.5 to 0.85 (Fig. 2). As noted above, interpreta-
tion of these data are currently problematic.
1.00
0.80.
g 0.40J
0.20.
_
o.
EASTERN LAKE ERIE
Objective (Mills etal. 1987)
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Year
Figure 2. Trend in Jun27-Sep30 mean zooplankton
length: NYDEC data (circles) collected with 153-um
mesh net, DFO data (diamonds) converted from 64-um
to 153-um mesh equivalent. Open symbols = offshore,
solid symbols = nearshore (<12 m). 1985-1988 are
means+/- 1 S.E.
(Source: Johannsson et al. 1999)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
The ratio of calanoids to cladocerans and cyclopoids
showed a clear relationship with trophic state. The
average value for the oligotrophic Lake Superior was at
least four times as high as that for any other lake, while
Lakes Michigan and Huron and the eastern basin of Lake
Erie were also high (Fig. 3). The western basin of Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario were identically low, while the
central basin of Lake Erie had an intermediate value.
Historical comparisons of this metric are difficult to
make because most historical data on zooplankton
populations in the Great Lakes seems to have been
generated using shallow (20 m) tows. Calanoid copepods
tend to be deep living organisms; therefore the use of
data generated from shallow tows would tend to contrib-
ute a strong bias to this metric. This problem is largely
avoided in Lake Erie, particularly in the western and
central basins, where most sites are shallower than 20 m.
Comparisons in those two basins have shown a statisti-
cally significant increase in the ratio of calanoids to
cladocerans and cyclopoids between 1970 and 1983-
1987, with this increase sustained throughout the 1990's,
and in fact up to the present. A similar increase was seen
in the eastern basin, although some of these data were
generated from shallow tows, and are therefore subject to
doubt.
tsf •) "f-g
,«i ^ **
I
D.2!
vii Flu
•:) 34
BT^*KH,
OFT
Figure 3. Ratio of biomass of calanoid copepods to that
of cladocerans and cyclopoid copepods for the five Great
Lakes. Data as in Fig. 1; Boxes as in Fig. 1. Numbers
indicates arithmetic averages
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
The zooplankton community might be expected to
respond to changes in nutrient concentrations in the
lakes, although the potential magnitude of such "bottom
up" effects are not well understood. The most immediate
potential threat to the zooplankton communities of the
Great Lakes is posed by invasive species. An exotic
predatory cladoceran, Bythotrephes cedarstroemii, has
already been in the lakes for over ten years, and is sus-
pected to have had a major impact on zooplankton
community structure. A second predatory cladoceran,
Cercopagispengoi, was first noted in Lake Ontario in
1998, and is expected to spread to the other lakes. In
addition, the continued proliferation of dreissenid
populations can be expected to impact zooplankton
communities both directly through the alteration of the
structure of the phytoplankton community, upon which
many zooplankton depend for food.
Future Actions
Continued monitoring of the offshore zooplankton
communities of the Great Lakes is critical, particularly
considering the current expansion of the range of the
exotic cladoceran Cercopagis and the probability of future
invasive zooplankton and fish species.
Further Work Necessary
Currently the most critical need is for the development of
quantitative, objective criteria that can be applied to the
zooplankton indicator. The applicability of current
metrics to the Great Lakes is largely unknown, as are the
limits that would correspond to acceptable ecosystem
health.
The implementation of a long term monitoring program
on the Canadian side is also desirable, to expand both the
spatial and the temporal coverage currently provided by
American efforts. Since the use of various indices is
dependent to a large extent upon the sampling methods
employed, coordination between of these two programs,
both with regard to sampling dates and locations, and
especially with regard to methods, would be highly
recommended.
Sources
Johannsson, O.E., C. Dumitru, and D.M. Graham.
1999- Examination of zooplankton mean length for use
in an index offish community structure and its applica-
tion in Lake Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. 25:179-186).
Acknowledgements
Authors: Richard P Barbiero, DynCorp I&ET, Alexan-
dria, VA USA, Marc L. Tuchman, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago IL, and Ora Johannsson, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Burlington, ON.
30
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
SOLEC Indicator #117
Purpose
To estimate the annual average loadings of
priority toxic chemicals from the atmosphere
to the Great Lakes and to determine tempo-
ral trends in contaminant concentrations.
This information will be used to aid in the
assessment of potential impacts of toxic
chemicals from atmospheric deposition on
human health and the Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystem, as well as to track the progress of
various Great Lakes programs toward virtual
elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA) and the Binational Strategy both
state the virtual elimination of toxic sub-
stances to the 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 to human, animal, or aquatic life.
State of the Ecosystem
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
(IADN) consists of five master sampling sites, one near
each of the Great Lakes, and several satellite stations.
This joint United States-Canadian project has been in
operation since 1990, and since that time, thousands of
measurements of the concentrations of poly chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, trace metals, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have been made at these
sites. These concentrations cover the atmospheric gas
and particle phases and precipitation. These
data have been interpreted in terms of tempo-
ral trends and in terms of loadings to the
Lakes. The data set is large, and thus, only
selected data will be presented here.
For gas-phase total PCBs (EPCB), the Lake
Erie site consistently shows relatively elevated
concentrations compared to the other Lakes;
see Figure 1. For all sites, the trend over
time is generally down with half-lives on the
order of 3-6 years. The relatively elevated
concentrations for Lake Erie are not surpris-
ing given the proximity of the sampling site
to the city of Buffalo, New York. Although
t
* -oo
y
5
100-
Figure 1. Ann
LJ
1991
Ui
,
I
1
il
99
Hve
,
2
rage
Con
\
19
centn
t\
93
itior
-
so
If
1
n
1
99
"otal PCBs in
f *
4 19
Gas-phase
d Superior
d Michigan
QErie
• Huron
d Ontario
ill
95 1996
not shown, it is interesting to point out that ZPCB
concentrations at a satellite site in downtown Chicago are
about a factor of 10 higher that at the other more remote
sites.
For gas-phase a- and y-HCH (EHCH), the concentra-
tion trend is uniformly down at all sites, and the concen-
tration of EHCH seems to have reached a new steady
value of about 50-100 pg/m3; see Figure 2. It is impor-
tant to remember that y-HCH (lindane) is a pesticide,
and it is still used as a seed treatment in the United States
and Canada. Thus, these atmospheric concentrations
may represent this current source, and they may not
decrease further until this source is eliminated.
Figure 2. Annual Average Concentrations of Total HCHs in Gas-phase
^
%.
d 3°°"
o
0 200
100-
0
T
_U
fl
T
JL
±
d Superior
• Michigan
QErie
• Huron
d Ontario
••.rfj--A
Til Ti fl' fflln PTrn
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Benzo[X]pyrene is produced by the incomplete combus-
tion of almost any fuel and is carcinogenic. Figure 3
shows the annual average particle-phase concentrations of
BaP. The concentrations of BaP are relatively high at
Lakes Erie and Ontario, sites near major population
centers, and the concentrations are relatively unchanged as
a function of time at all sites.
Figure 3. Annual Average Concentrations of B[a]P in Particle-phase
80 -
| 60 -
_a
<3 40 -
20 -
i
n
•
T
r±l
j
T
J
I
'
D Superior
• Michigan
DErie
• Huron
D Ontario
I
J
i
r -I
-1-
1
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
ft
1996
As an example of the precipitation data, Figure 4 shows
the concentrations of dieldrin from 1991 to 1996.
Historically, the concentrations at Lakes Michigan and
Erie were higher than at the other sites, possibly because
of agricultural uses near these two locations. With the
exception of Lake Huron in 1996, the concentrations are
generally unchanged or decreasing slightly.
Figure 4. Annual Average Concentrations of Dieldrin in Precipitation
1.3 -
1.0 -
3"
"3>
c
. 0.8 -
u
c
o
o
0.5 -
0.3 -
t
1991
1
1
_ r-
1 r
1992 1993
J
^Superior
^Michigan
QErie
• Huron
^Ontario
tflf
.,
1
1994 1995
If
11
r
1
1996
The concentrations of lead in the particle-phase are
shown in Figure 5- Historically, the concentration of
lead at Lake Erie was higher than at the other sites,
possibly because of urban effects at this location, which is
near Buffalo. The concentrations are generally unchanged
at most of the other sites.
The loadings from the atmosphere for EPCB,
EHCH, and BaP are given in Figure 6; a negative-
going bar indicates that the lake is vaporizing the
compound to the atmosphere. A missing bar in
Figure 6 indicates that the loading could not be
calculated — not that the loading was zero. The
most important message from these data is that the
absolute values of the loadings are generally getting
smaller, which indicates that the lake water and the
air above it are getting closer to being in equilib-
rium. A report on the atmospheric loadings of these
compounds to the Great Lakes has recently been
published. To receive a copy, please contact one of
the agencies listed at the end of this report.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
Pressure on the Lakes from atmospheric loadings of
toxic compounds is likely to continue for some
unknown time into the future. Possible exceptions
are pesticides that are no longer in use; these compounds
are likely to become virtually undetectable by the middle
of this century. Because the sources of PCBs and PAHs
are likely to continue, the concentrations of these com-
pounds in the atmosphere near the Great Lakes will
decrease slowly, if at all.
Future activities
In terms of the agricultural chemicals, such as HCH,
further restrictions on the use of these compounds
may be warranted. In terms of the PAH, further
controls on the emissions of large- and small-scale
combustion systems may induce a decline in the
input of these compounds to the Great Lakes'
atmosphere. In terms of the PCBs, most of the
controllable sources of these compounds have been
eliminated. The remaining sources are likely to be
diffuse terrestrial sources located in urban areas.
Regulatory mechanisms to control these sources do
not exist. Voluntary pollution prevention activities,
such as those advocated by the Binational Strategy,
and technology-based pollution controls can aid in
reducing the amounts of toxic chemicals deposited to
the Great Lakes. Efforts to achieve reductions in use
and emissions of toxics worldwide through interna-
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
tional assistance and negotiations should also be sup-
ported.
Future work necessary
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
(IADN) should continue. Only through the repetitive,
long-term monitoring of the atmosphere will it become
clear if regulations aimed at reducing the input of these
toxic organic compounds into the Great Lakes have been
effective.
For additional information
(or for a copy of the latest IADN loadings report)
contact:
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Air Quality Research Branch
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin Street,
Toronto, ON M3H 5T4
Canada
Atmospheric Programs Manager
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard, G-17J
Chicago, IL 60604
U.S.A.
Acknowledgements
Ron Hites and Ilora Basu at Indiana University prepared
this report on behalf of the IADN Steering Committee.
8000-
co~
en
&_
d
8
4000-
o-
Figure 5.
£
•
Annual Average Concentrations of Lead in Particle-phase
I
1992
=F
-
1993
i-
1 fl
1994 1995
•
n
n
•
n
Superior
Michigan
Erie
Huron
Ontario
1996
Figure 6. Loading
BaP
•\ snn
IOUU
ra
in
o> n
c u
nj cnn
_l
•innn
- IUUU
s of Total PCBs, Total
to the Great Lakes
-,
u
n
n
I
92
1E
J
93
L
-loUU
III
u 'LJ-ILTu
E94 1995 1996
•
HCH
s, and
DPCB, Sup.
• HCH, Sup.
DBaP, Sup
DPCB, Mich.
• HCH, Mich.
DBaP, Mich.
• PCB, Erie
• HCH, Erie
• BaP, Erie
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicatoins (Diraft for Review, "November 2ooo)
33
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
SOLEC Indicator #118
Purpose
This indicator reports the concentration of priority
toxic chemicals in offshore waters, and by comparison
to protection for aquatic life and human health criteria
infer the potential for impacts on the health of the
Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem. As well, the indicator
can be used to infer the progress of virtual elimination
programs.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes should be free from materials enter-
ing the water as a result of human activity that will
produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to hu-
man, animal, or aquatic life (GLWQA, Article III(d)).
State of the Ecosystem
Many toxic chemicals are present in the Great Lakes.
As a result of various ecosystem health assessments, a
comparatively small number have been identified as
"critical pollutants". Even so, it is impractical to summa-
rize the spatial and temporal trends of them all within the
current context. Examples of only a few have been
provided for illustration. In collating the available infor-
mation, what became apparent were the difficulties in
attempting to summarize different sources of information
collected using different sampling and analytical methods
at different locations at different times. Differences were
impossible to resolve. For the parties to report on an on-
going basis, a monitoring program with consistent
protocols would have to be the primary source of the
historically available information as well as a commitment
to maintain such a program. For these reasons, a single
source of information was used to illustrate spatial and
temporal trends: Environment Canada's open lake and
interconnecting channels monitoring program, on-going
since 1986 using consistent methodologies throughout
the various programs.
Dieldrin Concentrations
Legend ng/L
• Missing
O ND
• <0.10
0.10-0.15
0.15-0.20
0.20 - 0.25
® 0.25 +
» •
' *•
;.•;. »Y
Figure 1. Spatial Dieldrin patterns in the Great Lakes (Spring 1997 or 1998, Surface) and annual most likely
estimated averages for the interconnecting channels from 1986 to 1998. Units = ng/L
(Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada)
34
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Organochlorines, several of which are on various "critical
pollutant" lists, have and are still declining in the Great
Lakes in response to management efforts. Spatial concen-
tration patterns illustrate the ubiquitous nature for some,
meanwhile, the influence of localized source(s) for others.
Organochlorine pesticides such as Lindane and Dieldrin
(Figure 1) are observed at all open lake stations and
connecting channels sites at relatively similar concentra-
tions, although the lower lakes still appear to have local
influences, probably historically contaminated soils or
sediments. Concentrations throughout the Great Lakes
have decreased by - 50% between 1986 and 1996 and are
still declining. Dieldrin exceeds the most sensitive water
quality criterion for the protection of human consumers
offish by a factor of 250 times.
Hexachlorobenzene, octachlorostyrene, and mirex exem-
plify organochlorines whose presence is due to historical
localized sources. Consequently, their occurrence in the
environment is isolated to specific locations in the Great
Lakes basin. Concentrations of all three in the Niagara
River have decreased by more than 50% between 1986
and 1996. Both HCB and mirex continue to exceed their
most stringent criteria for the protection of human
consumers offish by a factor of 2 and 7, respectively.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are another
class of critical pollutants. Some PAHs appear to be
increasing in concentration and spatial patterns suggest
localized sources. For example, comparisons of upstream/
downstream concentrations over time suggest increasing
inputs from localized sources in the Niagara River (Figure
2). In contrast decreasing concentrations are observed at
the outflow of Lake Ontario.
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Targeted monitoring to identify and trackdown local
sources should be considered for those chemicals whose
ambient environmental distribution suggests localized
influences.
The research community in the Great Lakes basin is
actively pursuing the emerging chemicals issue. The
monitoring community will need to incorporate the
results of these activities in planning future monitoring
programs in the Great Lakes basin.
Further Work Necessary
Environment Canada conducts routine toxic contami-
nant monitoring in the Great Lakes. However, a coordi-
nated binational enhanced monitoring program is re-
quired with agreement on specifics such as analytical and
field methodologies, sampling locations, inclusion of
connecting channel, nearshore and embayment sites. An
agreed upon approach for summarizing and reporting the
indicator will also be required given that many chemicals
and locations have unique stories to tell.
Acknowledgments
Author: Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Environ-
mental Conservation Branch, Burlington, ON.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
Management efforts to control inputs of organochlorines
have resulted in decreasing concentrations in the Great
Lakes, however, sources for some still exist.
The increase in some PAH concentrations in localized
areas should be reviewed and analyzed in more detail. The
ecosystem impact is unknown.
Chemicals such as endocrine disrupting chemicals, in-use
pesticides, and pharmaceuticals are emerging issues.
Future Actions
Efforts such as those underway in the Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Strategy need to be maintained to
identify and control the remaining sources.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
35
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Fluoranthene Concentrations
Leqend nq/L
••
Missing
ND
<0.50
0.50-1.00
1.00-1.50
1.50-2.00
2.00-2.50
2.50 +
h iiihlii i
Figure 2. Spatial fluoranthene patterns in the Great Lakes (Spring 1997 or 1998, Surface) and annual most likely
estimated averages for the interconnecting channels from 1986 to 1998. Units = ng/L
(Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada)
SOLEC 2ooo - llnnpilenneinutuniig' llmudicautoirs (Diraift for Review, "Novennber 2ooo)
-------
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
SOLEC Indicator #4504
(Coastal Wetland Indicators
Purpose
Assessments of the species composition and relative
abundance of calling frogs and toads are used to help
infer the condition of Great Lakes basin marshes (i.e.
wetlands dominated by non-woody emergent plants).
A high proportion of the Great Lakes basin's amphib-
ian species inhabit wetlands during part of their life
cycle, and many of the species at risk in the basin are
associated with wetlands. Similarly, there is growing
international concern about declines of amphibian
populations and an apparent increase in rates of
deformities. Because frogs and toads are relatively
sedentary, have semi-permeable skin, and breed in and
adjacent to aquatic systems, they are likely to be more
sensitive to, and indicative of, local sources of contami-
nation to wetlands than most other vertebrates.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is to ensure healthy breeding
populations of Great Lakes wetland amphibians by
sustaining the necessary quantity and quality of
wetland habitat.
State of the Ecosystem
From 1995 through 1999, 11 frog and two toad
species were recorded by Marsh Monitoring Program
(MMP) participants surveying 354 routes across the
Great Lakes basin. Spring Peeper was the most
frequently detected species (Table 1) and, as indicated
by an average calling code of 2.5, was frequently
recorded in full chorus (Call Level Code 3) where it
was encountered. Green Frog was detected in more
than half of station years and the average calling code
indicates this species was usually recorded as Call
Level 1. Gray Treefrog, American Toad and Northern
Leopard Frog were also common, being recorded in
more than one-third of all station years. Gray Treefrog
was recorded with the second highest average calling
code (1.9), indicating that MMP observers usually
heard several individuals with some overlapping calls.
Bullfrog, Chorus Frog and Wood Frog were detected
in approximately one-quarter of station years. Five
species were detected infrequently by MMP surveyors
and were recorded in less than three percent of station
years.
With only five years of data collected across the Great
Lakes basin, the MMP is still quite young as a moni-
toring program. Trends in amphibian occurrence were
assessed for the eight species commonly detected on
MMP routes. For each species, a trend was assessed
first on a route-by-route basis in terms of the annual
proportion of stations with each species present. These
*
\
]
Species Name
Spring Peeper
Green Frog
Gray Treefrog
American Toad
N. Leopard Frog
Bullfrog
Chorus Frog
Wood Frog
Pickerel Frog
Fowler's Frog
Mink Frog
Blanchard's Cricket Frog
Cope's Gray Treefrog
% station-years
present*
69.0
56.6
37.9
36.9
32.6
26.6
25.4
18.7
2.4
1.4
1.3
0.9
0.9
Average
calling code
2.5
1.3
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
MMP survey stations monitored for multiple years considered as
ndividual samples
Table 1. Frequency of occurrence and average Call Level
Gode for amphibian species detected inside Great Lakes basin
V1MP stations, 1995 through 1999- Average calling codes are
Dased upon the three level call code standard for all MMP
imphibian surveys; surveyors record Code 1 (little overlap
imong calls, numbers of individuals can be determined),
Gode 2 (some overlap, numbers can be estimated) or Code 3
(much overlap, too numerous to be estimated).
route level trends were then combined for an overall
assessment of trend for each species. Although some
trends were suggested for species such as American Toad
and Bullfrog, only the declining trend for Chorus Frog
could be resolved with sufficient statistical confidence
(i.e. confidence limits do not encompass zero) (Figure 1).
Although long-term (1950s to 1990s) losses of Chorus
Frog have been recorded in the St. Lawrence Pviver valley
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
37
-------
Coastal Wetland! Indicators
American Toad
-2.0 (-W, US)
Bullfrog
W [-2,2, 5.2}
Chorus Frog
-7,9 (-11.4, -4.2)
Green Frog
0.2 1-2.6,12)
Grey Treefrog
-2.2 (-5J, U)
Leopard Frog
1.7 (-14 4.7)
Spring Peeper
U (-1.8, 4.3)
Wood Frog
1.2 (-1.8, 4,4)
Q.
O
Q_
1997 1998
1995 1996 1997
1995 1996 1997
Year
Figure 1. Annual indices of calling amphibian occurrence on MMP routes within the Great Lakes basin, 1995 to 1999-
Indices are based on the annual proportion of survey stations with each species present and are defined relative to 1999
values; vertical bars indicate 95% confidence limits around annual indices. The estimated annual percent change (trend) is
indicated for each species and the associated lower and upper extremes of 95% confidence limits are enclosed in parentheses.
just outside the Great Lakes basin, this species is known
to have population fluctuations, and even regional
extinctions, over short time periods due to natural factors
such as differences in annual weather conditions (Diagle,
1997). Additional survey and other (e.g. remote sensing)
data and detailed analyses will be required to understand
how the trends observed for Chorus Frog and other
amphibian species relate to changes in Great Lakes
wetland habitat conditions.
These data will serve as baseline data with which to
compare future survey results and will help provide an
understanding of the status and distribution of calling
frogs and toads in Great Lakes' wetlands. Anecdotal and
research evidence suggests that wide variations in the
occurrence of many amphibian species at a given site is a
natural and ongoing phenomenon. These variations are
apparent for many of the amphibian species recorded by
MMP volunteers during the past five years. Additional
years of data will help reveal whether these observed
patterns (e.g. decline in Chorus Frog station occupancy)
continue. Further data are required to conclude whether
Great Lakes wetlands are successfully sustaining amphib-
ian populations.
Future Pressures
Current pressures on wetland amphibians will likely
continue. Many coastal and inland Great Lakes wetlands
are at the lowest elevations in watersheds that support
very intensive industrial, agricultural and residential
development. Habitat loss and deterioration remain the
predominant threat to Great Lakes amphibian
populations. More subtle impacts such as water level
stabilization, sedimentation, contaminant and nutrient
inputs, and the invasion of exotic plants and animals
continue to degrade wetlands across the region.
Future Activities
Because of the sensitivity of amphibians to their sur-
rounding environment and the growing international
concern about their populations, amphibians in the Great
Lakes basin and elsewhere continue to be the focus of
monitoring activities. Wherever possible, efforts should
be made to maintain wetland habitats and adjacent
uplands. Apart from habitat loss, there is also a need to
address impacts that are detrimental to wetland health
such as inputs of toxic chemicals, nutrients and
sediments. Restoration programs are underway for many
degraded wetland areas through the work of local citizens,
organizations and governments. Although significant
progress has been made in this area, further wetland
conservation and restoration efforts are needed.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
(Coastal Wetland Indicators
Further Work Necessary
Monitoring of amphibian species will continue in
marshes across the Great Lakes basin through the MMP
Continued monitoring of at least 100 routes through
2006 is projected to provide good resolution for several
of the amphibians recorded by the MME Recruitment
and retention of program participants will therefore
continue to be a high priority, especially in coastal
wetlands. Further work is necessary to establish
endpoints for amphibian diversity and abundance.
Additional monitoring and other (e.g. remote sensing)
data and more detailed analyses are required to examine
trends in relation to wetland habitat characteristics and at
basinwide, lake basin and other spatial scales. Current
monitoring is adapted for large geographic scales, work is
currently underway to help refine assessments of bird
communities at single sites; additional amphibian work
may follow. Assessments of the relationships among
station occupancy, calling codes and relative abundance
estimates, amphibian population parameters, and critical
environmental factors are needed.
Although more frequent updates are possible, reporting
trend estimates every five or six years is most appropriate
for this indicator. A variety of efforts are underway to
enhance reporting breadth and efficiency.
Sources
Diagle, C. 1997- Distribution and Abundance of the
Chorus Frog, Pseudacris triseriata, in Quebec. In Am-
phibians in Decline: Canadian Studies of a Global
Problem (D. M. Green, ed.). The Society for the Study
of Amphibians and Reptiles, Saint Louis, Missouri.
Acknowledgements
Author: Russ Weeber, Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowen,
ON.
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird
Studies Canada in partnership with Environment Cana-
da's Canadian Wildlife Service and with significant
support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's Great Lakes National Program Office and Lake Erie
Team. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring Pro-
gram staff and volunteers are gratefully acknowledged.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Coastal Wetland Indicators
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
SOLEC Indicator #4506
Purpose
This indicator measures the concentrations of persist-
ent contaminants in the eggs of Common Snapping
Turtles living in wetlands of the Great Lakes basin in
order to provide an indirect measure of foodweb
contamination and its effects on wetland wildlife.
Methods
The persistent contaminants measured in Snapping
Turtle eggs include 59 non-ortho polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) congeners, six ortho PCB congeners
(ortho PCB congeners are more toxic than non-ortho
PCB congeners), 20 organochlorine pesticides (includ-
ing DDT and mirex) and their metabolites, 14
polychlorinated dioxins (PCDD) and 22 furans
(PCDF) and mercury Eggs were collected from the
nest and either analyzed for contaminants or incu-
bated artificially to determine hatching success,
deformity rates of hatched turtles, and rates of
unhatched eggs. Generally, eggs were collected from
1981 to 1991 on the Canadian side of the Lakes at
four sites on Lake Ontario (Cootes Paradise/Hamilton
Harbour, Lynde Creek, Cranberry Marsh and Trent
Pviver), two sites on Lake Erie (Big Creek Marsh/Long
Point and Rondeau Provincial Park), one site on the St.
Lawrence River (Akwesasne) and one reference site at
Lake Sasajewun, an inland lake at Algonquin Provincial
Park.
tions in Snapping Turtle eggs suggested 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 the
reference site, Lake Sasajewun, Algonquin Park. The
following endpoints for mean wet weight concentrations
in Snapping Turtle eggs should not be exceeded:
Toxic Equivalents = 158.3 ug/g
Total polychlorinated biphenyls (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
State of the Ecosystem
Snapping Turtles are ideal candidates as indicators of
wetland health due to their sedentary nature, their
ability to accumulate high levels of contaminants over
their long life-span and their position as top predators
in the food chain. Contaminant levels measured in
Snapping Turtle eggs are indicative of contaminant levels
found in the turtle's diet (about 1/3 fish, 1/3 plants and
1/3 other items including invertebrates and to a lesser
degree smaller turtles, birds and snakes). Snapping Turtle
eggs collected at two Lake Ontario sites (Cootes Paradise
and Lynde Creek) had the highest PCDD concentrations
(notably 2,3,7,8-TCDD; Figure 1) and number of
Snapping Turtle eggs have also
been collected for contaminant
analyses for most years from 1992
to 1999 at most of the study sites
listed above. However, these data
have not yet been statistically
analyzed and will not be discussed
at this time.
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective is to
protect wetland wildlife, especially
long-lived species like the Snap-
ping Turtle, from the effects of
contamination which may include
impaired embryonic develop-
ment.
The mean wet weight concentra-
Dioxin
mn
OU
LU
I 40-
&
0 -
and Furan Concentrations (1984;1989; 1990)
~
•Jl Li
%
=0
Q_ cS
B
8
• 2378-T
D 1°378
D 12367
• 23478-
-i
• 12478-
'
*m tfll ^J _ . ND
$ ' -S -s a „ ' s ' 1 i
10 £ ro S!^ So-!
2 OgE ^ rag - ziOT.a,
K™ I," *2 " J " ^ 1™ ^^
SJ= g ™ £ s
0 o H -1 J3
Nate :2378-TCDFmeasLred but not detected h any site; ND = No Conpoun ds detected
CDD
PnCDD
3-HxCDD
PnCDF
PnCDF
Figure 1. Dioxin and furan concentrations (1984; 1989/90) in Snapping Turtle
eggs at Canadian Great Lakes study sites
(Source: Bishop
andGendron, 1998).
40
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
detectable PCDF congeners (twenty versus six at all other
sites). Eggs from Cranberry Marsh (Lake Ontario) had
similar levels of PCBs (Figure 2) and organochlorines
(not shown) compared to Lake Erie sites but higher
concentrations and a greater number of PCDD and
PCDF congeners were detected at this site relative to
Lake Erie sites (Figure 1). Eggs from Akwesasne con-
tained the highest level of PCBs relative to all other sites
(Figure 2).
Temporal trends for contaminants indicate that for eggs
at two Lake Ontario sites (Cootes Paradise and Lynde
Creek), levels of PCBs and DDE (not shown) increased
significantly from 1984 to 1990/91 (Figure 2). Impor-
tantly, levels of PCDDs (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD) and
PCDFs decreased significantly at Cootes Paradise from
1984 to 1989 (Figure 1). At Lake Erie and the reference
lake sites, decreasing or stable levels of contaminants in
eggs were reported from 1984 to 1991-
Mean Sum PCB Concentrations (1981-1991)
1 -
1 •? -
m O
j| £
Q.
^
0.
J
rfl \\
K! Si TJ 16 t" _ S
2 S =2 5 w 5
§ 2 j o £ S i
"A! 2 S =
n „•
01 -e = =
= 0 S ^ a, I
ra a. -a a ^5
i =5 J S
D1981
• 1984
D1988
D1989
• 1990
• 1991
*1981 -0.1
1988-0.0
1989-0.0
I
Figure 2. Mean sum PCB concentrations (1981-1991) in Snapping Turtle eggs at
Canadian Great Lakes study sites and one inland reference site.
(Source: Bishop and Gendron, 1998).
| (Coastal Wetland Indicators
Future Pressures
High contaminant levels associated with eggs of Lake
Ontario turtles may be due, in part, to a diet of migra-
tory Lake Ontario fish, including carp and other large
long-lived fish species. Similarly, low contaminant levels
observed in Lake Erie eggs may be due to a more diversi-
fied diet of less contaminated smaller fish and other local
diet items. Continuing contaminant exposures in Lake
Ontario and St. Lawrence River Snapping Turtles will
likely only be alleviated through natural biological loss of
persistent chemicals from the environment (e.g. sedimen-
tation) and further reductions of atmospheric, point and
non-point source loadings into the Lake Ontario and St.
Lawrence River ecosystems.
Future Activities
Similar to other SOLEC coastal wetland indicators, this
indicator is currently being reviewed by the Canadian
Wildlife Service (CWS) and the SOLEC coastal wetlands
core group. For CWS, this program is still in its experi-
mental stages and further analyses
of the data are required to deter-
mine whether this indicator will
be adopted as part of ongoing
wildlife monitoring activities. A
new binational Great Lakes coastal
wetland indicator consortium,
supported by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, will also
evaluate the suitability of this
indicator in assessing coastal
wetland health. Pending further
consideration, analyses of contami-
nant levels in Snapping Turtle eggs
at selected study sites and studies
of rates of abnormal development
may continue in future years as
part of a long-term strategy for
monitoring foodweb contamina-
tion and its effects on wetland
wildlife.
Bishop et al. (1991) have demonstrated that eggs with
the highest contaminant levels also show the poorest
developmental success. Rates of abnormal development
of Snapping Turtle eggs from (1986-1991) were highest
at all four Lake Ontario sites compared to all other sites
studied (Figure 3). Rates were similar between the one
Lake Erie site sampled (Long Point) and the reference
inland lake.
Further Work Necessary
In order to use this indicator at a basin-wide scale,
additional monitoring sites need to be established at
representative sites in the United States and the upper
Great Lakes. Evaluation of other biological endpoints
such as disruption of hormone levels and development of
secondary sexual characteristics in Snapping Turtles would
also be of value.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
41
-------
Coastal Wetland Indicators
The effects of contaminants on the Great Lakes ecosys-
tem, including wetlands, have been studied for many
years. The parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (U.S. and Canada) are committed to the
virtual elimination of discharge associated with any or all
persistent toxic substances.
Sources
Bishop, C.A., Brooks, R.J., Carey, J.H., Ng, P,
Norstrom, R.J. and Lean, D.R.S. 1991- The case for a
cause-effect linkage between environmental contamina-
tion and development in eggs of the Common Snapping
Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) from Ontario, Canada. J.
Toxicol. Environ. Health 33: 512-547-
Bishop, C.A. and Gendron, A.D. 1998. Reptiles and
amphibians: shy and sensitive vertebrates of the Great
Lakes basin and St. Lawrence River. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 53: 225-244.
Acknowledgments
Author: Kim Hughes, Canadian Wildlife Service, Envi-
ronment Canada, Downsview, ON.
Contributions from Christine Bishop, Ph.D., Canadian
Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, R.J. Brooks,
Ph.D., University of Guelph, Canadian Wildlife Service -
National Wildlife Research Centre and Peggy Ng, York
University.
Rates of Abnormal Development of Snapping Turtle Eggs
100 -i
80 -
S 60 "
I 40-
20 -
0 -
(1986- 1991)
(rates of deformed hatchlings plus unhatched eggs)
^^^
n
1 I 1 I I
II I I I I I I I I_H I *
t £ « 5 ^ 1
| 2 | | £ Stl
o | | o |
986
987
988
989
990
991
Lake Ontario St. Lawrence Lake Erie Reference
River Lake
^ Arrow indicates mean abnormality rate for Lake Sasajewun (1986-1989) = 6%
Figure 3. Rates of abnormal development (i.e., rates of deformed hatchlings plus
unhatched eggs) of Snapping Turtle eggs (1986-1991) at Canadian Great Lakes study sites
and one inland reference site.
(Source: Bishop and Gendron, 1998)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 IndiLcatoirs (Diraft for Review, "Novembeir 2ooo)
-------
(Coastal Wetland Indicators
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
SOLEC Indicator #4507
Purpose
Assessments of the diversity and abundance of
wetland-dependent birds in the Great Lakes basin are
used to evaluate the health and function of wetlands.
Breeding birds are valuable components of Great Lakes
wetlands and rely on the physical, chemical and
biological health of their habitats. Because these
relationships are particularly strong during the breed-
ing season, the presence and abundance of breeding
individuals can provide a source of information on
wetland status and trends. When long-term monitor-
ing data are combined with an analysis of habitat
characteristics, trends in species abundance and
diversity can contribute to an assessment of the ability
of Great Lakes coastal wetlands to support birds and
other wetland-dependent wildlife. Populations of
several wetland-dependent birds are at risk due to the
continuing loss and degradation of their habitats.
Geographically extensive and long-term surveys of
wetland-dependent birds are possible through the
coordination of skilled volunteer naturalists in the appli-
cation of standardized monitoring protocols. Information
on the abundance, distribution and diversity of marsh
birds provides needed measures of their population
trends, and with their habitat associations, can contribute
to more effective, long-term conservation strategies.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is to ensure healthy breeding populations
of Great Lakes wetland-dependent birds by sustaining the
necessary quantity and quality of wetland habitat.
State of the Ecosystem
From 1995 through 1999, 53 species of birds that use
marshes (wetlands dominated by non-woody emergent
plants) for feeding, nesting or both were recorded by
Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) volunteers at 322
routes throughout the Great Lakes basin. Among the
bird species that typically feed in the air above marshes,
Tree Swallow and Barn Swallow were the two most
common. Red-winged Blackbird was the most com-
monly recorded marsh nesting species, followed by
Swamp Sparrow, Common Yellowthroat and Marsh
Wren. Individual bird species varied considerably in their
distribution among lake basins; patterns likely influenced
by differences in species geographic range and variation
among basins in sampled wetland habitat characteristics
such as permanency, size, and dominant vegetation type.
With only five years of data collected across the Great
Lakes basin, the MMP is still quite young as a moni-
toring program. Bird species occurrence and num-
bers, and their activity and likelihood of being ob-
served, vary naturally among years and within seasons.
Although results are still preliminary, trends are
presented for several birds recorded on Great Lakes MMP
routes (Figure la,b). Population indices and trends (i.e.
average annual percent change in population index) are
presented for species with statistically significant trends
between 1995 and 1999- Species with significant basin-
wide declines were Pied-billed Grebe, Blue-winged Teal,
American Coot, undifferentiated Common Moorhen/
American Coot, and Black Tern (Figure la). Although
declines for Tree Swallow and Red-winged Blackbird were
not quite statistically significant, trends for these species
are also presented because they are particularly widespread
and common marsh nesting birds. Statistically signifi-
cant basin-wide increases were observed for Canada
Goose, Mallard, Chimney Swift, Northern Rough-
winged Swallow, Common Yellowthroat and Common
Crackle (Figure Ib). Each of the declining species de-
pends upon wetlands for breeding but, because they use
wetland habitats almost exclusively, the Pied-billed Grebe,
American Coot, Common Moorhen, and Black Tern are
particularly dependent on the availability of healthy
wetlands. Although declines in these wetland specialists
and increases in some wetland edge and generalist species
(e.g. Common Yellowthroat and Canada Goose) suggest
trends in wetland habitat conditions, additional years of
data and more detailed analyses are required to under-
stand how these patterns relate to trends in Great Lakes
wetland functions.
Future Pressures
Future pressures on wetland-dependent birds will
likely include continuing loss and degradation of
important breeding habitats through wetland loss,
water level stabilization, sedimentation, contaminant
and nutrient inputs, and the invasion of exotic plants
and animals.
Future Activities
Wherever possible, efforts should be made to maintain
high quality wetland habitats and adjacent upland
areas. In addition to loss, there is a need to address
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
43
-------
Coastal Wetland! Indicators
impacts that are detrimental to wetland health such as
water level stabilization, invasive species and inputs of
toxic chemicals, nutrients and sediments. Restoration
programs are underway for many degraded wetland
areas through the work of local citizens, organizations
and governments. Although significant progress has
been made, further conservation and restoration work
is needed.
munities at single sites. Assessments of the relationships
among count indices, bird population parameters, and
critical environmental factors are needed.
Although more frequent updates are possible, report-
ing trend estimates every five or six years is most
appropriate for this indicator. A variety of efforts are
underway to enhance reporting breadth and efficiency.
Pied-bled Grebe
-tui-m, isi
Further Work Necessary
Monitoring of wetland-dependent bird species will
continue across the Great Lakes basin through the
MMP Continued monitoring of at least 100 routes
through 2006 is projected to provide good resolution
for most of the wetland-dependent birds recorded by
the MME Recruitment and retention of program
participants will therefore continue to be a high priority,
particularly in coastal wetlands. Further work is neces-
sary to establish
endpoints for bird
diversity and abun-
dance. Additional
monitoring and other
(e.g. remote sensing)
data and more de-
tailed analyses are
required to examine
trends in relation to
wetland habitat
characteristics at
basinwide, lake basin
and other spatial
scales. Current
monitoring is adapted
for large geographic
scales, work is cur-
rently underway to
help refine assess-
ments of bird corn-
Acknowledgements
Author: Russ Weeber, Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowen,
ON. The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird
Studies in partnership with Environment Canadas Canadian
Wildlife Service and with significant support from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National
Program Office and Lake Erie Team. The contributions of all
Marsh Monitoring Program staff and volunteers are gratefully
acknowledged.
B
Blue-winged Teal
-13.! [-SH.-O.S)
Canada Goose
2C.2 (4.9^7.7)
Mallard
29.2 (17.0,42.5)
moorhen/coat
Chimney Swift
15.6 (1.7,31.8)
N. Rough-winged Swallow
I -
I "
Tree Swallow
Common YelMhroat
Common Gracfcle
1987 199B 19E
1996 1997
1999 1999 1996 1997 1993 1999
Year
id-winged Blackbird
-a (-suit)
1996 1997
Year
Figure 1: Annual population indices of a) declining and b) increasing marsh nesting and aerial foraging bird species detected
on Great Lakes basin MMP routes, 1995 through 1999- Population indices are based on counts of individuals inside the
MMP station boundary and are defined relative to 1999 values; vertical bars indicate 95% confidence limits around annual
indices. The estimated annual percent change (trend) are indicated for each species and the associated lower and upper
extremes of 95% confidence limits are enclosed in parentheses.
44
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
(Coastal Wetland Indicators
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
SOLEC Indicator #4510
Please note -figures 2 & 3 for this indicator are unavailable at this time
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to examine and better
understand periodic changes in area of coastal wetland
types, taking into account natural variations. The area
indicator needs to be evaluated in terms of wetland
quality by looking at both change in areal extent and
change within wetlands, in concert with other indica-
tors.
Coastal wetlands include a range of habitats from bogs
and treed swamps to emergent marshes. They also
have many configurations. Being open to the lake,
some are more susceptible to the influence of lake level
changes than others which may be behind barrier
beaches. Given the tremendous natural variation that
can occur in both quality and area as a result of
fluctuating water levels (e.g., Lake St. Clair wetlands
change in size by up to 300 percent depending on
water levels), this factor is paramount in the interpre-
tation of trends in wetland area. For example, recent
low water levels have moved wetland vegetation
lakeward (where bottom topography is suitable),
shrinking some and increasing others in addition to
exposing many mudflats. Yet when the waters rise
again, through exposure during the low water period,
the seedbank may result in a reinvigoration of wetland
vegetation.
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective is to reverse the trend toward
loss and degradation of Great Lakes coastal wetlands,
ensuring adequate representation of wetland types
across their historical range.
State of the Ecosystem
Wetlands continue to be lost and degraded, yet the
ability to track and determine the extent and rate of
this loss in a standardized way is not yet feasible. The
need to know the location, type and area of Great
Lakes coastal wetlands has been identified by a
number of individuals, groups and agencies for many
years in order to understand the rate and distribution
of the changes and track conservation efforts. For
example, in preparation for SOLEC '96, the possibil-
ity of pulling together a map of Great Lakes coastal
wetlands was thoroughly investigated and was deter-
mined to be unfeasible at that time. In addition to
distribution, the health and status of remaining Great
Lakes coastal wetlands, continues to be unknown.
A number of approaches to establish a baseline and
determine trends in wetland area have been and will
continue to be considered. Unfortunately, none of
these exactly match the method outlined for this
indicator at SOLEC '98. It is hoped that a new Great
Lakes wetlands indicators consortium, which is sup-
ported by the US Environmental Protection Agency,
will debate the merits of various indicators and ap-
proaches, including wetland area.
In the meantime, many efforts have been initiated to
estimate wetland area. For example, on the Canadian
side of the basin, development of the Ontario Coastal
Wetland Atlas provides the most comprehensive and
current data base of Ontario Great Lakes wetlands. It
includes a relatively complete, spatially referenced
map and data base of Canada's Great Lakes coastal
wetlands present as of the mid-1980s. It consolidates
and enhances information from a variety of sources
including: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources'
(OMNR) wetland evaluations, Environment Canada's
Environmental Sensitivity Atlases, Natural Heritage
Information Centre, OMNR's Natural Areas Database
and other site specific studies.
Adding up the area of individual wetlands from the
Ontario Atlas will provide an initial estimate of total
Canadian Great Lakes coastal wetland area. Unfortu-
nately, this is unlikely to be a method which is re-
peated since it is labour intensive, expensive, and
covers a very large geographic area. Therefore, it does
not represent the baseline for a trend, rather it pro-
vides a very useful point-in-time reference which aids
in the selection of representative sites for monitoring
area and other indicators, and improves understanding
of wetland change.
The Wetland Inventory for Research and Education
Network (WIRENET), which was based on a similar,
but less extensive process than the Atlas, including
mid-1980s wetland evaluations, provides an on-line
map of Ontario coastal wetlands at:
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
45
-------
Coastal Wetland Indicators
www.on.ec.gc.ca/glimr/wirenet/. WIRENET was used in
the work on coastal wetland biodiversity investment areas
for SOLEC '98.
Other methods to look at trends in coastal wetland area
rely on remotely sensed data. For example, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service published the National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) in 1982, based on the analysis of aerial
photographs with ground-truthing. The NWI includes
delineated wetland types using the system of Cowardin et
al. (1979). Updates are to be prepared every 10 years
with the first one in 1990 and the 2000 update due soon.
Updates are based on a statistical sampling of wetlands,
not on a full set of aerial photos. The NWI, although
very useful, does not specifically identify coastal wetlands.
In Canada, trends in wetland area, vegetation commu-
nities and adjacent land uses have been mapped and
digitized for eight coastal wetlands for seven different
years between 1934 and 1995- These data are based
on air photo interpretation and include the following
wetlands: Lake St. Clair marshes, Big Creek-Holiday
Beach, Rondeau Bay North Shore, Turkey Point,
Oshawa Second Marsh, Presqu'ile Marsh, Dunnville
Marsh and Long Point (see Fig. 1). There are plans to
add additional wetlands to this "Trends Through
Time" database in order to increase the representativeness
of the sites selected for the basin. Plans are also
underway to investigate the potential to use these sites to
indicate and interpret change (Fig. 2) and status of
coastal wetlands at a basinwide scale (Fig. 3).
Numerous research efforts are underway to assess the use
of remote sensing technologies, and in some cases com-
bine the results of satellite remote sensing, aerial photog-
raphy and field work to document recent wetland loss. It
is hoped that in the future, remote sensing will be used
to provide an overview and facilitate a binational map of
Great Lakes coastal wetlands as well as to establish a
consistent methodology for tracking and anticipating
change and facilitate faster updates and better tracking of
wetland change in areas of high land-use change.
Future Pressures
There are many stressors which have and continue to
contribute to the loss and degradation of coastal wetland
area. These include: filling, dredging and draining for
conversion to other uses such as urban, agricultural,
marina, and cottage development; shoreline modification;
water level regulation; sediment and nutrient loading
from watersheds; adjacent landuse; invasive species,
particularly exotics; and climate variability and change.
Oshawa Second Marsh
Toronto®
~esqu He
Marsh
Turkey Point \^
^^
Lake St. Clair Marshes
1.
Holiday Beach
Dunnville Marsh
® Buffalo
Point
* Big Creek-
Rondeau Bay
North Shore
Figure 1. Location of eight coastal wetlands for "Trends Through Time" database.
46
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
(Coastal Wetland Indicators
Many of these stressors require direct human action to
implement, and thus, with proper consideration of the
impacts, can be reduced. The natural dynamics of
wetlands must be understood. Global climate variability
and change have the potential to amplify the dynamics by
reducing water levels in the Lakes in addition to changing
seasonal storm intensity and frequency, water level
fluctuations and temperature.
Because of growing concerns around water quality and
supply, which are key Great Lakes conservation issues,
and the role of wetlands in flood attenuation, nutrient
cycling and sediment trapping, wetland changes will
continue to be monitored closely.
Future Activities
There are activities underway on many fronts and at
many scales to conserve remaining wetlands. These
include: improving legislation, policies and permitting
processes; communication and outreach activities to
promote good stewardship; habitat and biodiversity
protection programs; habitat rehabilitation programs;
watershed stewardship; and research. One example
includes the current review of the Water Level Regula-
tion Plan for Lake Ontario. In determining revisions
to the plan, this review will consider wetlands, fisher-
ies and other environmental and emerging issues along
with the traditional interests of hydropower, commer-
cial navigation and shoreline property owners.
Being able to track, document and anticipate changes
in coastal wetland area, distribution and diversity will
direct wetland conservation to prevent the loss of key
areas and maintain and sustain hydrologic function in
the Great Lakes basin.
Further Work Necessary
The difficult decisions on how to address human-
induced stressors causing wetlands loss have been
considered for some time. A better understanding of
wetland function will help to assess exactly what is
being lost. An educated public is critical to ensuring
that wise decisions about the stewardship of the Great
Lakes basin ecosystem are made. Better platforms for
getting understandable information to the public are
needed.
As mentioned previously, it is hoped that a new
binational Great Lakes coastal wetland indicator
consortium will wrestle with all of the difficult issues
with respect to the most appropriate, implementable
method for tracking trends in area as well as the fre-
quency with which it is monitored and reported, in order
to establish the best technique.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Lesley Dunn, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada, Downsview, ON and Laurie
Maynard, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment
Canada, Guelph, ON.
Contributions from Doug Forder, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Environment Canada, Duane Heaton, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Linda Mortsch,
Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada,
Nancy Patterson, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environ-
ment Canada and Brian Potter, Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
47
-------
Coastal Wetland! Indicators
Effect ofWater Level Fluctuations
SOLEC Indicator #4861
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to examine the historic
water levels in all of the Great Lakes, and compare
these levels and their effects on wetlands with post-
regulated levels in Lakes Superior and Ontario, where
water levels have been regulated since about 1914 and
1959, respectively. Naturally fluctuating water levels
are known to be essential for maintaining the ecologi-
cal health of Great Lakes shoreline ecosystems, espe-
cially coastal wetlands. Thus, comparing the hydrol-
ogy of the Lakes serves as an indicator of degradation
caused by the artificial alteration of the naturally
fluctuating hydrological cycle. Furthermore, water
level fluctuations can be used to examine effects on
wetland vegetation communities over time as well as aid
in interpreting estimates of coastal wetland area, especially
in those Great Lakes for which water levels are not
regulated.
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective is to maintain the diverse array
of Great Lakes coastal wetlands by allowing, as closely as
is possible, the natural seasonal and long-term fluctua-
tions of Great Lakes water levels. Great Lakes shoreline
ecosystems are dependent upon natural disturbance
processes, such as water level fluctuations, if they are to
function as dynamic systems. Naturally fluctuating water
levels create ever-changing conditions along the Great
Lakes shoreline, and the biological communities that
populate these coastal wetlands have responded to these
dynamic changes with rich and diverse assemblages of
species.
State of the Ecosystem
Water levels in the Great Lakes have been measured since
1860, but even 140 years is a relatively short period of
time when assessing the hydrological history of the Lakes.
Sediment investigations conducted recently by
Thompson and Baedke on the Lake Michigan-Huron
system indicate quasi-periodic lake level fluctuations
(Figure 1), both in period and amplitude, on an average
of about 160 years, but ranging from 120 - 200 years.
c
O |7f! 5
W—»
co
I •?« "
LU
• upper
• Inferred s»er I ;-•• it
v
fcfffi
•-»
m
CD
o
584 =5
It -'4
SCO 1COO 1500 2000 25CO 30CO 350C
Calendar 1950
-------
Within this 160-year period, there also appear to be sub-
fluctuations of approximately 33 years. Therefore, to
assess water level fluctuations and wetland trends, it is
necessary to look at long-term data.
Because Lake Superior is at the upper end of the water-
shed, the fluctuations have less amplitude than the other
Lakes. Lake Ontario (Figure 2), at the lower end of the
watershed, more clearly shows these quasi-periodic
fluctuations and the almost complete elimination of the
high and low levels since the Lake level began to be
regulated in 1959, and more rigorously since 1976. For
example, the 1986 high level that was observed in the
other Lakes was eliminated from Lake Ontario. The level
in Lake Ontario after 1959 contrasts that Lake Michigan-
Huron (Figure 3), which shows the more characteristic
high and low water levels.
| (Coastal Wetland Indicators
Seasonal water level fluctuations result in higher summer
water levels and lower winter levels. Additionally, the
often unstable summer water levels ensure a varied
hydrology for the diverse plants species inhabiting coastal
wetlands. Without the seasonal variation, the wetland
zone would be much narrower and less diverse. Even very
short-term fluctuations resulting from changes in wind
direction and barometric pressure can substantially alter
the area inundated, and thus, the coastal wetland commu-
nity.
Long-term water level fluctuations, of course, have an
impact over a longer period of time. During periods of
high water, there is a die-off of shrubs, cattails, and other
woody or emergent species that cannot tolerate long
periods of increased depth of inundation. At the same
time, there is an expansion of aquatic communities,
Lake Ontario Actual Level
6677
0505
0 0 1
050
111111111111111112
999999999999999990
122334455667788990
505050505050505050
Figure 2.
The significance of seasonal and long-term water level
fluctuations on coastal wetlands is perhaps best
explained in terms of the vegetation, which, in addition
to its own diverse composition, provides the substrate,
food, cover, and habitat for many other species depend-
ent on coastal wetlands.
notably submergents, into the newly inundated area. As
the water levels recede, seeds buried in the sediments
germinate and vegetate this newly exposed zone, while
the aquatic communities recede outward back into the
Lake. During periods of low water, woody plants and
emergents expand again to reclaim their former area as
aquatic communities establish themselves further outward
into the Lake.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
49
-------
Coastal Wetland! Indicators
The long-term high-low fluctuation puts natural stress on
coastal wetlands, but is vital in maintaining wetland
diversity. It is the mid-zone of coastal wetlands that
harbours the greatest biodiversity. Under more stable
water levels, coastal wetlands occupy narrower zones along
the Lakes and are considerably less diverse, as the more
dominant species, such as cattails, take over to the
detriment of those less able to compete under a stable
water regime. This is characteristic of many of the coastal
wetlands of Lake Ontario, where water levels are regu-
lated.
Future Pressures
Future pressures on the ecosystem include additional
withdrawals or diversions of water from the Lakes, or
additional regulation or smoothing of the high and low
water levels. These potential future pressures will require
direct human intervention to implement, and thus, with
proper consideration of the impacts,
can be prevented. The more insidious impact could be
due to global climate variability and change. The quasi-
periodic fluctuations of water levels are the result of
climatic effects, and global climate change has the poten-
tial to greatly alter the water levels in the Lakes.
Future Activities
A new reference study is planned for Lake Ontario to
develop a more ecologically compatible plan for water
level regulation. With this work, there is hope that Lake
Ontario's coastal wetlands will benefit from a better plan
for managing Lake water levels.
Continued monitoring of water levels in all of the Great
Lakes is vital to understanding coastal wetland dynamics
and the ability to assess wetland health on a large scale.
Fluctuations in water levels are the driving force behind
coastal wetland biodiversity and overall wetland health.
Their effects on wetland ecosystems must be recognized
and monitored throughout the Great Lakes basin in both
regulated and unregulated Lakes.
Further Work Necessary
The difficult decisions on how to address human-induced
global climate change extend far beyond the bounds of
Great Lakes coastal wetlands, but this could be a major
cause of lowered water levels in the Lakes in future years.
Also, an educated public is critical to ensuring wise
decisions about the stewardship of the Great Lakes Basin
ecosystem, and better platforms to getting understandable
information to the public are needed.
Lake Michigan-Huron Actual Levels
175.5
11111111111111111111111111112
88888888999999999999999999990
66778899001122334455667788990
05050505050505050505050505050
Figure 3.
50
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
(Coastal Wetland Indicators
Because Lake level fluctuations occur over long quasi-
periodic fluctuations, modification of this indicator is
necessary from that presented at SOLEC in 1998.
Acknowledgments
Author: Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, IL.
Contributions from Douglas A. Wilcox, Ph.D., U.S.
Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Todd
A. Thompson, Ph.D., Indiana Geological Survey, and
Steve J. Baedke, Ph.D., James Madison University.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators |
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar Communities
SOLEC Indicator #8129 (in part)
Purpose
This indicator assesses the status of one of the 12
special lakeshore communities identified within the
nearshore terrestrial area. Alvar communities are
naturally open habitats occurring on flat limestone
bedrock. They have a distinctive set of plant species
and vegetative associations, and include many species
of plants, molluscs, and invertebrates that are rare
elsewhere in the basin. All 15 types of alvars and
associated habitats occurring in the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence basin are globally imperiled or rare.
Ecosystem Objective
Conservation of alvar communities relates to IJC
Desired Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity
and Diversity. A four-year study of Great Lakes alvars
completed in 1998 (the International Alvar Conserva-
tion Initiative - IACI) evaluated conservation targets
for alvar communities, and concluded that essentially
all of the existing viable occurrences should be main-
tained, since all types are below the minimum thresh-
old of 30-60 viable examples. As well as conserving
these ecologically distinct communities, this target
would protect populations of dozens of globally
significant and disjunct species. A few species, such as
Lakeside Daisy (Hymenoxis herbacea) and the beetle
Chlaenius p. purpuricollis, have nearly all of their global
occurrences within Great Lakes alvar sites.
State of the Ecosystem
Alvar habitats have likely always been sparsely distrib-
uted, but more than 90% of their original extent has
been destroyed or substantially degraded by agricul-
ture and other human uses. Approximately 64% of
the remaining alvar area occurs within Ontario, with
about 16% in New York State, 15% in Michigan, 4%
in Ohio, and smaller areas in Wisconsin and Quebec.
Data from the IACI and state/provincial alvar studies was
screened and updated to identify viable community
occurrences. Just over 2/3 of known Great Lakes alvars
occur close to the shoreline, with all or a substantial
portion of their area within 1 km of the shore.
Note that typically several different community types
occur within each alvar site.
No. of alvar sites
No. of community
occurrences
Alvar acreage
Total in Basin
82
204
28,475
Nearshore
52
138
20,009
Among the 15 community types documented, six types
show a strong association (over 80% of their acreage)
with nearshore settings. Four types have less than half of
their occurrences in nearshore settings.
The current status of all nearshore alvar communities
was evaluated by considering current land ownership
and the type and severity of threats to their integrity.
As shown in the figure, less than l/5th of the
nearshore alvar acreage is currently fully protected,
while over 3/5th is at high risk.
Protection Status 2000
Nearshore Alvar Acreage
Limited 11.9%
Partly 9.1%
At High Risk 60.2%
Fully 18.8%
The degree of protection for nearshore alvar communities
varies considerably among jurisdictions. For example,
Michigan has 66% of its nearshore alvar acreage in the
Fully Protected category, while Ontario has only 7%. In
part, this is a reflection of the much larger total shoreline
acreage in Ontario, as shown in the following figure.
(Other states have too few nearshore sites to allow
comparison).
Each alvar community occurrence has been assigned an
"EO rank" to reflect its relative quality and condition. A
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Comparison of Acreage Protected
Nearshore Alvars: Ontario and Michigan
16000-
o
g 6000
^ 4000
2000
0
Ontario
At High Risk
Partly Protected
r
Michigan
Limited
Fully Protected
and B-ranks are considered viable, while C-ranks are
marginal. As shown in the following figure, protection
efforts to secure alvars have clearly focused on the best
quality sites.
Protection of High Quality Alvars
Nearshore Alvars
AB B
EO Rank
BC&C
Partly Protected
Fully Protected
Pressure on the Ecosystem
Nearshore alvar communities are most frequently threat-
ened by habitat fragmentation and loss, trails and off-road
vehicles, resource extraction uses such as quarrying or
logging, and adjacent land uses such as residential subdi-
visions. Less frequent threats include grazing or deer
browsing, plant collecting for bonsai or other hobbies,
and invasion by exotic plants such as European Buck-
thorn and Dog-strangling Vine.
Recent Progress
Documentation of the extent and quality of alvars
through the IACI has been a major step forward, and has
stimulated much greater public awareness and conserva-
tion activity for these habitats. Over the past two years,
a total of 10 securement projects has resulted in protec-
| "Near-shore Terrestrial Indicators |
tion of at least 5289-5 acres of alvars across the Great
Lakes basin, with 3344.5 acres of that within the
nearshore area. Most of the secured nearshore area is
through land acquisition, but 56 acres on Pelee Island
(ON) are through a conservation easement, and 1.5 acres
on Kelleys Island (OH) are through State dedication of a
nature reserve. These projects have increased the area of
protected alvar dramatically in a short time.
1998
2000-
Protected
Percen
Nearshore Alvar 1998-2000
tage Fully or Partly Protected
/ n
111 ;
/ > }
28| )
^
^^
Future Actions
Because of the large number of significant alvar commu-
nities at risk, particularly in Ontario, their status should
be closely watched to ensure that they are not lost. A re-
assessment of their status every 2-3 years would be
appropriate. Major bi-national projects hold great
promise for further progress, since alvars are a Great
Lakes resource, but most of the unprotected area is
within Ontario. Projects could usefully be modelled after
the 1999 Manitoulin Island (ON) acquisition of 17,000
acres, which took place through a cooperative project of
The Nature Conservancy of Canada, The Nature Con-
servancy, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources.
For Further Information
A baseline database of both nearshore and basin-wide
alvar occurrences has been developed, along with an
analysis report: Status of Great Lakes Alvars 2000. Results
from the IACI are summarized in Conserving Great Lakes
Alvars (1999), available from The Nature Conservancy
Great Lakes Program Office in Chicago.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises, Washago,
ON, and Heather Potter, The Nature Conservancy,
Chicago, IL
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
53
-------
"Nearshore Terras trial Indicators |
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
SOLEC Indicator #8131
Purpose
This indicator assesses the extent of hardened shore-
line through construction of sheet piling, rip rap, or
other erosion control structures.
Ecosystem Objective
Shoreline conditions should be healthy to support
aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal life, including
the rarest species.
Anthropogenic hardening of the shorelines not only
directly destroys natural features and biological
communities, it also has a more subtle but still devas-
tating impact. Many of the biological communities
along the Great Lakes are dependent upon the trans-
port of shoreline sediment by lake currents. Altering
the transport of sediment disrupts the balance of
accretion and erosion of materials carried along the
shoreline by wave action and lake currents. The
resulting loss of sediment replenishment can intensify
the effects of erosion, causing ecological and economic
impacts. Erosion of sand spits and other barriers
allows increased exposure and loss of coastal wetlands.
Dune formations can be lost or reduced due to lack of
adequate nourishment of new sand to replace sand
that is carried away. Increased erosion also causes
property damage to shoreline properties.
State of the Ecosystem
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA) Medium Resolution digital Shorelines
dataset was compiled between 1988 and 1992. It
contains data on both the Canadian and U.S. shore-
lines, using aerial photography from 1979 for the state
of Michigan and from 1987-1989 for the rest of the
basin.
From this dataset, shoreline hardening has been
categorized for each Lake and connecting channel.
Table 1 indicates the percentages of shorelines in each
of these categories. The St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara
Rivers have a higher percentage of their shorelines
hardened than anywhere else in the basin. Of the
Lakes themselves, Lake Erie has the highest percentage
of its shoreline hardened, and Lakes Huron and
Superior have the lowest.
In 1999, Environment Canada assessed change in the
extent of shoreline hardening along about 22 kilometers
of the Canadian side of the St. Clair River from 1991-
1992 to 1999- Over the 8-year period, an additional 5-5
kilometers (32 percent) of the shoreline had been hard-
ened. This is clearly not representative of the overall
basin, as the St. Clair River is a narrow shipping channel
with high volumes of Great Lakes traffic. This area also
has experienced significant development along its shore-
lines, and many property owners are hardening the
shoreline to reduce the impacts of erosion.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
Shoreline hardening is not generally reversible, so once
a section of shoreline has been hardened, it can be
considered a permanent feature. As such, the current
state of shoreline hardening likely represents the best
condition that can be expected in the future.
Pressure will continue to harden additional stretches
of shoreline, especially during periods of high lake
levels. This additional hardening in turn will starve
the downcurrent areas of sediment to replenish that
which eroded away, causing further erosion and
further incentive for additional hardening. Thus, a
cycle of shoreline hardening can progress along the
shoreline.
The future pressures on the ecosystem resulting from
existing hardening will almost certainly continue, and
additional hardening is likely in the future. The
uncertainly is whether the rate can be reduced and
ultimately halted. In addition to the economic costs,
the ecological costs are of concern, particularly the
further lost or degradation of coastal wetlands and
sand dunes.
Future Actions
Shoreline hardening can be controversial, even liti-
gious, when one property owner hardens a stretch of
shoreline that may increase erosion of an adjacent
property. The ecological impacts are not only difficult
to quantify as a monetary equivalent, but difficult to
perceive without an understanding of sediment
transport along the lakeshores. The importance of the
ecological process of sediment transport needs to be
better understood as an incentive to reduce new
shoreline hardening. An educated public is critical to
ensuring wise decisions about the stewardship of the
54
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Great Lakes basin ecosystem, and better platforms for
getting understandable information to the public is
needed.
Further Work Necessary
It is possible that more recent aerial photography of
the shoreline will be interpreted to show more recently
hardened shorelines. Once more recent data provides
information on hardened areas, updates may only be
necessary basinwide every 10 years, with monitoring of
high-risk areas every 5 years.
| "Near-shore Terrestrial Indicators |
Acknowledgments
Authors: John Schneider, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
IL, Duane Heaton, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
IL, and Harold Leadlay, Environment Canada, Environ-
mental Emergencies Section, Downsview, ON
Lake/Connecting
Channel
Lake Superior
St. Marys River
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
St. Clair River
Lake St. Clair
Detroit River
Lake Erie
Niagara River
Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence Seaway
All 5 Lakes
All Connecting Channels
Entire Basin
70-100%
Hardened
(%)
3.1
2.9
1.5
8.6
69.3
11.3
47.2
20.4
44.3
10.2
12.6
5.7
15.4
7.6
40-70%
Hardened
(%)
1.1
1.6
1.0
2.9
24.9
25.8
22.6
11.3
8.8
6.3
9.3
2.8
11.5
4.6
15-40%
Hardened
(%)
3.0
7.5
4.5
30.3
2.1
11.8
8.0
16.9
16.7
18.6
17.2
10.6
14.0
11.3
0-15%
Hardened
(%)
89.4
81.3
91.6
57.5
3.6
50.7
22.2
49.1
29.3
57.2
54.7
78.3
54.4
73.5
Non-
structural
Modifications
(%)
0.03
1.6
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.5
Unclassified
(%)
3.4
5.1
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.9
7.7
6.2
2.0
4.4
2.5
Total
Shoreline
(km)
5,080
707
6,366
2,713
100
629
244
1,608
184
1,772
2,571
17,539
4,436
21,974
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
55
-------
"Nearshore Terras trial Indicators |
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
SOLEC Indicator #8135
Purpose
The indicator assesses the number of fledged young,
number of developmental deformities, and the concentra-
tions 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.
NOAEC concentrations for PCBs were 4.0 mg/kg and
2.7 mg/kg for p,p'-DDE.
The number of developmental deformities observed has
increased over time. This may be due to the lesser
importance of the egg shell thinning related to p,p-DDE
as a negative impact to the ability of eagles to reproduce.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports monitoring of progress
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
for several of the Annexes. Under Annex 2, it
will track progress under the Remedial Action
Plans (PvAPs) and Lakewide Management Plans
(LaMPs) for several of the beneficial use impair-
ments including effects on wildlife habitat,
presence of developmental deformities, and
degradation of wildlife populations. Under
Annex 12, concentrations of persistent toxic
substances within the tissues of a top-level
predator of the Great Lakes will be tracked, and
trends can be drawn. Under Annex 13, pollution
from non-point sources will also be tracked since
many pairs of eagles nest in areas away from
point sources of pollution.
State of the Ecosystem
The Great Lakes ecosystem may be slowly
recovering, based on the current measures used
for the bald eagle. These are: 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.
Based on the first year of the Michigan
Biosentinel Eagle Project, the concentrations of
p,p-DDE, Total PCBs, and mercury in blood
plasma and feathers of nestling bald eagles are
either stable, or declining from concentrations
observed in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
While the majority (>95%) of egg concentrations
are still greater than NOAECs for PCBs and p,p'-
DDE, in a few, isolated shorelines, they have
been below the NOAECs (Figures 1 and 2). No
trends are apparent for the entire Great Lakes
population of bald eagles in either analysis. The
Total PCB
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
19
, ppm, fresh wt.
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• »
* •
• •
•
: •
,!«! '
. • * . .
• . 5 •
.;.;••• .
.
65 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Figure 1. Concentrations of Total PCBs, mg/kg, fresh wet weight
in unhatched bald eagle eggs collected from the Great Lakes, 1968-
1995-
(Source: Bowerman et al. 1998)
pp'-DDE
50
40-
30
20
10-
o-
19
, ppm, fresh wt.
'
'
.
• •""••"
. :!=:•:
.......
65 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Figure 2. Concentrations of p,p'-DDE, mg/kg, fresh wet weight
in unhatched bald eagle eggs collected from the Great Lakes,
1968-1995-
(Source: Bowerman et al. 1998).
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
No developmental deformities have been observed since
1995 in nestling eagles, however, the effort to visit nests
along the shorelines of the Great Lakes has also declined
with the state of Michigan being the sole exception.
The number of nestling eagles fledged from nests along
the shorelines of the Great Lakes has steadily increased
from 6 in 1977 to over 200 in 2000. Eagles nesting
along Lake Erie and along the Wisconsin shoreline of
Lake Superior have been consistently above the 1.0 young
per occupied nest criteria for the past few years. Other
areas of Lakes Superior, and the entirety of Lakes Michi-
gan and Huron, have not attained this level. In 2000, the
first record of a nesting pair of bald eagles along the
shoreline of Lake Ontario was observed. One young
fledged and an unhatched egg was collected by Peter Nye
of New York DEC. The approximate areas of the Great
Lakes shorelines that have nesting eagles is shown in
Figure 3-
| "Near-shore Terrestrial Indicators |
eagles along the lakeshores is important for mitigation of
the other stressors. Education of the public on how to
interact with eagles during the critical periods of their
reproductive cycle, when solitude is necessary, is another,
continuing means of mitigation. Use of risk assessment
and environmental impact analysis is critical prior to loss
of barrier dams along Great Lakes tributaries, to ensure
that fish-dependent wildlife are not negatively impacted
should fish passage be implemented.
Further Work Necessary
Under the Clean Michigan Initiative, Michigan DEQhas
increased its surveillance and monitoring of bald eagles,
to determine trends in concentrations of persistent toxic
substances. Michigan, will therefore, maintain a
statewide eagle survey which can also be used for a
baseline for other regions of the Great Lakes. The state
of Ohio and the Province of Ontario have stopped
banding nestling eagles along Lake Erie in recent years,
Future Pressures
The current and future pressures
on nesting eagles of the Great
Lakes ecosystem are: 1) the
continued exposure, through food
chain mechanisms, to environ-
mental pollutants and their
detrimental effects on reproduc-
tion; 2) other human related
pressures on nesting eagles due to
disturbances near nest sites; 3) in
some areas of the Great Lakes,
food availability plays some role in
productivity; 4) loss of habitat
due to development; 5) for eagles
nesting above barrier dams, the
potential for fish passage of
contaminated Great Lakes fishes;
and, 6) potential increases in
mortality due to loss of protection
after delisting from the U.S.
Endangered Species list.
Future Activities
Progress toward elimination of
sources and inputs to the lakes of
persistent toxic substances would
mitigate the first pressure. Man-
agement plans for nesting, roost-
ing, and perching habitat for
SUPERIOR o J
,== ' \
o
st,
Kver.
WISCON3 N
/':'
INDANA •• i
OHIO
Figure 3. Approximate nesting locations of bald eagles along the Great Lakes shore-
lines, 2000.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
57
-------
"Nearshore Terras trial Indicators |
but they have both maintained their eagle nesting sur-
veys. A periodic sampling for contaminant trends should
be undertaken specifically for reporting under this Indica-
tor. To improve monitoring under this indicator we need
to cover the Canadian regions of Lakes Huron and
Superior better and include them in monitoring activi-
ties. Wisconsin maintains its eagle surveys and banding
activities, however, decreased funding may threaten their
program. A comprehensive, Basin-wide database of bald
eagle nesting, contaminant, and productivity data de-
signed for this Indicator needs to be completed. This will
both improve access to data and allow for better interpre-
tation of these data. In addition, the early 1990s survey
of the entire Great Lakes shoreline to determine the
amount and locations of potential nesting habitat should
be repeated to document the state of this habitat and
potential threats. The appropriate reporting frequency for
SOLEC should be biannually
Sources
Data for Figures 1 and 2 from Bowerman, W.W., D.A.
Best,TG. Grubb, G.M. Zimmerman, and J.P Giesy.
1998. Trends of contaminants and effects for bald eagles
of the Great Lakes Basin. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 53 (1): 197-212.
Data regarding bald eagle locations (Figure 3) from
Bowerman 1993, Lake Erie and Lake Superior LaMPs,
and for Lake Ontario, Peter Nye, NYDEC.
Acknowledgments
Authors: William Bowerman, Clemson University, David
Best, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Michael
Gilbertson, International Joint Commission.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
"Near-shore Terrestrial Indicators
Population Monitoring and Contaminants affecting the American Otter
SOLEC Indicator #8147
Purpose
To directly measure the contaminant concentrations
found in American otter populations within the Great
Lakes basin and to indirectly measure the health of Great
Lakes habitat, progress in Great Lakes ecosystem
management, and/or concentrations of contaminants
present in the Great Lakes. Importantly, as a society we
have a moral responsibility to sustain healthy populations
of American otter in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence basin.
Ecosystem Objective
The importance of the American otter as a bio-sentinel is
related to IJC Desired Outcomes 6: Biological
Community Integrity and Diversity, and 7: Virtual
Elimination of Inputs of Persistent Toxic Chemicals.
Secondly, American otter populations in the upper Great
Lakes should be maintained, and restored as sustainable
populations in all Great Lakes coastal zones, lower Lake
Michigan, western Lake Ontario, and Lake Erie
watersheds and shorelines. Lastly, Great Lakes shoreline
and watershed populations of American otter should have
an annual mean production of > 2 young/adult female;
and concentrations of heavy metal and organic
contaminants should be less than the NOAEL found in
tissue sample from mink as compared to otter tissue
samples.
State of Great Lakes Otter
In a review of general population indices of State and
Provincial otter population data indicates primary areas
of population suppression still exist in western Lake
Ontario watersheds, southern Lake Huron watersheds,
lower Lake Michigan and most Lake Erie watersheds.
Most coastal shoreline areas have more suppressed
populations than interior zones and Great Lakes drainage
populations.
Data provided from New York DEC and Ontario MNR
suggests that otter are almost absent in western Lake
Ontario. Areas of otter population suppression are
directly related with human population centers and
subsequent habitat loss, except for some coastal areas.
Little statistically viable population data exists for the
Great Lakes populations, and all suggested population
levels were determined from coarse population assessment
methods (see table below).
State/Province
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New York
Ontario
Spatial data that
includes Great Lakes
drainages (method)
yes (registration, aerial
surveys)
yes (registration,
research)
yes (registration,
research)
yes, minimal
(presence/absence,
surveys, model)
yes (presence/absence,
surveys, model)
yes (presence/absence,
surveys, model)
yes (minimal)
yes (registration,
research)
yes, trapper surveys
Visible
Coastal
Data
limited
limited
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
Minimum
Spatial Scale
30 mi2
variable, Deer
Management
Unit
1 mi2
variable,
watershed
variable,
watershed
variable,
watershed
variable
variable, town,
county, wildlife
management
unit, watershed
variable
Reproductive
Data
yes, limited
yes, mandatory,
every three years
yes, voluntary
about 100
carcasses annually
yes, limited
yes, limited
yes, limited
yes, limited
yes (historic),
limited, voluntary
yes, limited
Minimum Spatial
Scale Data Linked to
Reproductive Data
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Restoration
no
no
no
recent
recent
recent
recent
occurring
no
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing- IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
59
-------
"Nearshore Terras trial Indicators |
Future Pressures
American otters are a direct link to organic and heavy
metal concentrations in the food chain. It is a more
sedentary species and subsequently synthesizes
contaminants from smaller areas. Contaminants are a
potential and existing problem for many otter
populations on the Great Lakes. Globally indications of
contaminant problems have been noted by decreased
population levels, morphological abnormalities (i.e
decreased baculum length) and decline in fecundity.
Changes in the species population and range are also
representative of anthropogenic riverine and lacustrine
habitat alterations.
Future Actions
Michigan and Wisconsin have indicated a need for an
independent survey using aerial survey methods to index
otter populations in their respective jurisdictions.
Minnesota has already started aerial population surveys
for otter. Subsequently, some presence absence data may
be available for Great Lakes watersheds and coastal
populations. In addition, if the surveys are conducted
annually the trend data may become useful.
There was agreement among resource managers on the
merits of aerial surveys methods to index otter
populations. The method is appropriate in areas with
adequate snow cover. However, the need for habitat
suitability studies in advance of such surveys is necessary
prior to conducting useful aerial surveys.
New York DEC, Ohio DNR, Federal jurisdictions and
Tribes on Great Lakes coasts indicated strong needs for
future contaminant work on American otter.
Funding is needed by all jurisdictions to do habitat,
contaminant and aerial survey work.
Further Work Necessary
All state and provincial jurisdictions use different
population assessment methods making comparisons
difficult. Most jurisdictions use survey methods to
determine populations on a large regional scale. Most
coarse methods were developed to assure that trapping is
not limiting populations and that otter are adequately
surviving and reproducing in their jurisdiction. There is
little work done on finer spatial scales for using otter a
barometer of ecosystem heath.
All State and Provincial jurisdictions only marginally
index Great Lakes watershed populations by presence
absence surveys, track surveys, observations, trapper
surveys, population models, aerial surveys, and trapper
registration data.
Michigan has the most useful spatial data that can index
their Great Lakes coastal populations due to registration
of trapped animals to a point of kill accuracy of 1 mi2.
However, other population measures of health such as
reproductive rates, age and morphological measures are
not tied to spatial data in any jurisdiction, but are pooled
together for the entire areas. If carcasses are collected for
necropsy the samples are usually too small to accurately
define health of Great Lakes otter. Subsequently, there is
a large need to encourage resource management agencies
to stream line data for targeted population and
contaminant research on Great Lakes otter populations,
especially in coastal zones.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas C.J. Doolittle, Bad River Tribe of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians, Odanah, WI.
60
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Urban Density
SOLEC Indicator #7000
Land
Indicators
Purpose
This indicator measures human population density
and indirectly measures the degree of inefficient land
use and urban sprawl for communities in the Great
Lakes Basin. The number of people that inhabit a
community relative to its size is an indicator of the
economic efficiency of that community based on the
existence of 'economies of scale' associated with high
density development.
Ecosystem Objective
Increasing urban density promotes economic viability
and the pursuit of sustainable development, which are
generally accepted goals for society. These objectives
are threatened when population growth is concen-
trated such that urban development does not occur at
the expense of wetland and other natural resources,
through expansions of urban sprawl. High density
growth is an alternative to urban sprawl.
State of the Ecosystem
There are marked differences around the Great Lakes
Basin is communities' urban densities. Initial research
results indicates that there appears to be differences
between Canadian and US communities, although
other factors, such as ongoing 'rust belt' US popula-
tion declines, may be partly responsible for the statis-
tical differences in urban densities.
Figure 1 below illustrates the urban densities among
the larger more established urban cities of Toronto,
Ontario and Cuyahoga County, Ohio (which includes
Cleveland) and the two smaller communities of the
5.00 -,
£
.* / nn
o
(/) c Q nn
S. *
~o //f o nn
3
3 1 nn
o n-uu
.c
n nn
Urban Density (1998-99)
4..ZQ
To
irr 1-87
nfiQ I
ronto'99 - Cuyahoga'98 - Niagara NY'98 - Niagara Ont'99
Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario and Niagara
County, New York.
In addition, there are significant differences in the
sizes of these municipalities. The two Toronto and the
Regional Municipality of Niagara in Ontario are,
respectively, twice the size in population than
Cuyahoga County, Ohio and Niagara County, New
York. Further, Toronto is part of a larger urban
developed area, known as the Greater Toronto Area
which in total has an urban density that is closer to
Cuyahoga County.
The Canadian Province of Ontario, unlike most Great
Lakes US states, has influenced urban growth with a
highly centralized planning system, which employs clear
provincial planning policies, guidelines and performance
indicators. However, those policies have shifted over the
last decade towards encouraging greater suburban expan-
sion through urban sprawl, including provisions for
expansion into 'prime' agricultural lands.
Trends over the last ten years indicate that population
densities are increasing in both of the Canadian
communities sampled and stable to declining in the
US communities. Increased new suburban low-
density development in the US communities, simulta-
neous with declining populations is exacerbating the
fall in densities. While the Canadian communities are
experiencing increasing densities, there is on-going
low-density suburban pressure, particularly for the
Greater Toronto Area.
There are corresponding significant
relationships between urban density and
other indicators of land use, such as
urban transit. This indicates that urban
efficiency and the development of sus-
tainable communities may be causally
linked to the degree of urban population
concentration.
Figure 1. Urban densities in four Great Lakes urban communities.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
Apparent trends toward increasing urban
densities in Ontario, notwithstanding,
urban sprawl continues to place pressure
on economic as well as environmental
resources in Great Lakes basin communi-
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Land Use Indicators |
ties. Continued low density development throughout the
basin may have significant irreversible negative implica-
tions for the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Future Action
There exists, in most Great Lakes communities, the
potential for increased use of brownfields and other
underutilized areas within the existing developed sections
of urban communities. Road, water and sewer and other
infrastructure, typically is already in place to make this
(re-) development economically viable and to conserve
resources from being expended to clear land and install
new infrastructure. Urban concentration policies at all
levels of government that promote increased urban
density are essential for this to happen.
Further Work Necessary
Additional research is required to survey other communi-
ties around the Great Lakes basin to determine the extent
of current knowledge on community urban densities.
Also, there is a need to further understand the broader
economic and environmental significance of different
urban densities around the basin and the fuller implica-
tions of declining and increasing densities. There is also a
need to set standards for collecting and reporting on land
use data, including urban density. Finally, governments at
all levels should join public interest groups and academic
institutions in this research to broaden its appeal and
understanding.
Sources
Rivers Consulting and J. Barr Consulting. "State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference — Land Use Indicators
Project". Unpublished report Environment Canada.
July 30, 2000.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ray River, Rivers Consulting, Campbellville,
ON, and John Barr, Burlington, ON.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Land
Indicators
Brownfields Redevelopment
SOLEC Indicator #7006
Purpose
To assess the acreage of redeveloped brownfields, and
to evaluate over time the rate at which society reha-
bilitates and reuses former developed sites that have
been degraded or abandoned.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal of brownfields redevelopment is to remove
threats of contamination associated with these proper-
ties and bring them back into productive use.
Remediation and redevelopment of brownfields results
in two types of ecosystem improvements: 1) reduction
or elimination of environmental risks from contamina-
tion associated with these properties; and 2) reduction
in pressure for open space conversion as previously
developed properties are reused.
State of the Ecosystem
All eight Great Lakes states, Ontario and Quebec have
programs to promote remediation or "cleanup" and
redevelopment of brownfields sites. Several of the
brownfields cleanup programs have been in place since
the mid to late 1980s, but establishment of more
comprehensive brownfields programs that focus on
remediation and redevelopment has occurred during
the 1990s. Today, each of the Great Lake states has a
voluntary cleanup or environmental response program
that offers a range of risk-based, site specific back-
ground and health cleanup standards that are applied
based on the specifics of the contaminated property.
Efforts to track brownfields redevelopment are uneven
among Great Lakes jurisdictions. Not all jurisdictions
track brownfields activities and methods vary where
tracking does take place. More fundamentally, there is
no single definition for brownfields. Most states track
the number sites remediated through the state
brownfields or cleanup program and some also track
the number sites that have been redeveloped. How-
ever, the size of brownfields varies greatly so the
number of sites is not an effective indicator for assess-
ing land renewal efforts. The overall number of sites
being addressed does say something about the level of
cleanup activity, but this becomes problematic when
there are several different programs that address
brownfields, but not brownfields alone. Where clean-
ups do not have formal reporting requirements, so
there is no information base for tracking brownfield
cleanups or redevelopment. No Great Lakes state or
province tracks acres of brownfields redeveloped, though
several are beginning to track acres of brownfields
remediated.
Remediation is a necessary precursor to redevelop-
ment. Remediation is often used interchangeably with
"clean-up," though brownfields remediation does not
always involve removing all contaminants from the
sites. Remediation includes, removal, treatment and
exposure controls. In many cases, the cost of truly
cleaning up (i.e., treating) or removing the contami-
nants would prohibit redevelopment or reuse. To
address this obstacle to brownfields reuse, all Great
Lakes states and provinces allow some contaminants to
remain on site as long as the risks of being exposed to
those contaminants are eliminated or reduced to
acceptable levels. Capping a site with clean soil, or
restricting the use of groundwater are examples of
these "exposure controls" and their use has been a
major factor in advancing brownfields redevelopment.
Information on acres of brownfields remediated from
Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania
indicates that a total of 28,789 acres of brownfields
have been remediated in these jurisdictions alone.
Available data from six Great Lakes states indicates
that more than 8,662 brownfield sites have partici-
pated in brownfields cleanup programs. Redevelop-
ment is a criteria for eligibility under many state
brownfields cleanup programs. Where local
brownfields cleaned up and redevelopment efforts are
independent of state/provincial funding or oversight,
redevelopment activities may go underreported at the
state/provincial level. Though there is inconsistent and
inadequate data on acres of brownfields remediated
and/or redeveloped, available data indicate that both
brownfields cleanup and redevelopment efforts have
risen dramatically since the mid 1990's with the new
wave of risk-based cleanup standards and widespread
use of state liability relief mechanisms that allow
private parties to redevelop, buy or sell property
without being held liable for contamination they did
not cause. Data also indicates that the majority of
cleanups in Great Lakes states and provinces are
occurring in older urbanized areas, many of which are
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Land
Indicators
located on the Great Lakes and in the basin. Based on
this information, the state of brownfields redevelopment
is good and improving.
Future Pressures
Some debate has occurred regarding the long-term
effectiveness of exposure controls. One could conclude
that as long as the controls are monitored and en-
forced, there will be no unacceptable risks to human
health or the environment from their use. However,
there are no Great Lakes state or federal programs in
place to ensure long-term monitoring and enforcement
of exposure controls. Also, cleanup standards based on
risks to human health may not be appropriate for
brownfields cleanup that results in habitat creation/
enhancement.
Several Great Lakes states allow brownfields redevelop-
ment to proceed without cleaning up contaminated
groundwater as long as no one is going to use or come
into contact with that water. However, where migrat-
ing groundwater plumes ultimately interface with
surface waters, some surface water quality may con-
tinue to be at risk from brownfields contamination
even where brownfields have been pronounced "clean."
Land use and economic policies that encourage new
development to occur outside already developed areas
over urban brownfields is an ongoing pressure that can
be expected to continue.
Future Activities
Exposure controls need to be monitored and enforced
over the medium and long-term. Federal and state
agencies need to agree as to which level of government
is best-suited for this task. More research may be
needed to determine the relationship between
groundwater supplies and Great Lakes surface waters
and their tributaries. Because brownfields redevelop-
ment results in both elimination of environmental
risks from past contamination and reduction in pres-
sure for open space conversion, data should be col-
lected that will enable an evaluation of each of these
activities.
Future Work Necessary
Great Lakes states and provinces have begun to track
brownfields remediation and/or redevelopment, but
the data is generally not available or searchable in ways
that are helpful to assess progress toward meeting the
terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Consistency in data gathering also presents challenges for
assessing progress in the basin overall. States and prov-
inces should share ideas and work with local jurisdictions
to develop consistent tracking mechanisms and build
shared online data bases on brownfields redevelopment
that can be searched by: 1) environmental remediation
(acres remediated or mass (i.e., pounds) of contamination
remediated); 2) mass of contamination removed or
treated (i.e., not requiring an exposure control); 3)
geographic location; 4) level of urbanization; and 5) type
of reuse (i.e., commercial, residential, open space, none,
etc).
Sources
Personal communication: Great Lakes State
Brownfield/Voluntary Cleanup Program Managers;
Publications: Evaluation of Effectiveness: Pennsylvania
Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Stand-
ards Act, January, 2000; Indiana Voluntary
Remediation Program Statistics Web Page; Illinois, Site
Remediation Program 1999 Annual Report; Wisconsin
Remediation and Redevelopment Biennial Reports, 1997
and 1999', Wisconsin Bureau of Remediation and
Redevelopment Tracking System (online).
Acknowledgments
Author: Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission,
Ann Arbour, MI
64
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Mass Transportation
SOLEC Indicator #7012
Land
Indicators
Purpose
This indicator directly measures the percentage of
daily commuters that use public transportation or
other alternatives to the private car and indirectly
measures the stress to the Great Lakes ecosystem
caused by the use of the private motor vehicle and its
resulting high resource utilization and creation of
pollution.
Ecosystem Objective
Current use of the private automobile for commuting
in the largely low density urban sprawl communities
of the Great Lakes basin is very inefficient. Reliance
on the private automobile has encouraged the develop-
ment of expansive roadways and parking areas to
accommodate the automobile. Extensive use of the
automobile has led to significant ecosystem problems
including air pollution, high personal and public costs
associated with the automobile, and loss of leisure,
work or other time due to traffic congestion. The
ecosystem objective involves responding to Annex 1, 3
and 15 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
There are marked differences among the Great Lakes
Basin communities' in automobile usage for commut-
ing. Initial research results indicates that there also
appear to be differences between Canadian and US
communities. Figure 1 below illustrates the percent-
age of daily commuters (for all purposes over 24 hours
a day) that use alternatives to the private automobile
to commute to work, play, etc. in four communities
°,
40.00 -i
s
**— m
3 ^ 10.00 -
^ 0.00
To
fo Commuters Using Alternate to Auto Transportation
(1990-1996)
32700
11.70
699
I I
10.00
ronto'96 - Cuyahoga'91 - Niagara NY'90 - Niagara
Ont
96
Figure 1. Percentage of Commuters using Alternatives to Automobiles in Selected
Communities
surveyed in the basin. Among the larger more established
urban cities ofToronto, Ontario and Cuyahoga County,
Ohio (which includes Cleveland) alternatives are higher
than in the more lightly populated and smaller communi-
ties of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario and
Niagara County, New York.
There is a direct relationship between public transpor-
tation and the degree of urban density. The commu-
nity with the highest concentration of population also
had the highest rate of non-auto commuting and
public transit usage. This relationship was pro-
nounced in Toronto where higher density also facili-
tated greater use of bicycling and walking among
urban commuters.
However, the biggest differences are with public trans-
portation. Figure 2 illustrates how the densely populated
community ofToronto has by far the greatest urban
commuting rates In addition, there are significant
differences in the sizes of these municipalities.
Trends for non-automobile urban commuting in
Toronto have been relatively static over the last decade.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
Population has been increasing on the Canadian
portion of the Great Lakes basin, although urban
transportation has been relatively constant over the
last decade. The result has been increasing traffic
gridlock and increasing air pollution. Recent develop-
ment pressure has been towards low density urban
sprawl making public transporta-
tion use more difficult, since low
density development in not
conducive to mass transportation.
Future Action
There exists, in most Great Lakes
communities, the potential for
increased use of public transporta-
tion and other means of non-auto
commuting. Development of the
urban form, urban density and an
effective and cost-effective public
transportation infrastructure are
the keys to improving transit rates
throughout the basin.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Land Use Indicators
25 -1
- on
(/) ^U
c
ro
o: IK
H 1&
° 10
a, TU -
= 5
S? 5
0 -
% 24 Hour Public Transit Usage (1990-1996)
22 1
6
'2. '2. I
Toronto'96 - Cuyahoga'96 - Niagara NY'90 - Niagara Ont'96
Figure 2. Percentage of Commuters Using Public Transit
Further Work Necessary
Additional research is required to survey other communi-
ties around the Great Lakes basin to better understand
the relationship between rates of non-auto commuting
and urban density, the effectiveness and cost effectiveness
of public transportation, and the impact of alternate types
of urban form. There is also a need to set standards for
collecting and reporting on land use data, including urban
density Finally, governments at all levels should join
public interest groups and academic institutions in this
research to broaden its appeal and understanding.
Sources
Rivers Consulting and J. Barr Consulting. "State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference — Land Use Indicators
Project". Unpublished report Environment Canada. July
30, 2000.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting, Campbellville,
ON, and John Barr, Burlington, ON.
66
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
SOLEC Indicator #7028
Land
Indicators
Purpose
To assess the number of Environmental and Conserva-
tion farm plans and environmentally friendly practices
in place; such as integrated pest management to
reduce the potential adverse impacts of pesticides,
conservation tillage and other soil preservation prac-
tices to reduce energy consumption, prevent ground
and surface water contamination, and achieve sustain-
able natural resources.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2, 3, 12 and 13 of the
GLWQA The objective is the sound use and manage-
ment of soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources to
prevent degradation. The process integrates natural
resource, economic, and social considerations to meet
private and public needs. The goals are to create a
healthy and productive land base that sustains food
and fiber, functioning watersheds and natural systems,
enhances the environment and improves the rural
landscape.
State of the Ecosystem
Agriculture accounts for 35 present of the land area of
the Great Lakes basin and dominates the southern
portion of the basin. In the past excessive tillage and
intensive crop rotations led to soil erosion and result-
ing sedimentation of major tributaries. Inadequate
land management practices contributed to 63 million
tons of soil eroded annually by the 1980's. Ontario
estimated it's costs of soil erosion and nutrient/
pesticide losses at $68 million annually. Agriculture is
a major user of pesticides with an annual use of
26,000 tons. These practices led to a decline of soil
organic matter. Recently there has been increasing
cooperation with the farm community on Great Lakes
water quality management programs. Today's conser-
vation systems have reduced the rates of U.S. soil
erosion by 38 percent in the last few decades. The
adoption of more environmentally responsible prac-
tices has helped to replenish carbon in the soils back
to 60 percent of turn-of-the century levels.
Both the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and the USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provide
conservation planning advice, technical assistance and
incentives to farm clients and rural landowners.
Clients develop and implement conservation plans to
protect, conserve, and enhance natural resources that
harmonize productivity, business objectives and the
environment. Successful implementation of conserva-
tion planning depends upon the voluntary participa-
tion of clients.
The Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) encour-
ages farmers to develop action plans and adopt envi-
ronmentally responsible technologies through the
Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC)
workshops delivered in partnership with OMAFRA.
Recently, with the technical assistance of OMAFRA,
OFEC released a Nutrient Management Planning
Strategy and accompanying software to enable farmers
to develop individualized nutrient management plans.
USDA's voluntary Environmental Quality Incentives
Program provides technical, educational, and financial
assistance to landowners that install conservation
systems. The Conservation Reserve Program allows
landowners to converts environmentally sensitive
acreage to vegetative cover. States may add funds to
target critical areas under the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program and the Wetlands Reserve
Program is a voluntary program to restore wetlands.
Future Pressures
The trend towards increasing farm size and concentra-
tion of livestock will change the face of agriculture in
the basin. Development pressure from the urban areas
may increase the conflict between rural and urban
landowners. This can include higher taxes, traffic
congestion, flooding and pollution. By urbanizing
farmland we may limit future options to deal with
social, economic, food security and environmental
problems.
Future Actions
Ontario is developing a Best Management Practices
(BMP) book on Riparian Buffers, and a Livestock
Operations Standards Act. Food Systems 2000, started
in 1987, set a target of reducing agricultural pesticides
by 50 percent while maintaining effective pest control,
and competitive, sustainable farms. Partnerships
between agriculture and municipalities include
incentives for BMP's to reduce phosphorus loading
and protect rural water quality.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Land Use Indicators |
The US Clean Water Action Plan of 1998 calls for USDA
and the Environmental Protection Agency to cooperate
further on soil erosion control, wetland restoration, and
reduction of pollution from farm animal operations.
National goals are to install 2 million miles of buffers
along riparian corridors by 2002 and increase wetlands by
100,000 acres annually by 2005- Under the 1999 EPA/
USDA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operation (AFO) all AFO's will have nutrient manage-
ment plans implemented by 2009-
Sources
This indicator was prepared using information from:
Great Lakes Commission. 1996. An Agricultural Profile
of the Great Lakes Basin.
International Joint Commission. 1998. Ninth Biennial
Report on the Great Lakes.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999- NRCS
Performance and Results Measurement System.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Roger Nanney, US Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service, Chicago, IL, and Peter Roberts, Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Guelph,
ON.
Conservation Systems Planned
Total Acres - Cropland
Fiscal Year 2000
[ •"; US Gi'tat
^ states
planntJ
I | 0-5000
15000-25000
25000-1*0000
Figure 1. Annual U.S. Conservation Systems Planned for FY 2000.
(Source: USDA, NRCS, Performance and Results Measurement System)
68
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2000)
-------
Land Use Indicators
Farm Acreage Managed by EFP Participants
Under 10% I I
10%-29.9% | 1
30%-49.9% | 1
Over 50% I 1
As of April 1999
All Ontario Statistics
Number of farms - over 15,000 (27%)
Acreage managed by:
EFP workshop participants - 4.4M acres (31.7%)
Farmers with peer reviewed EFP action plans - 2.7 M acres (19.9%)
Sources: Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement Association, April 1999, 1997 Ontario farm registration database, 1996 Census of Agriculture
Figure 2.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Human Health Indicators
E. coli and Fecal Coliform in Recreational Waters
SOLEC Indicator #4081
Purpose
To assess E. coli and fecal coliform contamination 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.
State of the Ecosystem
Beach water quality is monitored using two methods:
counts of either E. coli and/or fecal coliforms (FC) in
recreational waters measured as number of organisms per
volume of water (e.g., FC/ml). When the bacteria
standards are exceeded, local authorities may restrict
swimming or issue advisories of unsafe water.
Frequency of beach postings at specific locations are
reported annually and become the basis for determining
the risk for safe recreational use, i.e., the percent of swim
season individual beach waters
have not been closed or restricted
due to bacterial contamination
and/or other environmental
condition, including pre-emptive
swimming closings based on past
experience. Not all advisories,
however, are due to bacterial
contamination.
open most of the season, and only a relatively few were
closed 10 days or more (Figure 2).
Survey reports of U.S. breach closings or advisories
during the 1999 season show that 76.7% of the
respondents had some form of monitoring in use and
that 65-2% were open for the entire 1999 season (Figure
3). Several factors may have influenced the apparent
increase in percentage of beach closings in 1998
compared with 1998. 1) Fewer beach managers
responded to survey questionnaires in 1999, and of those
beaches that were reported, not all had been included in
the 1998 data. Therefore, the underlying population of
beaches were not exactly the same between years. 2)
More beach managers were using E. coli testing in 1999
than in 1998. E coli is a more sensitive indicator of
public health risks for swimmers, and it gives more
consistent results. Its increased use as an indicator of
bacterial contamination of swimming water is expected
to result in more frequent swimming advisories to
protect public health. 3). A change in accounting the
number of beach advisory days in 1999 resulted in
reports of beaches closed for two or three days in
circumstances that would have been tallied as one or two
days in 1998.
Survey reports of U.S. beach
advisories during the 1998
swimming season (June, July,
August) show that 81.2% of the
respondents has some form of
monitoring in use, and 78.4%
were open for the entire 1998
season. Results were similar for
Canadian beaches where 78% of
the reported beaches were open the entire season (Figure
1). The distribution of the number of beaches for which
advisories were issued for one, two, three, etc., days
during the 1998 season shows that most beaches were
United States
Total Number of Beaches 389
Canada
Total Number of Beaches 218
14
23
D 100%
D 95% -
99%
rj 90%-
94%
• <90%
170
Figure 1. Percentage of Great Lakes beaches open for swimming (June-August 1998)
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
Future growth of cities will increase the demands made
on sewage treatment plant capacities, increasing the
7°
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Human Health Indicators
United States
30 1 3°5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 .. 47 92
Advisory and Closed Days
n Low Risk • n Modei
Figure 2. Great Lakes swimming advisories anc
170
o m
0 «
* -o
i
z
E in
=
z - P n
0 3 6 9 12
•ate Risk
1 closings 1998.
Canada
*
5 18212429323538 .. 6063
Advisory and Closed Days
• High Risk
probability of release of untreated effluent. An increase in
resort/vacation areas utilizing private systems, such as
septic fields and cess pools, will likely increase undetected
releases of inadequately treated waste. There is an
uncertainty of available funding to carry-out beach
monitoring and sanitary system capacity.
Future Activities
The experiences of the beach managers in the
metropolitan areas of Chicago and Toronto have
demonstrated two important elements to successful beach
operations: active beach management, and
communicating public health risks.
Beaches must be actively managed to provide benefits to
the maximum number of users while minimizing
potential risks to human health. Management may
include infrastructure design such as groins, piers or
revetments, and it may include daily (or more frequent)
maintenance such as raking, trash pick-up, pet
restrictions, and warnings to avoid the splash zone.
Beaches may remain open for use even while under a
swimming advisory.
Communicating public health risks may involve multiple
forms of communication, including news media,
telephone hot line, electronic web sites, posted notices at
the beach, flags (such as used for storm warnings), and
lifeguards. The message should be clear and consistent,
i.e., "Swim" or "Don't Swim." Accurate information is
needed, based on one objective standard, delivered by
credible spokespersons.
1998
Total Number of Beaches 389
1999
Total Number of Beaches 287
14
305
n 100%
n 95% -
99%
rj 90%-
94%
• <90%
187
Figure 3. Percentage of U.S. Great Lakes beaches open for swimming (June-August).
Further Work Necessary
To fully implement this
indicator, and to ensure the
maximum enjoyment of
Great Lakes beaches by the
greatest number of people
with the minimum risks to
human health from
exposure to bacterial
contamination, the
following elements are
required:
•• Universal adoption and
application of E. coli testing
and standards. All beaches
should follow uniform
protocols.
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Human Health Indicators
•• Development of rapid E. coli testing procedures
that would allow beach managers to receive
results within two hours of sampling water at
beaches. Such data would facilitate real-time
decisions concerning advisories to protect human
health.
•• Frequent application of a rapid E. coli testing
procedure. Because the procedure is quick,
multiple testing can be performed during the
swimming day, and swimming advisories
adjusted as needed.
•• Universal reporting of beach advisories. All
beaches on the Great Lakes shoreline should
participate, and reporting should be timely and
complete.
Acknowledgments
The following personnel contributed data, analysis, or
reporting expertise to this indicator:
David Rockwell, Paul Bertram, and Wade Jacobson (SEE
Program), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois.
Richard Whitman, U.S. Geological Survey, Lake
Michigan Ecological Research Station, Porter, Indiana.
Marcia Jimenez, City of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Duncan Boyd and Mary Wilson, Ontario Ministry of
Environment, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting
Branch, Toronto, Ontario.
Peter Gauthier, City of Toronto, Environmental Health
Services, Toronto, Ontario.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Chemical Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
SOLEC Indicator #4083
Human Health Indicators
Purpose
Assess the historical trends of the edibility of fish in the
Great Lakes using fish contaminant data and a
standardized fish advisory protocol. The approach is
illustrated using the Great Lakes protocol for PCBs as the
standardized fish advisory benchmark applied to
historical data to track trends in fish consumption advice.
US EPA GLNPO salmon fillet data and MOE data are
used as a starting point to demonstrate the approach.
Ecosystem Objective
Overall Human Health Objective: The health of humans
in the Great Lakes ecosystem should not be at risk from
contaminants of human origin.
Fish and wildlife in the Great Lakes ecosystem should be
safe to eat; consumption should not be limited by
contaminants of human origin.
Annex 2 of the GLWQA requires LaMPs to define ".. .the
threat to human health posed by critical
pollutants.. .including beneficial use impairments."
State of the Ecosystem
Since the 1970s, there have been declines in many
persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals in the
Great Lakes basin. However, PBT chemicals, because of
their ability to bioaccumulate and persist in the
environment, continue to be a significant concern.
Fish Consumption Programs are well established in the
Great Lakes. States, tribes, and the province of Ontario
have extensive fish contaminant monitoring programs
and issue advice to their residents about how much fish
and which fish are safe to eat. This advice ranges from
recommendations to not eat any of a particular size of
certain species from some water bodies, to
recommending that people can eat unlimited quantities
of other species and sizes. Advice from these agencies to
limit consumption offish is mainly due to levels of
PCBs, mercury, chlordane, dioxin, and toxaphene in the
fish. The contaminants are listed by lake, in the
following table.
Lake Contaminants that Fish Advisories are
based on in Canada and the United
States
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Erie
Ontario
PCBs, mercury, toxaphene, chlordane,
dioxin
PCBs, mercury, dioxin, chlordane,
toxaphene
PCBs, mercury, chlordane, dioxin
PCBs, dioxin, mercury
PCBs, mercury, mirex, toxaphene,
dioxin
State, tribal and provincial governments provide
information to consumers regarding consumption of
sport-caught fish. This information is not regulatory -
its guidance, or advice. Although some states use the
Federal commercial-fish guidelines for the acceptable level
of contaminants when giving advice for eating sport
caught fish, consumption advice offered by most agencies
is based on human health risk. This approach involves
interpretation of studies on health effects from exposure
to contaminants. Each state or province is responsible
for developing fish advisories for protecting the public
from pollutants in fish and tailoring this advice to meet
the health needs of its citizens. As a result, the advice
from state and provincial programs is sometimes different
for the same lake and species within that lake.
Future Pressures
Organochlorine contaminants in fish in the Great Lakes
are generally decreasing. As these contaminants decline
mercury will become a more important contaminant of
concern regarding the edibility offish.
Screening studies on a larger suite of chemicals is needed.
The health effects of multiple contaminants, including
endocrine disrupters, need to be addressed.
Future Actions
To protect human health, actions must continue to be
implemented on a number of levels. Reductions and
monitoring of contaminant levels in environmental media
and in human tissues is an activity in particular need of
support. Health risk communication is also a crucial
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
73
-------
Human Health Indicators
component to protecting and promoting human health in
the Great Lakes.
There is a need for surveillance to evaluate how much fish
people eat and carry out biomonitoring to determine
actual tissue levels, particularly within sensitive
populations.
Further Work Necessary
1) Evaluation of historical data: the long-term fish
contaminant monitoring data sets that have been
assembled by several jurisdictions for different purposes
need to be more effectively utilized. Relationships need
to be developed that allow for comparison and combined
use of existing data from the various sampling programs.
These data could be used in expanding this indicator to
other contaminants and species and for supplementing
the data used in this illustration.
2) Coordination of future monitoring.
3) Agreement on fish advisory health benchmarks for the
contaminants that cause fish advisories in the Great
Lakes. Suggested starting points are: The Great Lakes
Protocol for PCBs, US EPA IRIS RfD for mercury and
Health Canada's TDI for toxaphene.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Patricia McCann, Minnesota Department of
Health, and Sandy Hellman, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes
National Program Office.
PCBs in Lake Superior Coho Salmon
One meal per week
Unlimited
Consumption
.05
90 92 94
Year
PCBs in Lake Michigan Coho Salmon
2 jrDO NOT EAT
Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Huron Coho Salmon
Q.
m
£0.5 -
8
One meal every two months
• One meal per month
i i
| M i
1 II One meal per week 1
1 84 87 90 93 96
Year
1. 0 2
\
Unlimited
consumption
PCBs in Lake Erie Coho Salmon
£• 0.8 -
Q.
e 0.6.
m
£0.4J
0.2
0
One meal every two months
One meal per month
a
0.2
0.05
82 841 86 88 90 92 94 96
Year
One meal per week
Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Ontario Coho Salmon
DO NOT EAT
One meal every two months
One meal
per month I
82 84 86
One meal per week
90 92
i
1.9
1.0
94 96
Unlimited consumption
74
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Drinking Water Quality
SOLEC Indicator #4 175
Human Health Indicators
Purpose
This indicator evaluates the chemical and microbiological
contaminant levels in drinking water. It also assesses the
potential for human exposure to drinking water contami-
nants and the efficacy of policies and technologies to
ensure safe drinking water. Lastly, it evaluates the
suitability of the Great Lakes as a source of drinking
water. In order to effectively rate the health of the Lakes,
this indicator focuses on the raw water as it flows into
the water treatment plants, while also highlighting the
concerns of the consumer by looking at such factors as
exceeding the established drinking water standards of
pathogens, taste and odor in treated water.
Ecosystem Objective
The desired objective for this indicator is that all treated
drinking water should be safe to drink and free from
chemical and microbiological contaminants (GLWQA
Annexes 1,2,12 and 16). Water entering drinking water
plants should be of high quality and have minimum levels
of contaminants as is possible prior to treatment. There-
fore, high quality source water is an integral part of this
drinking water objective.
State of the Ecosystem
There are many facets of drinking water. This report will
focus on six of those factors (Figure 1). The presence of
pollutants in distributed water, as well as water from river
-=S9-
c
Tas
lemical
Biological
:e and
/*
Odor
I
and groundwater sources will not be examined in this
report.
A focus on raw water will reflect the state of the lake
waters at the treatment plant intakes, while an examina-
tion of exceeding the established drinking water standards
of taste, odor and pathogens in treated water will address
some concerns of the consumer. A market basket ap-
proach was used to select the water treatment plants that
would represent the state of this indicator. At present
there are 22 sites (Figure 2). While these sites are meant
to be representative of the 5 Great Lakes, they cannot
suggest a comprehensive state of the ecosystem. This
year, the sites are focused on lake water intakes. In future
years, the goal will be to incorporate tributaries and
ground water sources of drinking water, as well as a
greater number of water treatment plants for a more
complete view of the status of treatable drinking water in
the Great Lakes basin.
The parameters used to evaluate the state of drinking
water in the Great Lakes encompass both microbiological
and chemical contaminants. As was suggested at the
1999 Drinking Water Workshop sponsored jointly by
SOLEC and the International Joint Commission, most
of these parameters were examined in the raw water.
Taste and odor, however, are most accurately measured in
treated water. Additionally, there are no raw water
regulations for these parameters. Therefore,
methods of analysis vary.
The chemical parameters chosen were atrazine,
nitrate and nitrite. These chemicals are seasonal
and flow dependent. While minimal levels of
atrazine, nitrate, and nitrite were detected in raw
water, monthly averages and maximums fell below
the federal regulations for treated water. There-
fore, prior to treatment, contaminant levels in the
Great Lakes water are less than maximum con-
taminant levels at these 22 sites as determined by
plant monthly averages and maximums. How-
ever, it should be noted that although atrazine
seasonally enters the lakes by way of tributaries,
this pattern was not detected at the 22 intakes
included here.
Figure 1. Drinking Water Cube, six factors are highlighted on
the cube face
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
75
-------
Human Health Indicators
^jfQswego
Figure 2. The 22 U.S. and Canadian water treatment plants.
Turbidity was chosen as a parameter for its correlation
with potential microbial problems. Turbidity itself is not
an indication of possible health hazards. Incoming
turbidity, however, can reveal trends about possible
microbiological and other contaminants. High turbidity
often coincides with a higher content of microbiological
organisms. This trend, however, was not analyzed for
this indicator report. Turbidity values vary depending on
location and lake (Figure 3). There are no raw water
maximum levels for turbidity because once in the filtra-
tion plant, it can be corrected. However, by being aware
of seasonal fluctuations, the treatment plants can adjust
treatment for optimal removal of microbial contaminants.
The level of organic matter can be determined
by examining Total Organic Carbon (TOC) or
Total Dissolved Carbon (DOC). U.S. sites
consistently test for TOC while Canadian sites
test DOC. In the U.S., ifTOC is less than 2.0
mg/L in both raw and treated water, water
treatment plants can bypass certain additional
treatments. The Canadian DOC for maximum
level of DOC is 5-0 mg/L. The DOC concen-
trations in raw water at the Canadian sites were
fairly low, as was TOC at the majority of U.S.
sites. There were no treated water violations.
Taste and odor is a complex indicator. While it
is an extremely important indicator to consum-
ers, it is also difficult to quantitatively measure.
There is no consistent test that is universally
used among water treatment plants. Three
possible ways to test taste and odor in treated water are
the measurement of threshold odor, taste and odor
panels, and the Geosmin and MIB methods that measure
for the presence of odorous algae. Additionally, not all of
the chosen water treatment sites had taste and odor data
readily available. This indicator was evaluated for August
1999 at the six sites where data were available. Increased
odor problems are usually associated with increased water
temperatures. Therefore, August is usually the month of
greatest odor problems. There were minimal problems
with taste and odor at the six water treatment facilities
that reported this parameter (Table 1).
•*"*• -i c; -,
ID 1b
I-
^- -in
IU
+*
s 5
D
c
1999 Turbidity
83.25
172 18.4 18.1 313 85.35
I
*,«t, on v
•tfp* o^
jM v^
4 >
< k Maximum
Minimum
. < >
1 * Average
T
I I I I I I \-9—\-9—\—&
cX°
v^6
Figure 3. This graph represents the fluctuations that occur in raw water turbidity in the course of a single year.
Values are based on monthly averages. Due to this, the graph is representative of possible fluctuation ranges but not
conclusive of the exact turbidity for 1999-
76
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2000)
-------
Water Treatment
Plant
Belleville
Chicago
Green Bay
London
Milwaukee
Thunder Bay
August 1999 Taste and Odour
Of the two August samples available, both had
distinct odours, but not very strong
100% taste/odour non-detected
100% taste/odour non-detected
90% taste/odour non-detected
100% taste/odour non-detected
100% taste/odour non-detected
The microbiological indicators suggested are total colif-
orm, Escherischia coli, Giardia lambalia, and
Cryptosporidium parvum. The methods of analyzing
water for Giardia lambalia and Cryptosporidium parvum
are not the most reliable at this time but it is suggested
that these remain indicators as better methods become
available. Escherischia coli is only tested when distributed
water tests positive for total coliform. Total coliform is
probably the best choice for a microbial indicator at this
time because it is the most uniformly tested of the
pathogens. It is a required test in the U.S and Canada.
An examination of the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the consumer confidence reports for the U.S.
sites indicate that there have been no total coliform
exceedences for the last ten years. The maximum con-
taminant level exceedences reported by SDWIS were
sampled after the treated water entered the distribution
systems. If there are no exceedences in the distributed
water, it can be inferred that there were no exceedences in
the treated water. While the total coliform data were
available for the Canadian sites, there presently is no
user-friendly method for exceedence interpretation
comparable to the U.S. consumer confidence reports. As
of October 2000, however, Canadian treatment plants
will also be required to produce this type of report.
These reports are required for U.S. sites.
Use of the consumer confidence reports is extremely
important. The data are presented in a more user-
friendly method that is more appropriate for the needs of
the SOLEC indicator. The reports are required to state
if there have been any maximum contaminant levels or
detections. They are not required to report on raw water
data, with the exception of Cryptosporidium parvum.
The health of the Great Lakes, as determined by these
drinking water parameters at these 22 sites, is fairly good.
Human Health Indicators
Chemical contaminants are consistently
tested to be at minimal levels even prior
to treatment. Additionally, violations of
these chemical and microbial parameters
are extremely rare. The risk of human
exposure to contaminants is low. The
quality of drinking water as it leaves the
water treatment plants is good. The
quality of water delivered, however, can
vary due to the possibility of contami-
nants entering the distribution system.
Continuing Pressures
There are many pressures being placed on the sources of
drinking water. Land use and agricultural runoff can
negatively affect the raw water. Additionally, increases in
both algal presence and water temperatures can produce
"offensive" taste and odor. Byproducts of the drinking
water disinfection process cause concern for some con-
sumers. Lastly, aging distribution systems can affect the
quality of already treated drinking water.
Future Activities
It is important to focus on protection of the source
water. As an indicator of high quality drinking water, the
state of raw water is pertinent. While the ability of the
water treatment plants to treat drinking water is quite
high, source water protection lowers the cost of treat-
ment for the water plants. Analysis of raw water can
reflect the actual health of the Great Lakes by using the
methods already performed by the water systems.
Further Work Necessary
Unfortunately, analyzing drinking water trends basin-wide
is a fairly daunting task. Due to unconformity in report-
ing and database management methods, it is difficult to
create a cohesive report on this indicator. Additionally,
the lack of electronic storage for historical data can hinder
analysis of the basin-wider trends. As more treatment
plants consistently report on similar tests and implement
electronic data storage, these problems should be mini-
mized.
The parameters chosen are actively used in some treat-
ment plants while in others they currently are being
worked into the system. The parameters for drinking
water need to be based on water standards presently
available so the data are possible to obtain and interpret
as a SOLEC indicator. While consumer confidence
reports can evaluate treated water detections and viola-
tions, a better method of data collection and interpreta-
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
77
-------
Human Health Indicators
tion for the extensive amount of raw water information
should be established. Continual evaluation of these
parameters and their relevance to both ecosystem and
human health needs to be maintained. They should
answer the concerns of both the water manager and the
concerned consumer. The number of sites used to study
the trends should be increased and these sites should be
expanded to include both tributary sites and groundwater
sites.
Acknowledgements
This report was assembled by Molly Madden (Environ-
mental Careers Organization), with the assistance of Rod
Holme (American Water Works Association), Pat
Lachmaniuk (Ontario Ministry of Environment),Tom
Murphy (U.S. EPA, Region 5), and Paul Bertram (U.S.
EPA, GLNPO). Additional thanks is due to the water
treatment plant operators and managers who submitted
the requested data.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Air Quality
SOLEC Indicator #4176
Human Health Indicators
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 de-
graded.
State of the Ecosystem
Overall, there has been significant progress in reducing air
pollution in the Great Lakes Basin. For most substances
of interest, both emissions and ambient concentrations
have decreased over the last ten years or more. However,
progress has not been uniform and differences in weather
from one year to the next complicate analysis of ambient
trends. Ozone can be particularly elevated during hot
summers. Drought conditions result in more fugitive
dust emissions from roads and fields, increasing the
ambient levels of particulate matter.
In general, there has been significant progress with urban/
local pollutants over the past decade or more, though
somewhat less in recent years, with a few remaining
problem districts. There are still short periods each year
during which regional pollutants (primarily ozone and
fine particulate and related pollutants - collectively termed
smog) reach levels of concern, essentially in southern and
eastern portions of the basin.
For the purposes of this discussion, the pollutants can be
divided into urban (or local) and regional pollutants. For
regional pollutants, transport is a significant issue, from
hundreds of kilometres to the scale of the globe; forma-
tion from other pollutants, both natural and man-made,
can also be important. Unless otherwise stated, references
to the U.S. or Canada in this discussion refers to the
respective portions of the Great Lakes Basin. Latest
published air quality data is for 1997 (Canada - Ontario)
and 1999 (U.S.).
Urban/Local Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO): In the U.S., CO ambient levels
have decreased approximately 46% over 1989-1998, and
there are no CO non-attainment areas. Nationally, U.S.
emissions decreased 36% 1990-1999, Over Canada, there
has been a 30-40% reduction in composite site concen-
tration over 1988-1997, and there has been no violation
of ambient criteria from 1992-1997- Emissions have
decreased 17% since 1988, but mostly over 1988-92
with newer vehicle emission standards.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): Over Canada, average ambient
NO2 levels remained relatively constant through the
1990's, but with no ambient criteria exceedances in
1997- Emissions (of NOx: the family of nitrogen
oxides) decreased 25% from 1988-94 but have since been
relatively constant. In the U.S., ambient concentrations
have decreased 7% 1989-98, but remain unchanged in
the Lake Michigan area. There are currently no NO2
non-attainment areas. For the U.S. as a whole, emissions
(of NOx) have increased by 1% over twenty years (to
1999).
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2): over the U.S., ambient concen-
trations have decreased 43%, with 6 non-attainment
regions in the U.S. National emission were reduced 21%
(1990-99). Canadian ambient levels show only a slight
decrease in the 1990's, with two violations of the one-
hour criteria in 1997 (Windsor and Sudbury). Emissions
decreased 78% from 1977-97), but have increased
slightly from 1995-7 with increasing economic activity,
though remain below the target emission limit.
Lead: U.S. concentrations decreased 48% 1989-98, and
there are no nonattainment areas in the Great Lakes
region. Similar improvements in Canada have followed
with the usage of unleaded gasoline, with only isolated
exceedances of ambient criteria near industrial sites.
Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS): this family of compounds is
of concern in Canada due to odour problems, normally
near industrial or pulpmill sources. Ambient concentra-
tions are significantly lower than in 1988-90, paralleling
emission reductions, though there is little trend in recent
years. There are still periods above the ambient criteria
near a few centres.
Particulate Matter: the U.S. Standard addresses PM10
(diameter 10 microns or less): ambient concentrations in
the U.S. have decreased 20%, with six nonattainment
areas in the Great Lakes region. National emissions
decreased 16% (1990-99). Canadian objectives have
focused on Total Suspended Particulate matter (TSP),
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
79
-------
Human Health Indicators
though there is an interim Ontario PM10 objective
(50ug/m3). There are still short periods withTSP levels
above the objective. Emissions decreased from 1988-92,
but have not decreased since. Six of the eleven ambient
PM10 monitors (all in urban areas) showed exceedances
of the interim objective in 1997, and, based on limited
data little evident of a trend in ambient levels (1991-7).
Both PM10 andTSP affect locations relatively close to
pollutant sources.
Regional Pollutants
Ground-Level Ozone (O3)'- this is almost entirely a
secondary pollutant, which forms from reactions of
precursors (VOC - volatile organic compounds, and
NOx, oxides of nitrogen) under sunshine; it is a problem
pollutant over broad areas of the Great Lakes Basin,
largely excluding Lake Superior. National assessments
find some uneven improvement in peak levels, but with
indications that average levels may be increasing on a
global scale (NARSTO report). Local circulations around
the Great Lakes can exacerbate the problem: high levels
are found in provincial parks near Lakes Huron and Erie,
and western Michigan is strongly impacted by transport
across Lake Michigan from Chicago. In the U.S., high
1-hour concentrations have decreased 4% from 1989-98,
and there are five non-attainment areas in the region.
VOC emissions have decreased 20% and NOx emissions
have increased 2% from 1989-98. In Canada, there has
been little trend in the number of exceedances of the
ozone objective in the 1990s, and mean annual levels
increase. Man-made VOC emissions have decreased
about 15% since 1988; NOx emissions have been
constant since 1995-
PM2.5'- this fraction of particulate matter (diameter 2.5u
or less) is of health concern as it can penetrate deeply into
the lung, in contrast to larger particles. It is a secondary
pollutant, produced from both natural and man-made
Figure 1. Regional meteorologically adjusted trends (%/yr) in 1-hr averaged O3 in the northern United States and southern
Canada using cluster analysis (1980-93 data - NARSTO, 2000)
80
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
precursors. In Canada, there systematic monitoring has
begun quite recently, but available data indicate that
many locations in Southern Ontario will exceed the
recently endorsed standard of 30ug/m3 (24-hour aver-
age). In the U.S., there are not enough years of data
from the recently-established reference-method network
to determine trends, but it appears that there may be
many areas which do not attain the new U.S. standard.
Air Toxics: this term captures a large number of pollut-
ants that, based on the toxicity and likelihood for expo-
sure, have potential to harm human health (e.g. cancer)
or adverse environmental and ecological effect. Some of
these are of local importance, near to sources, while
others may be transported over long distances. Monitor-
ing is difficult and expensive, and usually limited in
scope: usually such toxics are present only at trace levels.
In both Canada and the U.S., efforts focus on minimiz-
ing emissions. In the U.S. the Clean Air Act targets a
75% reduction in cancer "incidence", and "substantial"
reduction in non-cancer risks. The maximum available
control technology (MACT) program has set toxic
emission standards for about 50 source categories;
another nine standards have been proposed. In Canada
key toxics such as benzene, mercury, dioxins, and furans
are the subject of ratified and proposed new standards,
and voluntary reduction efforts. Some ambient trends
have been found: in the U.S. concentrations of benzene
and toluene have shown significant decreases from 1993-
8, notably in the Lake Michigan region due to the use of
reformulated gasoline. Styrene has also shown a signifi-
cant decrease (1996-98).
Emissions are being tracked through the National Pollut-
ant Release Inventory (NPRI - Canada) and the U.S.
National Toxics Inventory (NTI). NTI data indicate that
national U.S. toxic emissions have dropped 23 per cent
between 1990-96, though emission estimates are subject
to modification, and the trends is different for different
compounds. In Canada, NPRI information includes
information on significant voluntary reductions in toxic
emissions through the ARET (Accelerated Reduction/
Elimination of Toxics) program.
Future Pressures
Continued population growth and associated urban
sprawl are threatening to offset emission reduction efforts
and better control technologies, both through increased
car-travel and energy consumption.
The changing climate may affect the frequency of weather
Human Health Indicators
conditions conducive to high ambient concentrations of
many pollutants. There is also increasing evidence of
changes to the atmosphere as a whole: average ground-
level ozone concentrations may be increasing on a global
scale.
Continuing health research is both broadening the
number of toxics, and producing evidence that existing
standards should be lowered. There is epidemiologic
evidence of health effects from ozone or fine particulates
down at or below levels previously previously considered
to be background or "natural" levels of 30-50 ppb (daily
20
30 40 SO «0 70 80
Ambient ozone eomewitnrtlcm*
(ppb. 1 -Kr mm., tjiggnd 1 dny>
J
100
Figure 2. Association of respiratory admissions to Ontario
hospitals with ozone pollution. National Air Quality
Objectives for Ground-Level Ozone: Science Assessment.
maximum hourly values - see figure).
Future Activities
Major pollution reduction efforts continue in both U.S
and Canada. In Canada, new ambient standards for
particulate matter and ozone have been endorsed, to be
attained by 2010. This will involve updates at the
Federal level and at the provincial level (Ontario Anti-
Smog Action Plan). Toxics are also addressed at both
level. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act
(CEPA) was recently amended. In the U.S., new, more
protective ambient air standards have been promulgated
for ozone and particulate matter. MACT (Maximum
Available Control Technology) standards continue to be
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
8l
-------
Human Health Indicators
promulgated for sources of toxic air pollution.
At the international level, annexes to the U.S.-Canada Air
Quality Agreement are in discussion, to cover pollutants
such as ozone. Efforts to reduce toxic pollutants will
continue under NAFTA and through UN-ECE
protocols.
Future Work Necessary
PM2.5 networks will continue to develop in both coun-
tries, to determine ambient levels, trends, and consequent
reduction measures. Review of standards or objectives
will continue to consider new information. The U.S. is
considering deployment of a national toxic monitoring
network.
Limitations
It must be emphasized that this indicator report does not
consider indoor air quality, or allergens. The monitoring
networks are urban-focused, and are considered deficient
for toxic pollutants.
Sources
Air Quality in Ontario 1997- Ontario Ministry of Envi-
ronment. Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1999-
Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 1999 Status and
Trends, http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/aqtrnd98/
index.html. Office of Air Quality Planning and Stand-
ards, EPA, 2000.
National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report, 1998.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environ-
mental Protection Service. EPA, 1999-
National Pollution Release Inventory: National Overview
1998. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/. Environment
Canada, 2000.
An Assessment ofTropospheric Ozone: A North American
Perspective. http://www.cgenv.com/Narsto/. NARSTO,
2000.
National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Ground-Level
Ozone: Science Assessment Document. Federal-Provincial
Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guide-
lines. Environment Canada, 1999-
Acknowledgements
Authors: Fred Conway, Environment Canada, Meteoro-
logical Services of Canada, Downsview, ON and Joseph
Chung, US Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Division, Chicago, IL.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Economic Prosperity
SOLEC Indicator #7043
I Societal Indicators
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. Unemployment, as a single economic
measure, can generally describe an economy's condition.
A healthy economy, one characterized by low or falling
unemployment rates, translates into increased business
and government (tax) revenues as well as overall personal
income. During periods of low unemployment, (i.e.
economic well-being) public support for environmental
initiatives by government agencies and elected officials
may also be increased.
Ecosystem Objective
Human economic prosperity is a goal of all governments
and humans are part of the ecosystem. Full employment,
or achieving the lowest economically sustainable
unemployment level possible, is a goal for all economies.
A level of unemployment under 5% is considered full
employment.
State of the Ecosystem
By most measures, the binational Great Lakes regional
economy is healthy. However, current low
unemployment has strained labor markets which, if
sustained, could affect the region's economic future. This
situation has been building for a decade. The
unemployment rate for the Great Lakes states dipped
below the U.S. average in 1991 and remained there
during the 1990s. In fact, for the Great Lakes states
collectively, unemployment is at a 30 year low. Canadian
and Ontario economic recoveries unfolded later in the
U.S. but have now nearly caught up.
During the 1980s, demographers and labor analysts
predicted tighter labor markets for the 1990s. The
reasons cited were a reduction in baby-boom entrants to
the work force and leveling off of female work force
participation. These factors coupled with a dramatic
restructuring of the region's important manufacturing
sector and greater cross-border trade has virtually
eliminated out-migration of people seeking work and has
moved the underemployed into better paying, full-time
positions.
Both sides of the border reflect a manufacturing intensity
greater than their national economies. The Great Lakes
states represent about 27% of national output in
manufacturing whereas Ontario is twice as large. The
earlier tough times for manufacturing when global
competition roared onto the scene forced regional firms
and industry clusters to rationalize unproductive plant
and trim workforces. Lean production was adopted with
more emphasis on technology and just-in-time inventory
systems became standard. The manufacturing sector has
many cross-border linkages particularly for the auto
industry. About half of the billion dollar-a-day U.S.-
Canada trade is tied to the Great Lakes states with
Ontario as the most prominent province in this
relationship.
Future Pressures
Low unemployment rates can result in difficulty in
worker recruitment, possible job training consequences,
increased use of overtime, and wage inflation. A "worker
market" may also increase mobility from job-to-job and
place-to-place. Other factors may add to job mobility
such as job matching information technology and more
uniform skill standards. On the other hand, as workers
age as they are in the Great Lakes region, job mobility
rates usually trend downward.
National and regional economies entail complex
interactions among goods and service sectors. These
sectors and industry clusters are also subject to overall
business cycles. When an industry or related cluster of
businesses are relatively concentrated in a region or place,
cyclical economic trends may have industry and
geographic consequences. For example, in northwest
Indiana, with its several integrated steel mills, tens of
thousands of steel workers lost their jobs in the 1980s.
This industry's restructuring period was partly brought
on by overseas competition and a recession. The
economic and social fabric of area communities was torn
apart and recovery is still underway.
The 1990's have shown that good economic times
translate into high levels of consumer spending and home
buying. These activities are presumed to increase
pressures on the ecosystem through household and
business waste generation, increased air pollution
particularly from transportation sources and accelerated
land use changes. Residential development is the largest
category of land use change and its environmental
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Societal Indicators
impacts are widely recognized.
Future Activities
Business cycles happen but enlightened monetary policy
can delay onset of recessionary periods and dampen them
as well. Measures that promote economic diversification
should be encouraged and particularly for places where
the local economy is not diversified. With respect to
workers, unemployment insurance, job training and
placement are traditional methods to mitigate effects of
unemployment. Land use change can be better managed
through coordinated planning within and across
municipal jurisdictions. Efforts to revitalize urban areas
in conjunction with open space and farmland protection
can redirect some growth.
Further Work Necessary
The unemployment rate as a measure of economic
prosperity should be reevaluated for use in the SOLEC
process. Its connection to general economic prosperity is
acknowledged but it is not precise enough to account for
ecosystem impacts, however indirect they may be.
Employment differs from place to place irrespective of
hydrologic boundaries and even political jurisdictions. It
may hold promise as one of several economic prosperity
measures, but may be more useful if linked directly to tax
revenue generation and household attitudes regarding
environmental protection through government action.
Case Study - Ontario
In recent years labour market conditions have improved, resulting in a falling unemployment rate. Around the peak of the
last recession (November 1992), 592,600 people were unemployed in Ontario (10.7% of the labour force). However, by
1999 the unemployment rate had dropped to 6.3%, its lowest level since 1990.
These figures represent the official unemployment rates published each month by Statistics Canada. They are based on the
number of persons who were without work and both available for work and actively looking for work. The hidden
unemployed include discouraged workers who gave up looking for work and who would therefore be counted as not in the
labour force.
In addition to the official unemployment rate, Statistics Canada publishes from time to time a set of supplementary
measures of unemployment to illustrate additional dimensions of labour market behaviour. For instance, Statistics Canada
has published a supplementary unemployment rate for the Province of Ontario since 1997- The supplementary
unemployment rate includes the official unemployment rate plus discouraged searchers, plus waiting group (recall, replies,
long-term future starts), plus involuntary part-timers (in full-time equivalents). Over the period 1997 to 1999, the average
official unemployment rate was 7-3%, for comparison purposes the average supplementary unemployment rate was 10.4%.
A similar comparison can be made based on gender. The average official unemployment rate, for males in the Province of
Ontario, over the period 1997 to 1999 was 7-2%, and the average supplementary unemployment rate was 9-4%. In the
case of females, the average official unemployment rate and average supplementary unemployment rate, over the same period
as above, were 7-4% and 11.4%, respectively. In the case of females, there appears to be a higher number of females in
involuntary part-time positions.
The official unemployment rate does not capture the total number of individuals who experienced unemployment at some
point of the year. In contrast, a one-year point reference period would capture this number. According to an Autumn
2000 Perspectives article, annual rates in general, tend to be almost double the monthly rates, whether individual- or family-
based. For instance, the individual unemployment rate for Canada based on a one-year reference period was 17-3% in
1997- The rate based on a one week reference period (the official unemployment rate), was 9-1%. In 1999, the official
unemployment rate for both sexes, in Ontario, was 6.3%, an estimate of the one-year reference number, for the same year,
based on a doubling of the official rate would be approximately 12.6%. Therefore, almost 1 in 8 people in the labour force
were unemployed at one point in the year.
In Table 1, official unemployment rates, for the period 1987 to 1999, are provided for the Province of Ontario, as well as
Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) within the Province. A comparison of the CMA versus Provincial unemployment rates
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
I Societal Indicators
reveals that over the 1987 to 1999 period, the CMAs of Sudbury, Oshawa, St. Catharines-Niagara, Windsor and Thunder
Bay have more often had unemployment rates greater than the provincial average. For the most part, the increases in
unemployment rates over this period have been a consequence of declines in employment in the manufacturing sector, as
well as the resource sector in the case of Sudbury CMA.
Ontario
Ottawa-Hull
Sudbury
Oshawa
Toronto
Hamilton
St. Catharines-
Niagara
London
Windsor
Kitchener
Thunder Bay
1987
6.1
7.4
11.4
6.3
4.5
6.4
9.5
7.1
9.0
5.8
8.4
1988
5.1
5.2
9.8
5.5
3.8
5.8
6.3
4.7
7.7
5.3
6.3
1989
5.1
6.1
7.9
4.0
4.0
5.0
7.2
4.3
8.1
4.8
5.5
1990
6.2
5.9
8.0
6.5
5.2
6.2
7.0
5.9
8.8
6.4
7.7
1991
9.5
7.3
10.1
9.5
9.5
9.9
11.2
7.8
12.4
9.4
9.4
1992
10.7
8.6
11.7
11.7
11.2
10.5
12.5
8.7
12.6
9.4
10.1
1993
10.9
8.5
10.5
11.5
11.4
11.6
14.2
8.9
11.6
9.0
11.5
1994
9.6
8.2
10.4
9.7
10.4
8.2
10.7
7.7
9.0
6.6
10.8
1995
8.7
9.6
8.9
8.7
8.6
6.4
9.0
8.0
8.5
7.9
8.1
1996
9.0
8.4
9.8
9.7
9.1
7.4
9.1
8.8
8.5
8.3
9.1
1997
8.4
8.9
9.1
8.0
8.0
6.4
9.9
7.7
9.1
7.4
9.1
1998
7.2
7.1
11.0
7.3
7.0
5.2
7.6
6.1
8.7
6.5
9.0
1999
6.3
6.5
9.8
5.9
6.1
4.9
6.9
6.7
6.5
5.7
7.8
Source: Statistics Canada. (2000). Labour Force Historical Review 1999. Cat. 71F0004XCB.
A breakdown of employment by sector, in the Province of Ontario, over the period 1987 to 1999, reveals a shift in
employment from the goods-producing sector to the services-producing sector. In 1987, 32% of all employed persons in
Ontario were employed in the goods-producing sector, versus 68% in the services-producing sector. In that same year,
persons employed in the manufacturing sector accounted for 66% of all persons employed in the goods-producing sector.
By 1992, the height of the last recession, those employed in the goods-producing sector accounted for 27-3% of all persons
employed in Ontario, a decline of 4.7% or 212,600 jobs from 1987 employment levels. During this same year, the
services-producing sector accounted for 72.7% of all employed. A decline in those employed in the manufacturing sector
accompanied the decline in the goods-producing sector. In 1992, those employed in the manufacturing sector accounted for
63-1% of total employment in the goods producing sector, a decline of approximately 3% or 40,566 jobs from 1987
employment levels.
In 1999, the breakdown of employment between the goods-producing sector and the services-producing sector was
unchanged from 1992 percentages. The recorded levels of employment in the manufacturing sector have increased in each
year since 1993- By 1999, those employed in the manufacturing sector accounted for 67-6% of all goods-producing jobs.
In 1999 the increase in foreign demand for Canadian made products has spurred employment in the computer and
electronic parts sector, which in part have positively effected employment in the manufacturing sector. In 1999, the
manufacturing sector in Ontario reported gains in employment of an additional 59,700 jobs. In addition to high-tech
manufacturing, the automotive sector has experienced an increased labour market in part due to a strong U.S. economy.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Societal Indicators
A comparison of 1999 versus 1987 labour market numbers for the Province of Ontario reveals that the size of the labour
market in the goods-producing sector has declined by 0.1%, at the same time the services-producing sector has experienced
an increase of 24.3%- In 1993, employment in the manufacturing sector in Ontario was at its lowest level, just 79% of the
reported 1987 level.
Over the period 1997 to 1999, in the Province of Ontario, the growth in permanent and temporary employment in the
goods-producing sector was 11.5% and 9-8%, respectively. For purposes of comparison, over the same period, the growth
in permanent and temporary employment in the services-producing sector was reported at 4.8% and 15-7%, respectively.
In addition, in 1999 the average hourly wage rate for the manufacturing sector, the largest sector within the goods-
producing sector, was $17-79, while in the trade sector, the largest sector within the services-producing sector, the average
hourly wage rate was $12.99- Consequently, the shift from goods-producing employment to services-producing
employment has resulted in more temporary positions, as well as a decline in the average hourly wage rate for those
individuals forced out of the goods-producing sector and into the services-producing sector.
The unemployment rate may not be an appropriate stand alone indicator of the aggregate state of the economy or the
economic prosperity of the population. It is not that the unemployment number is wrong; rather it may be asking too
much of a single measure to measure economic prosperity, especially when dramatic demographic changes have occurred in
the labour force. The discussion above has demonstrated that the unemployment rate may underestimate the degree of
hardship and loss in the population. The possibility of reduced hardship during periods of low unemployment may be
unsupported, as the unemployed may be looking for temporary jobs. For these reasons additional indicators such as
poverty rate, demand on social services, income inequality, high school dropouts, low-weight births, and so on, may be
better indicators in measuring the economic prosperity of the Great Lakes region.
Sources
Statistics Canada. (2000). Historical Labour Force
Statistics 1999- Cat. 71-201-XPB. Ottawa, Canada.
Statistics Canada. (2000). Labour Force Historical
Review 1999- Cat. 71F0004XCB. Ottawa, Canada.
Sussman D. (2000). "Unemployment Kaleidoscope." In:
Perspectives, Statistics Canada. Autumn 2000, Vol. 12,
no. 3- Cat. 75-001-XPE. Ottawa, Canada.
Acknowledgements
Authors: Steve Thorp, Great Lakes Commission, Ann
Arbor, MI, Tom Muir, Environment Canada, Burlington,
ON and Mike Zegarac, Environment Canada,
Burlington, ON.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Water Use
SOLEC Indicator #7056
I Societal Indicators
Purpose
This indicator directly measures the amount of water
used by residents of the Great Lakes basin and indirectly
measures the stress to the Great Lakes ecosystem caused
by the extraction of this water and the generation of
wastewater pollution.
Ecosystem Objective
High rates of water use are associated with a number of
environmental problems. For example, groundwater
depletion can result from high water use in combination
with high rates of population growth. Also, there is a
strong correlation between water use and the quality of
wastewater released from sanitary sewage treatment
plants. This indicator supports Annex 8 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Generally, there are not great differences among the Great
Lakes Basin communities' in terms of water use, although
the Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario appears to
be using more per capita than the other municipalities
sampled. Figure 1 below illustrates the sample results of
water usage rates from four municipalities in the basin.
The larger urban communities ofToronto, Ontario and
Cuyahoga (including Cleveland), Ohio exhibited similar
water use patterns per capita. The largely rural commu-
nity of Niagara County, New York had the lowest per
capita water usage rates of the sample, although a bias
Water Use (1991 -1999)
£
'o.
re
O
* i
250.00
).00
was possible since there were a small number of residents
that were using ground water, thus deflating the water
use numbers.
The Regional Municipality of Niagara had significantly
higher water use rates than the other municipalities,
almost 50 cubic meters per capita more. Initial research
results indicates that there also appear to be differences
between Canadian and US communities. Additional
research is needed to better appreciate the differences
among these communities in their rates of water use.
The sample of the four Great Lakes communities did not
indicate any apparent linkages between urban density, for
example, and water use rates.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
While water is essential to life, water use is a stressor to
the ecosystem. Minimizing the amount of water that
humans use, at rates more consistent with those in other
places, such as European cities, for example would reduce
stress on the ecosystem. Further, there is a positive
relationship between the amount of water used and the
quantity and quality of wastewater discharged.
As Great Lakes populations grow, there will be increasing
demand for water for all purposes. In addition, there is
expected to be a decline in the availability of water and
lower water levels for the Great Lakes as a result of longer
term global climate change.
236.82
150.00
2 <
-s £ 100.00
S Q.
D
o
50.00
0.00
1 R5 9f
1R1 R7
165 7C
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j
_»u
-------
Societal Indicators
equitable access to water while rationalizing use.
Further Work Necessary
Additional research would be beneficial in a number of
areas. First of all, there is a need to better understand the
relationship between water use and urban form. Al-
though the sample information was not sufficient to draw
any conclusions about any relationship that might exist it
should be expected that there is a relationship between
population density and water use. The existence of any
such relationship could be explored through a broad
survey other communities in the Great Lakes basin and
an exploration of water use in these communities over
various time periods.
Second, as with other developing land use indicators,
there is also a need to set standards for collecting and
reporting on water use data. Third, governments at all
levels should join public interest groups and academic
institutions in this research to broaden its appeal and
understanding. Fourth, there are opportunities inherent
in researching water use to better understand the relation-
ship between water use and wastewater generation,
between the demand for water and its pricing, and
between water use an technological innovation.
Finally, the initial survey results of communities in the
Great Lakes basin is apparently inconclusive with respect
to size of community or urban density and rate of water
use. The role of this indicator in land use decisions needs
to be explored. It is possible that it might best serve as a
basin-wide, rather than a community indicator of land
use and human/societal activity.
Sources
Rivers Consulting and J. Barr Consulting. "State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference — Land Use Indicators
Project". Unpublished report — prepared for Environ-
ment Canada. July 30, 2000.
Rivers, Ray, Linda Mortsch and Ian Burton. The Eco-
nomics of Climate Change: The Economics of aWater
Adaptation Strategy. Canadian Society for Ecological
Economics - Second Biennial Meeting, McMaster Uni-
versity, Hamilton, Ontario. October 6-7, 1997-
Steve Thorp, Ray Rivers and Victoria Pebbles. Impacts of
Changing Land Use: State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference '96. Environment Canada/USEPA. Windsor
Ontario, November 1996.
Rivers, Ray and Don Tate. Full Cost Water Pricing and
the Environment: Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (North American Free Trade Agreement)
Joint Public Advisory Committee - 1996 Public Hear-
ings. Montreal PQ. 1996.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting, Campbellville,
ON and John Barr, Burlington, ON.
88
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Acid Rain
SOLEC Indicator #9000
Unbounded Indicators
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 1991 Canada/U.S. Air Quality Agreement pledges
the two nations to reduce the emissions of acidifying
compounds by approximately 40% relative to 1980
levels. The 1998 Canada-Wide Strategy for Post 2000
intends to further reduce emissions to the point where
deposition containing these compounds does not
adversely impact aquatic and terrestrial biotic systems.
State of the Ecosystem
Acid rain, more properly called "acidic deposition", is
caused when two common air pollutants (sulphur
dioxide—SO2 and nitrogen oxide—NOx) are released to
the atmosphere, react and mix with high altitude water
droplets and return to the earth as acidic rain, snow, fog
or dust. These pollutants can be carried over long
distances by prevailing winds, creating acidic
precipitation far from the original source of the problem.
Environmental damage typically occurs where local soils
and/or bedrock do not effectively neutralize the acid.
Lakes and rivers have been acidified by acid rain causing
the disappearance of many species offish, invertebrates
and plants. Not all lakes exposed to acid rain become
acidified however. Lakes located in terrain that is rich in
calcium carbonate (e.g. on limestone bedrock) are able to
neutralize acidic deposition. Much of the acidic
precipitation in North America falls in areas around and
including the Great Lakes basin. Northern Lakes Huron,
Superior and Michigan, their tributaries and associated
small inland lakes are located on the geological feature
known as the Canadian Shield. The Shield is primarily
composed of granitic bedrock and soils that cannot easily
neutralize acid, thereby resulting in acidification of many
of the small lakes (many of which are in norther
Ontario). The five Great Lakes are so large that acid
precipitation has little effect on them directly. Impacts are
mainly felt on vegetation and on inland lakes.
Sulphur dioxide emissions come from a variety of
sources. Most common releases of SO2 in Canada are a
byproduct of industrial processes, notably metal smelting.
In the United States, electrical utilities constitute the
largest emissions source (Figure 1). The primary source of
NO emissions in both countries is the combustion of
X
fuels in motor vehicles.
Canada
Canadian Total:
2.7 million tonnes
3.0 million short tons
United States
Transportation
4%
Transportation
5%
U.S. Total:
16.8 million tonnes
18.6 million short tons
Figure 1. Sources of Sulphur Dioxide Emissions in
Canada and the U.S. (1995)
Future Pressures
Figure 2 illustrates the trends in SO2 emission levels in
Canada and the United States measured from 1980 to
1995 and predicted from 1995 to 2010. U.S. levels are
expected to decrease by approximately one-third by 2000
and by up to 40% by 2010. Canadian levels dropped
54% from 1980 to 1994 and thereafter are expected to
remain at approximately current levels. Despite these
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
89
-------
Unbounded Indicators
30
25-
.2 °
« «
1 10
5-
-+-
25
20
1960 1965 1990 1995 2X0 2X5 2310
Year
-•- Total -0- US. -A- Canada
Emissions after 1995 are estimates
Canadan errissions data are prelirrinary
Figure 2. Past and Predicted Sulphur Dioxide Emissions in Canada,
the U.S. and Combined.
efforts, rain is still too acidic throughout most of the
Great Lakes region.
Figure 3 compares wet sulphate deposition over eastern
North America between two five-year periods, 1980-84
and 1991-95 in kilograms sulphate per hectare per year.
In response to the decline in SO2 emissions, deposition
decreased between the two periods. If SO2 emissions
remain relatively constant after the year 2000, as
predicted (Figure 2), it is unlikely that sulphate
deposition will change in the coming decade. The
predicted sulphate deposition exceedances of critical loads
for 2010 in Canada are seen in Figure 4.
Pressures will continue to grow as the population
within and outside the basin increases, causing
increased demands on electrical utility companies,
resources and an increased number of motor
vehicles. Considering this, reducing nitrogen
deposition is becoming more and more important,
as its contribution to acidification may soon
outweigh the benefits gained from reductions in
sulphur dioxide emissions.
Future Activities
The effects of acid rain can be seen far from the
source and so the governments of Canada and the
United States are working together to reduce acid
emissions. The 1991 Canada/United States Air
Quality Agreement addresses transboundary
pollution. To date, this agreement has focussed on
acidifying pollutants and significant steps have been
made in the reduction of SO2 emissions. However,
further progress in the reduction of acidifying
substances is required.
The 1998 Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-
2000 provides a framework for further actions, such as
establishing new sulphur dioxide emission reduction
targets in Ontario, Quebec and other provinces.
Further Work Necessary
While North American SO2 emissions and sulphate
deposition levels in the Great Lakes basin have declined
over the past 10 to 15 years, many acidified lakes do not
show recovery (increase in water pH or alkalinity).
Empirical evidence suggests that there are a number of
factors acting to delay or limit the recovery response, e.g.
increasing importance of nitrogen-based acidification, soil
«( fliilfihfitfl dft-poittian lor
•Eastern North America
Legend faita iw y«rj
1961-1-15 five-yjs* mean
*
-------
Unbounded Indicators
depletion of base cations, mobilization of stored sulphur,
climatic influences, etc. Further work is needed to
quantify the additional reduction in deposition needed to
overcome these limitations and to accurately predict the
recovery rate.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Dean S. Jeffries, National Water Research
Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON and
Robert Vet, Meteorological Service of Canada,
Environment Canada, Downsview, ON.
1
15
10
5
Uo
Figure 4. Predicted 2010 Sulphate Deposition Exceedances of
Critical Loads
SO LEG 2ooo - Implementing' IndiLcatoins (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
minder Construction |
Under Construction
The SOLEC indicator process is an open process, a
process that also needs to be flexible enough to revise,
remove or add indicators as conditions warrant. Addi-
tionally, the process needs to be able to correct over-
sights.
Since SOLEC 98 one frequent comment has been that
the suite of indicators lacks a basinwide indicator to
assess the status and potential impact of non-native
species. In response to this, SOLEC organizers are
proposing the addition of an Exotic Species indicator
(ID# 9002). Although we do not know have an indicator
descriptor for Exotic Species, an example indicator report
for aquatic exotic species is included here. At some point
the indicator report will expand to the terrestrial portion
of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Please provide comments to Paul Bertram or Nancy
Stadler-Salt on:
1. Whether this indicator should be included in the
SOLEC suite of basinwide ecosystem indicators;
2. What features need to be included in the indicator;
and/or
3- Provide additional data for the indicator report.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Exotic Species Introduced into the Great Lakes
SOLEC Indicator #9002
minder Construction
Purpose
This indicator reports introductions of aquatic organisms
not naturally occurring in the Great Lakes, and is used to
assess the status of biotic communities in these freshwa-
ter ecosystems. Human activities associated with ship-
ping, canals, deliberate release (authorized and not), and
aquaculture are responsible for virtually all new species in
the Great Lakes. Reporting new species will highlight
the need for more effective safeguards to prevent the
introduction and establishment of new non-indigenous
species.
Ecosystem Objective
The purpose of the U.S. and Canada Water Quality
Agreement is, in part, to restore and maintain the
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes
ecosystem, that is, at a minimum to prevent extinctions
and unauthorized introductions. Nearly 10% of the non-
native species introduced in the Great Lakes have had a
significant impact on ecosystem health, a percentage
consistent with findings in the United Kingdom and the
Hudson River of North America. In particular and most
recently, live fish and invertebrates in ballast water
discharges into the Great Lakes have been demonstrated
to constitute a threat to the ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Authorized and accidental introduction of new species by
government agencies are managed through consultation
and procedural agreements under A Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of Great Lakes, 1981. Since this agreement,
new sport fish related introductions have not become
established in the Great Lakes.
The identification of ship ballast water as a major vector
transporting unwanted organisms into the Great Lakes
has motivated control efforts. In 1989, Canada intro-
duced voluntary ballast exchange, as recommended by the
International Joint Commission and Great Lakes Fishery
Commission in the wake of Eurasian ruffe and zebra
introductions. In 1990, the United States Congress
passed the Aquatic Nuisance Control and Prevention Act
(followed by the Non-Indigenous Species Act) and by
May of 1993, the first and only ballast management
regulations in the world was adopted. Since the manda-
tory ballast exchange policy in the Great Lakes was
initiated, new species associated with shipping activities
have been identified and non-reproducing 'indicator
species' such as the European Flounder are still reported.
Consequently, current ballast water management strate-
gies are not sufficiently protective against future Great
Lakes invasions.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
World trends in global trade will increase the number of
potential donor regions importing into the Great Lakes
basin, thereby elevating the risk that new species will gain
access to the Great Lakes. New diversions of water into
the Great Lakes would also increase the risk of new
invasive species. Fast-growing aquaculture industries,
such as fish farming, live food, and garden ponds, will
seek to satisfy their clients' desire for novelty. Changes in
water quality, temperature, and, indeed, the previous
introduction of key species from outside may make the
Great Lakes more hospitable for the establishment of new
invaders.
Future Actions
Researchers are seeking to better understand the contri-
butions of various vectors and donor regions, the recep-
tivity of the Great Lakes Ecosystem, and the biology of
new invaders, in order to recommend improved safe-
guards that will reduce the invasion risk of new biological
pollutants in the Great Lakes.
Further Work Necessary
To restore and maintain the biological integrity of the
Great Lakes, it is essential that vectors be closely moni-
tored and effective safeguards introduced and adjusted as
necessary.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Edward L. Mills, Department of Natural
Resources, Cornell University, Bridgeport, NY and
Margaret Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
Ann Arbor, MI.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
93
-------
Table 1. Origin, date and location of first sighting, and entry mechanism(s) for non-indigenous aquatic fauna of the Great Lakes
Taxon
Fish
Petromyzontidae
Clupeidae
Cyprinidae
Cobitidae
Ictaluridae
Osmeridae
Salmonidae
Poeciliidae
Gasterosteidae
Percichthyidae
Centrarchidae
Percidae
Gobiidae
Species
Petromyzon marinus
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alosa aestivalis
Carassius auratus
Cyprinus carpio
Notropis buchanani
Phenacobius mirabilis
Scardinius erythrophthalmus
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Notums insignis
Osmems mordax
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo trutta
Gambusia affmis
Apeltes quadracus
Morone americana
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Lepomis humilis
Lepomis microlophus
Gymnocephalus cernuus
Neogobius melanostomus
Proterorhinus marmoratus
Common Name
sea lamprey
alewife
blueback herring
goldfish
common carp
ghost shiner
suckermouth minnow
rudd
oriental weatherfish
margined madtom
rainbow smelt
pink salmon
coho salmon
kokanee
Chinook salmon
rainbow trout
brown trout
western mosquitofish
fourspine stickleback
white perch
bluespotted sunfish
orangespotted sunfish
redear sunfish
ruffe
round goby
tubenose goby
Origin
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Asia
Asia
Mississippi
Mississippi
Eurasia
Asia
Atlantic
Atlantic
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Eurasia
Mississippi
Atlantic
Atlantic
Altantic
Mississippi
Southern U.S.
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Date
1830s
1873
1978
<1878
1879
1979
1950
1989
1939
1928
1912
1956
1933
1950
1873
1876
1883
1923
1986
1950
1971
1929
1928
1986
1990
1990
Location
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Mohawk River
widespread
widespread
Thames River
Ohio
Lake Ontario
Shiawassee River
Oswego River
Crystal Lake
Current River
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
all lakes but Superior
Lake Huron
Lakes Ontario
and Michigan
Cook Co., Illinois
Thunder Bay
Cross Lake
Jamesville Res.
Lake St. Mary's
Inland Indiana
St. Louis River
St. Clair River
St. Clair River
Mechanism
C, S(F)
C, R(F)
C
R(D), R(AQ)
R(F), R(A)
R(D)
R(F)
C, R(F)
R(F)
R(A)
C, R(F)
R(D)
R(A)
R(D)
R(D)
R(D)
R(D)
R(A)
R(D)
R(D)
S(BW)
C
R(AQ), R(F)
C
R(D)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
Mechanism codes: Deliberate release R(D); Unintentional release R(I); Aquarium release R(AQ); Cultivation release R(C); Fish release R(F); Accidental release R(A);
Ballast water S(BW); Solid ballast S(SB); Fouling S(F); Canals (C); Railroads and Highways (RH)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators
for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Table 1 (Continued). Origin, date and location of first sighting, and entry mechanism(s) for non-indigenous aquatic fauna of the Great Lakes
Taxon
Mollusks
Valvatidae
Viviparidae
Hydrobiidae
Bithyniidae
Hydrobiidae
Pleuroceridae
Lymnaeidae
Sphaeriidae
Corbiculidae
Dreissenidae
Unionidae
Crustaceans
Cladocera
Copepoda
Amphipoda
Oligochaetes
Naididae
Tubificidae
Species
Valvata piscinalis
Cipangopaludina
chinensis malleata
Cipangopaludina japonica
Vivipams georgianus
Potamopyrgus antipodarum
Bithynia tentaculata
Gillia altilis
Elimia virginica
Radix auricularia
Sphaerium corneum
Pisidium amnicum
Corbicula fluminea
Dreissena polymorpha
Dreissena bugensis
Lasmigona subviridis
Bythotrephes cederstroemi
Eubosmina coregoni
Cercopagis pengoi
Eurytemora affmis
Skistodiaptomus pallidus
Argulus j aponicus
Gamm arm fasciatus
Echinogammarus ischnus
Ripistes parasita
Branchiura sowerbyi
Phallodrilus aquaedulcis
Common Name
European valve snail
Oriental mystery snail
banded mystery snail
New Zealand mud snail
faucet snail
snail
snail
European ear snail
European fingernail clam
greater European pea clam
Asiatic clam
zebra mussel
quagga mussel
mussel
spiny water flea
water flea
fish hook flea
calanoid copepod
calanoid copepod
parasitic copepod
gammarid amphipod
gammarid amphipod
oligochaete
oligochaete
oligochaete
Origin
Eurasia
Asia
Asia
Mississippi
New Zealand
Eurasia
Atlantic
Atlantic
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Asia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Atlantic
Eurasia
Eurasia
Ponto-Caspian
widespread
Mississippi
Asia
Atlantic
Ponto-Caspian
Eurasia
Asia
Eurasia
Date
1897
1931
1940s
<1906
1991
1871
1918
1860
1901
1952
1897
1980
1988
1991
<1959
1984
1966
1998
1958
1967
<1988
<1940
1995
1980
1951
1983
Location
Lake Ontario
Niagara River
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Ontario
Lake Michigan
Oneida Lake
Erie Canal
Chicago
Rice Lake
Genesee
Lake Erie
Lake St. Clair
Lake Ontario
Erie Canal
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Lake Michigan
Unknown
Detroit River
North Channel
Kalamazoo River
Niagara River
Mechanism
S(SB)
R(AQ)
R(D)
R(AQ)
S(BW)
S(SB), R(D)
C
c
R(AQ), R(A)
Unknown
S(SB)
R(A), R(AQ), R(F)
S(BW)
S(BW)
C
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
R(A), R(F)
R(F), R(AQ)
S(BW), S(SB)
S(BW)
S(BW)
R(A)
S(BW)
Mechanism codes: Deliberate release R(D); Unintentional release R(I); Aquarium release R(AQ); Cultivation release R(C); Fish release R(F); Accidental release R(A);
Ballast water S(BW); Solid ballast S(SB); Fouling S(F); Canals (C); Railroads and Highways (RH)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators
for Review, "November 2ooo)
95
-------
Table 1 (Continued). Origin, date and location of first sighting, and entry mechanism(s) for non-indigenous aquatic fauna of the Great Lakes
Taxon Species Common Name Origin
Date Location
Mechanism
Other invertebrates
Platyhelminthes Dugesia polychroa
Hydrozoa Cordylophora caspia
Craspedacusta sowerbyi
Insecta Acentropus niveus
Tanysphyms lemnae
Disease pathogens
Bacteria Aeromonas salmonicida
Protozoa Glugea hertwigi
Myxobolus cerebralis
Present but not established
Grapsidae Eriocheir sinensis
Pleuronectidae Platyichthys flesus
Questionable
Cambaridae Oronectes msticus
flatworm
hydroid
freshwater jellyfish
aquatic moth
aquatic weevil
furunculosis
microsporidian parasite
salmonid whirling disease
Chinese mitten crab
European flounder
Rusty crayfish
Eurasia
Unknown
Asia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Unknown
Eurasia
Unknown
northern China
ne Atl. Ocean; Black Sea
Ohio River basin
1968 Lake Ontario S(BW)
1956 Lake Erie R(A)
1933 Lake Erie R(A)
1950 Lake Ontario, Erie R(A)
<1943 Unknown Unknown
<1902 Unknown R(F)
1960 Lake Erie R(F)
1968 Ohio R(F)
1965 Detroit River BW
1974 Lake Erie BW
1960 Wisconsin bait
Mechanism codes: Deliberate release R(D); Unintentional release R(I); Aquarium release R(AQ); Cultivation release R(C); Fish release R(F); Accidental release R(A);
Ballast water S(BW); Solid ballast S(SB); Fouling S(F); Canals (C); Railroads and Highways (RH)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators
for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Table 2. Origin, date and location of first sighting, and entry mechanism(s) for non-indigenous aquatic plants and algae of the Great Lakes
Taxon
Algae
Chlorophyceae
Chrysophyceae
Bacillariophyceae
Phaeophyceae
Rhodophyceae
Submerged Plants
Marsileaceae
Cabombaceae
Brassicaceae
Species
Enteromorpha intestinalis
Enteromorpha prolifera
Nitellopsis obtusa
Hymenomonas roseola
Actinocyclus normanii
fo. subsalsa
Biddulphia laevis
Cyclotella atomus
Chaetoceros honii
Skeletonema potamos
Skeletonema subsalsum
Stephana discus binderanus
Stephanodiscus subtilis
Thalassiosira guillardii
Thalassiosira lacustris
Thalassiosira pseudonana
Thalassiosira weissflogii
Thalassiosira baltica
Diatoma ehrenbergii
Cyclotella criptica
Cyclotella pseudostelligera
Cyclotella woltereki
Sphacelaria fluviatilis
Sphacelaria lacustris
Bangia atropurpurea
Chroodactylon ramosum
Marsilea quadrifolia
Cabomba caroliniana
Rorippa nasturtium aquaticum
Common Name
green alga
green alga
green alga
coccolithophorid
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
diatom
brown alga
brown alga
red alga
red alga
European water clover
fanwort
water cress
Origin
Atlantic
Atlantic
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
widespread
widespread
unknown
widespread
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
widespread
widespread
widespread
widespread
7
widespread
widespread
widespread
widespread
Asia
unknown
widespread
Atlantic
Eurasia
Southern U.S.
Eurasia
Date
1926
1979
1983
1975
1938
1978
1964
1978
1963
1973
1938
1946
1973
<1978
1973
1962
7
1930s
1964
1946
1964
1975
1975
1964
1964
<1925
1935
1847
Location
Wolf Creek (O)
Lake St. Clair
Lake St. Clair
Lake Huron
Lake Ontario
Lake Michigan
LakeMichigan
Lake Huron
Toledo, Ohio (E)
Sandusky Bay (E)
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Sandusky Bay (E)
Lake Erie
Ohio (E)
Detroit River
7
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Gull Lake (M)
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Cayuga Lake (O)
Kimble Lake (M)
Niagara Falls (O)
Mechanism
R(A)
Unknown
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
S(BW)
R(AQ), R(A)
S(BW)
S(BW), S(F)
S(BW)
R(D)
R(AQ), R(A)
R(C)
Mechanism codes: Deliberate release R(D); Unintentional release R(I); Aquarium release R(AQ); Cultivation release R(C); Fish release R(F); Accidental release R(A);
Ballast water S(BW); Solid ballast S(SB); Fouling S(F); Canals (C); Railroads and Highways (RH)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators
for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Table 2 (Continued). Origin, date and location of first sighting, and entry mechanism(s) for non-indigenous aquatic plants and algae of the Great Lakes
Taxon
Haloragaceae
Trapaceae
Menyanthaceae
Hydrocharitaceae
Potamogetonaceae
Najadaceae
Marsh Plants
Chenopodiaceae
Caryophyllaceae
Polygonaceae
Brassicaceae
Primulaceae
Lythraceae
Onagraceae
Apiaceae
Solanaceae
Boraginaceae
Lamiaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Species
Myriophyllum spicatum
Trapa natans
Nymphoides peltata
Hydrocharis morsus-ranae
Potamogeton crispus
Najas marina
Najas minor
Chenopodium glaucum
Stellaria aquatica
Polygonum caespitosum
var. longisetum
Polygonum persicaria
Rumex longifolius
Rumex obtusifolius
Rorippa sylvestris
Lysimachia nummularia
Lysimachia vulgaris
Lythrum salicaria
Epilobium hirsutum
Epilobium parviflorum
Conium maculatum
Solanum dulcamara
Myosotis scorpioides
Lycopus asper
Lycopus europaeus
Mentha gentilis
Mentha piperita
Mentha spicata
Veronica beccabunga
Common Name
Eurasian watermilfoil
water chestnut
yellow floating heart
European frog-bit
curly pondweed
spiny naiad
minor naiad
oak leaved goose foot
giant chickweed
bristly lady's thumb
lady's thumb
yard dock
bitter dock
creeping yellow cress
moneywort
garden loosestrife
purple loosestrife
great hairy willow herb
small flowered
hairy willow herb
poison hemlock
bittersweet nightshade
true forget-me-not
western water horehound
European water horehound
creeping whorled mint
peppermint
spearmint
European brooklime
Origin
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Asia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Mississippi
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Date
1952
<1959
1930
1972
1879
1864
1932
1867
1894
1960
<1843
1901
<1840
1884
1882
1913
1869
1874
1966
<1843
<1843
1886
1892
1903
1915
<1843
<1843
1915
Location
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario (t)
Conneaut River (E)
Lake Ontario
Keuka Lake (O)
Onondaga Lake (O)
Lake Cardinal (E)
Onondaga Lake (O)
Lake St. Clair
Ohio (E)
widespread
Isle Royale (S)
widespread
Rochester, NY (O)
central NY (O)
central NY (O)
Ithaca, NY (O)
Ithaca, NY (O)
Benzie Co., MI (M)
widespread
widespread
central NY (O)
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
central NY (O)
widespread
widespread
Monroe Co., NY (O)
Mechanism
R(AQ), S(F)
R(A), R(AQ)
R(A)
R(AQ), R(D), S(F)
R(D), R(F)
S(SB)
R(D)
RH
unknown
unknown
unknown
R(C)
unknown
S(SB)
R(C)
R(C)
C, S(SB)
R(A), S(SB)
unknown
R(C)
R(C)
R(C)
R(A)
S(SB)
R(C)
R(C)
R(C)
S(SB)
Mechanism codes: Deliberate release R(D); Unintentional release R(I); Aquarium release R(AQ); Cultivation release R(C); Fish release R(F); Accidental release R(A);
Ballast water S(BW); Solid ballast S(SB); Fouling S(F); Canals (C); Railroads and Highways (RH)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators
for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
Table 2 (Continued). Origin, date and location of first sighting, and entry mechanism(s) for non-indigenous aquatic plants and algae of the Great Lakes
Taxon
Asteraceae
Butomaceae
Balsaminaceae
Juncaceae
Cyperaceae
Poaceae
Sparganiaceae
Typhaceae
Iridaceae
Shoreline Trees
Betulaceae
Salicaceae
Rhamnaceae
Species
Cirsium palustre
Pluchea odorata
var. succulenta
var. purpurescens
Solidago sempervirens
Sonchus arvensis
Sonchus arvensis
var. glabrescens
Butomus umbellatus
Impatiens glandulifera
Juncus compressus
Juncus gerardii
Juncus inflexus
Cat-ex acutiformis
Carex disticha
Carexflacca
Agrostis gigantea
Alopecurus geniculatus
Echinochloa crusgalli
Glyceria maxima
Poa trivialis
Puccinellia distans
Sparganium glomeratum
Typha angustifolia
Iris pseudacorus
and Shrubs
Alnus glutinosa
Salix alba
Salix fragilis
Salix pur pur ea
Rhamnus frangula
Common Name
marsh thistle
salt-marsh fleabane
salt-marsh fleabane
seaside goldenrod
field sow thistle
smooth field sow thistle
flowering rush
Indian balsam
flattened rush
black-grass rush
rush
swamp sedge
sedge
sedge
redtop
water foxtail
barnyard grass
reed sweet-grass
rough-stalked meadow grass
weeping alkali grass
bur reed
narrow leaved cattail
yellow flag
black alder
white willow
crack willow
purple willow
glossy buckthorn
Origin
Eurasia
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Asia
Eurasia
Atlantic
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Eurasia
Date
<1950
<1950
1916
1969
1865
1902
<1930
1912
<1895
1862
1922
1951
1866
1896
1884
1882
<1843
1940
<1843
1893
1936
1880s
1886
<1913
<1886
<1886
<1886
<1913
Location
Lake Superior
central NY (O)
Lake Erie (t)
Chicago (M)
central NY
Ohio (E)
Detroit River (E)
Port Huron (H)
Cayuga Lake (O)
Chicago
central, NY
St. Joseph Lake (M)
Belleville, Ontario (O)
Detroit River
Ontario (S)
Lake Erie
widespread
Lake Ontario
widespread
Montezuma, NY (O)
Lake Superior
central NY (O)
Ithaca, NY (O)
widespread
widespread
widespread
widespread
Ontario
Mechanism
unknown
unknown
R(A)
R(A)
R(A)
R(A)
S(SB)
R(C)
R(A)
S(SB)
unknown
unknown
S(SB)
unknown
R(C)
R(C)
R(C), S(SB)
R(C), S(SB)
R(C), S(SB)
S(SB), RH
unknown
C, R(A)
R(C)
R(C)
R(C)
R(C)
R(C)
R(C)
Mechanism codes: Deliberate release R(D); Unintentional release R(I); Aquarium release R(AQ); Cultivation release R(C); Fish release R(F); Accidental release R(A);
Ballast water S(BW); Solid ballast S(SB); Fouling S(F); Canals (C); Railroads and Highways (RH)
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators
for Review, "November 2ooo)
-------
1OO SOLEC 2ooo - Hmplemeinutibniig- Indicators ((Draft for Review, "November 2ooo))
-------
APPENDIX 1 — BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INDICATORS
LIST
Note: The numbers following the indicator name are a means of identifying the indicator in the electronic database.
Open and Nearshore Waters Indicators
State Indicators
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.
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 D. hoyi 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 in Nearshore Fish (Indicator #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 over time to infer 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) (formerly called Stream Flow and Sediment Discharge) - 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.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Braift for Review, "November 2ooo)) 101
-------
Pressure Indicators
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 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 IJC priority 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 the loadings of IJC 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.
Coastal Wetland Indicators
State Indicators
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.
1O2 SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review,
-------
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumours (DELT) in Coastal Wetland Fish (Indicator #4503)
This indicator will assess the combination of deformities, eroded fins, lesions and tumors (DELT index) in 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.
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 Indicators
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.
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator #4861) - 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 (Response) Indicators
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.
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators (within 1 kilometer of shore)
State Indicators
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.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Braift for Review, "November 2ooo)) 1OJ
-------
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 assess the composition and abundance of plant and wildlife species over time within the nearshore area,
and it will be used to infer adverse effects on the nearshore terrestrial ecosystem due to stresses such as climate change and/or
increasing land use intensity.
Pressure Indicators
Indicators related to physical stressors:
Effects of Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator #4861) - 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 shoreline habitat altered by the construction of shore protection, and it will be used to
infer the potential harm to aquatic life in the nearshore as a result of conditions (e.g., 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 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.
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 Activity (Response) Indicators
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 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.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review, "November 2
-------
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.
Land Use Indicators
State Indicators
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.
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 Indicators
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 Activity (Response) Indicators
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 Agricultural 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.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Braift for Review, "November 2ooo)) 105
-------
Human Health Indicators
State Indicators
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 be used to identify areas where further investigation of the exposure and effects of environmental pollutants on
human health is needed.
Pressure Indicators
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. coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore Recreational Waters (Indicator #4081)
This indicator will assess fecal 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 potential 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.
Societal Indicators
State Indicators
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.
1O6 SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review,
-------
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.
Pressure Indicators
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 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 Activity (Response) Indicators
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships (Indicator #3509) - unreviewed
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) - unreviewed
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) - unreviewed
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) - unreviewed
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) - unreviewed
Community activities that focus on local landscapes/ecosystems provide a fertile context for the growth of the stewardship
ethic and the establishment of a "a sense of place." This indicator, or suite of indicators, will reflect the number, vitality and
effectiveness of citizen and community stewardship activities.
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs (Indicator #8140)
This indicator will assess the amount of dollars spent annually on Great Lakes programs, and it will be used 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.
Unbounded Indicators
State Indicators
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.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Braift for Review, "November 2ooo))
-------
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.
Pressure Indicators
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms (Indicator #4519)
This indicator will assess the number of "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 severe 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 in coastal wetlands 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.
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.
1O8 SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review,
-------
APPENDIX 2 — RELEVANCIES (OR ALTERNATE INDICATOR GROUPINGS)
The SOLEC list of indicators was developed according to
the categories of open and nearshore waters, coastal
wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, human health, land use,
societal and unbounded. These groupings are convenient
for SOLEC reporting, but they represent only one of
many ways to organize information about the Great
Lakes. Depending on the user's perspective, other
groupings will be more convenient or will provide insight
to aspects of the Great Lakes that differ from the SOLEC
groupings.
Each of the proposed SOLEC indicators has been
evaluated by the Indicators Group for relevance to several
other organizational categories, and the results are
displayed in the attached table. The categories include;
•• Indicator Type. Based on the State-Pressure-
Human Activity model, each SOLEC indicator
has been assigned to the appropriate category.
Measurements of contaminants in an
environmental compartment are considered a
pressure on the ecosystem rather than a
measurement of a state condition. There are
currently 28 State, 37 Pressure and 15 Human
Activity indicators proposed.
•• Environmental Compartments. This category
sorts the SOLEC indicators by media, i.e., air
(6), water (14), land (14), sediments (4), biota
(21), fish (13), and humans (14). Fish have
been separated from biota as a special case.
•• Issues. Environmental management decisions
often reflect an attempt to address an issue rather
than a medium or geographic location. Specific
issues that SOLEC indicators support include
toxic contaminants (29), nutrients (12), exotic
species (8), habitat (28), climate change (4), and
stewardship (11).
•• GLWQA Annexes. Several of the annexes of the
GLWQA include monitoring and reporting
requirements. The proposed SOLEC indicators
currently address 10 of the 17 annexes. Annex
11 (Monitoring) is supported if an indicator
supports any of the other annexes, and Annex 2
(LaMPs and RAPs) is supported if the indicators
address any of the Beneficial Use Impairments.
•• GLWQA Beneficial Use Impairments. Under
Annex 2 of the GLWQA, fourteen Beneficial Use
Impairments are listed for consideration by
Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial
Action Plans. The SOLEC indicators address to
some extent 11 of the 14 listed use impairments.
•• IJC Desired Outcomes. The IJC listed nine
Desired Outcomes in its report Indicators to
Evalutate Progress under the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (1996). SOLEC indicators
address to some extent all nine Desired
Outcomes. The many indicators with relevance
to the outcomes of Biological Community
Integrity and Diversity, and Physical
Environment Integrity (including habitat) reflect
SOLEC's emphasis on the biotic components of
the Great Lakes ecosystem.
•• Great Lakes Fish Community Objectives. A
series offish community objectives have been
released or are being developed for each of the
Great Lakes with the support of the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission. Some SOLEC indicators
specifically reflect the state offish communities,
and others address related habitat issues.
To facilitate cross referencing of the SOLEC indicators to
the alternate categories, a section has been added to each
indicator description (Appendix 1) that lists all the
applicable categories. This matrix of alternate groupings
of SOLEC indicators is also being incorporated into the
SOLEC indicators database. Users will be able to
retrieve the list of indicators associated with any of the
sorting categories.
While the SOLEC indicators are intended to meet the
criteria of necessary, sufficient and feasible for SOLEC
reporting, no attempt has been made to evaluate the
adequacy of the subset of SOLEC indicators that are
relevant to any of the alternate organizing categories from
the perspective of other users. For example, LaMPs and
RAPs are expected to require a greater level of detail and
geographic specificity to assess Beneficial Use
Impairments than will be provided by the proposed
SOLEC indicators. Suggestions and comments on the
relevance of the SOLEC indicators to these or other
alternate categories are encouraged.
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing' Indicators (Draft for Review, "November 2ooo)
109
-------
ID#
Indicator
Name
Indicator
Type
_0)
"03
55
Nearshore and Open Waters Indicators
6
8
g
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
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
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
Human Activity
X
Environmental
Compartments
3
X
X
£
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
c
.3
X
X
Sediments
X
X
X
X
Biota (excluding fish & humans)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.n
(f)
\L
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
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
Climate Change
Stewardship
X
SOLEC
G
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
ouoino
Nearshore Terrestrial
X
X
X
8
•a
c
.3
s1
Human Health
Societal
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
nnex2
3 Phosphorus
X
X
X
4 Oil - Vessels
w
0)
w
1
k
"w
in
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review, "November 2
110
-------
GLWQA Annex
(con'd)
c
o
"5
"o
Q.
O)
C
'o.
CL
!c
W
(D
D)
C
'CT
1
Q
r^
X
8 Facilities
9 Contingency Plan
10 Hazard. Poll. List
11 Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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
14 Contam. Sed's
X
X
15 Airborne Toxic Subs.
X
X
16 Groundwater
0)
&
=3
w
0)
CC
f-~
X
X
X
IJC Desired Outcomes
1 Fishability
2 Swimmability
3 Drinkability
w
c
^
I
^
£
•q-
5 Economic Viability
e
0)
Q
=3
d)
_0)
o
in
(D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
p
CL
E
ijj
•c
>
r^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 Excess Phos.
X
X
X
9 Physical Env. Integ.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GLFC
Ob
Ontario
X
X
X
X
X
X
0)
•c
UJ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ectives
c
0
^
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
Michigan
X
X
X
X
X
o
0)
Q.
^
(f>
X
X
X
X
X
Beneficial Use Impairments
1 F&W Consumption
D)
C
"c
P
(N
3 F&W Pop's
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f»
1
•q-
X
X
5 Deformities/Reprod.
X
6 Benthos
X
X
X
X
X
X
D)
C
'o>
1
Q
r^
X
8 Eutrophication
X
X
0)
D)
C
J£
_c
Q
0)
X
10 Beach Closings
1 1 Aesthetics
X
X
12 Ag./lndust. Costs
c
0
^
c
JS
Q.
1
JD
"^
.n
CL
n
X
X
X
14 F&W Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n>
03
£
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
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review, "November 2
111
-------
ID#
4860
4861
Indicator
Name
Nitrate and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal
Wetlands
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators3
8129
8131
8132
8134
8135
8136
8137
8139
8141
8146
8147
8149
Area, Quality, and Protection of Lakeshore
Communities
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
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
£. 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
Indicator
Type
_0)
"03
55
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pressure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Human Activity
X
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental
Compartments
3
X
X
X
£
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
c
.3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sediments
Biota (excluding fish & humans)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.n
(f)
\L
X
X
Humans
X
X
Great Lakes
Issues
Contaminants & Pathogens
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nutrients
X
X
Exotics
X
X
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Climate Change
X
X
Stewardship
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOLEC
G
Open Waters
X
X
X
X
Nearshore Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coastal Wetlands
X
X
X
X
ouoino
Nearshore Terrestrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
•a
c
.3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
s1
Human Health
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Societal
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
X
X
X
o
nnex2
3 Phosphorus
X
X
4 Oil - Vessels
w
0)
w
1
k
"w
in
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review, "November 2
112
-------
GLWQA Annex
(con'd)
c
o
"5
"o
Q.
O)
C
'o.
CL
!c
W
(D
D)
C
'CT
1
Q
r^
8 Facilities
9 Contingency Plan
10 Hazard. Poll. List
11 Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12 Pers. Toxic Subs.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13 Non-point Sources
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14 Contam. Sed's
15 Airborne Toxic Subs.
X
X
16 Groundwater
X
0)
&
=3
w
0)
CC
f-~
X
X
X
X
X
X
IJC Desired Outcomes
1 Fishability
X
X
2 Swimmability
X
3 Drinkability
X
w
c
^
I
^
£
•q-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5 Economic Viability
e
0)
Q
=3
d)
_0)
o
in
(D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
CL
E
ijj
•c
>
r^
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 Excess Phos.
X
X
9 Physical Env. Integ.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GLFC
Ob
Ontario
X
X
0)
•c
UJ
X
X
ectives
c
0
^
I
X
X
Michigan
X
X
o
0)
Q.
^
(f>
X
X
Beneficial Use Impairments
1 F&W Consumption
X
X
D)
C
"c
P
(N
3 F&W Pop's
X
X
X
X
f»
1
•q-
5 Deformities/Reprod.
X
X
6 Benthos
D)
C
'o>
1
Q
r^
8 Eutrophication
X
X
0)
D)
C
J£
_c
Q
0)
X
10 Beach Closings
X
1 1 Aesthetics
12 Ag./lndust. Costs
c
0
.*;
c
JS
Q.
1
JD
"^
.n
CL
n
14 F&W Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n>
03
£
10
12
11
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
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review, "November 2
-------
ID#
4179
Indicator
Name
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease
Incidence
Societal Indicators
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
7042
7043
7056
7057
7060
8140
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape
Partnerships
Organizational Richness of Sustainable
Landscape Partnerships
Integration of Ecosystem Management
Principles Across Landscapes
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across
Landscapes
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship
Activities
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Water Withdrawal
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
_0)
"03
55
X
X
X
X
X
30
Pressure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
36
Human Activity
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Environmental
Compartments
3
X
X
X
X
9
£
X
X
X
19
•o
c
.3
X
X
19
1 Bold X designates the primary SOLEC Grouping for each indicator
Sediments
4
Biota (excluding fish & humans)
X
X
X
X
24
.n
(f)
\L
X
X
14
Humans
X
X
X
X
X
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
X
X
X
X
19
SOLEC
G
Open Waters
X
21
Nearshore Waters
X
24
Coastal Wetlands
X
X
X
21
ouoino
Nearshore Terrestrial
X
18
8
•a
c
.3
X
X
13
s1
Human Health
X
9
Societal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
Unbounded
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
2 o = Some LaMPs /RAPs are incorporating these measures into their plans even though the indicators do not have an associated BUI
GLWQA
A
1 Spec Objctvs
X
18
2 LaMPs/ RAPs / BUIs
X
X
X
49
nnex2
3 Phosphorus
5
3 #8142 Sediment Available for Coastal Nurishment and #4861 Water Level Fluctuations are also co-grouped with Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators
4 Oil - Vessels
0
w
0)
w
1
k
"w
in
0
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((Draft for Review, "November 2
114
-------
GLWQA Annex
(con'd)
c
o
"5
"o
Q.
O)
C
'o.
CL
!c
W
(D
0
D)
C
'CT
1
Q
r^
1
8 Facilities
0
9 Contingency Plan
0
10 Hazard. Poll. List
0
11 Monitoring
X
X
X
X
58
12 Pers. Toxic Subs.
X
19
13 Non-point Sources
17
14 Contam. Sed's
2
15 Airborne Toxic Subs.
X
X
6
16 Groundwater
1
0)
&
=3
w
0)
CC
f-~
X
X
11
IJC Desired Outcomes
1 Fishability
2
2 Swimmability
1
3 Drinkability
1
w
c
^
I
^
£
•q-
X
9
5 Economic Viability
X
1
e
0)
Q
=3
d)
_0)
o
in
(D
X
X
37
P
CL
E
Q]
•c
>
r^
X
17
8 Excess Phos.
5
9 Physical Env. Integ.
X
X
X
X
X
30
GLFC
Ob
Ontario
8
0)
•c
UJ
9
ectives
c
0
^
I
8
Michigan
7
o
0)
Q.
^
w
7
Beneficial Use Impairments
1 F&W Consumption
2
D)
C
"c
?
(N
0
3 F&W Pop's
X
X
15
f»
1
•q-
2
5 Deformities/Reprod.
3
6 Benthos
6
D)
C
'o>
1
Q
r^
1
8 Eutrophication
4
0)
D)
C
J£
_c
Q
0)
2
10 Beach Closings
1
1 1 Aesthetics
X
3
12 Ag./lndust. Costs
0
C
0
_^
c
J5
Q.
1
2
"^
^
CL
n
3
14 F&W Habitat
X
X
22
H>
03
£
5
4
4
4
4
4
7
3
6
8
10
4
7
5
8
10
13
10
5
SOLEC 2ooo - Implementing1 Indicators ((IDiraJft for Review, "Noveirnber 2'
115
------- |