BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
OCTOBER 2002
-------
NOTICE TO READER:
Many of the indicators cited in this background paper have been
revised as a result of input received at the December, 2001 Biological
Integrity Workshop that focused on non-native species as a stress.
During two breakout sessions at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland and the
post-SOLEC 2002 comment period, the indicators listed in this paper,
along with others from the complete Great Lakes suite, will be
reviewed, modified and integrated with the goal of constructing a suite
of indicators that will measure biological integrity. This integrated
suite will be the basis for reporting the state of Great Lakes biological
integrity at SOLEC 2004.
All indicators that have not yet undergone an evaluation based on the
SOLEC criteria (i.e., new and revised indicators) will be reviewed over
the next several months by expert panels using the established SOLEC
criteria.
Please note that indicators relating to coastal wetlands were not
available at the time of printing. These are being developed by the
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium, and will be incorporated
into the suite of Biological Integrity indicators at a later date.
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
EVALUATING BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY IN THE GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Biological Integrity Workshop 5
3. Biological Integrity Survey of Experts 5
5. Summary and emerging Issues 6
Appendix A: Descriptions of the indicators identified through the Biological Integrity
workshop process
# 6 Fish Habitat 8
# 8 Naturalized Salmon and Trout 11
#9 Walleye 13
# 9 a Hexagenia 15
# 17 Preyfish Populations 17
#93 Lake trout 19
# 93a Scud (D/pore/a) 21
# 104 Benthic Biomass: Production Yield, Diversity and Abundance 23
#116 Zooplankton Populations 25
#8132 Land Use 27
NEW Health of Terrestrial Plant Communities 29
NEW Landscape Ecosystem Health 31
NEW Status and Protection of Special Places and Species 33
Appendix B: Questions asked of the experts identified by the
Lakewide Management Committees 35
Appendix C: James Karr's Presentation at the
Biological Integrity Workshop 36
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
1.
Introduction
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) has its roots in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA) and its overall purpose: " . . to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem." Because the theme for SOLEC
2002 is Biological Integrity, SOLEC organizers have engaged many collaborators in a process since
SOLEC 2000, to evaluate the effectiveness of the current suite of Great Lakes indicators to assess
biological integrity in the Great Lakes ecosystem. This paper summarizes some of the efforts and thinking
that has occurred to date regarding which indicators are useful, which might be revised, and what new
ones should be added.
"Integrity" is not specifically defined in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), therefore the
following definition is used throughout this paper.
"Biological integrity is the capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated
and adaptive biological system having the full range of elements (the form) and
processes (the function) expected in a region's natural habitat."
- by James R. Karr, modified by Douglas P. Dodge.
This paper was prepared to stimulate discussion at the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2002
(SOLEC 2002), and the information and ideas should be considered DRAFT for discussion purposes.
After SOLEC 2002, the proposed indicator suite for Biological Integrity will remain open for additional
review and comment for a period to January 31, 2003. Experts engaged in the SOLEC process will then
continue the review and refinement of the indicators using established SOLEC criteria. The resultant
suite of indicators is expected to form the basis of reports on Biological Integrity for SOLEC 2004. The
flow diagram below displays the intended process.
Biological
Integrity
Workshop
Dec. 2001
Other indicators
from SOLEC suite
Expert review
SOLEC 2002
Discussions at breakout
sessions
I
Proposed indicators
of Biolgical Integrity
Biological Integrity
Indicator reports
SOLEC 2004
Discussion of reports
Non-native species
Other stressors
(as suggested at
the workshop)
Draft report on Biological
Intergrity indicators
Revise suite of
Biological Integrity
indicators as required
Figure 1
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
There were two events conducted during 2001 - 2002 to advance the discussion about indicators of
biological integrity in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. A workshop of invited experts was conducted in
December 2001 to consider indicators effective for assessing impacts of non-native species, and a
project was conducted in summer 2002 during which identified experts were interviewed with a pre-
established set of questions. Each event is discussed in more detail below.
The following table presents the indicators identified by experts associated with either event that appear
to be relevant and useful for assessing biological integrity in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The
number associated with most of the indicators relates to the SOLEC identification. The indicators have
been grouped into topic areas for convenience of review.
Indicator
Number
Name
Workshop-
selected
Interview-
selected
Impacts from Non-Native Species
18
4513
9002
Sea Lamprey
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
Non-Native Species (Currently a SOLEC indicator under
consideration)
X
X
X
Changes in Communities at Different Trophic Levels
8
9
9a
17
68
93
93a
101
104
109
116
4507
8139
New
Salmon and Trout
Walleye
Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Native Unionid Mussels
Lake Trout
Scud (Diporeia)
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumours (DELT)
in Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Zooplankton Populations
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity & Abundance
Community/Species Plans
Health of Terrestrial Plant Communities
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat Issues, Lake Levels, Wetland Losses
6
4510
4516
4861
7055
8114
8132
8136
8142
8149
New
New
Fish Habitat
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Habitat Fragmentation
Nearshore Land Use
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment
Protected Nearshore Areas
Landscape Ecosystem Health
Status and Protection of Special Places and Species
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Changes in Contaminants
113
114
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
X
X
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
115
4083
4506
8135
8147
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Water Birds
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
X
X
X
X
X
Changes in Nutrients
111
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
X
2. Biological Integrity Workshop
In December 2001, a workshop was held that focussed on non-native species as one component of
stress on biological integrity. Non-native species have been recognized as one of the key stresses
affecting biological integrity in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The aim of the workshop was to test the
robustness of the current suite of Great Lakes indicators to provide information about the integrity of the
biological component of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, with reference to impacts of non-native
species.
At the workshop, a series of case studies was considered, and the present set of 47 Great Lakes
indicators related to the biological components of the ecosystem was reviewed, changes were suggested,
and new indicators were nominated. Papers were also prepared to provide a more holistic overview of
non-native species' impacts in the basin ecosystem from a First Nations / Tribal perspective. This focus
offered participants an opportunity to examine the impact of non-native species on the health and
resiliency of native species, and it also served to help identify other environmental factors, often acting in
combinations with non-native species pressures, which impact biological integrity.
The indicators proposed in the case studies were evaluated during the workshop for their ability to be
applied to other stresses (physical, chemical) in the basin and for feasibility of application based on data
requirements versus availability. The consensus advice that was received during the workshop and
subsequent to it was incorporated into existing indicator descriptions, or in some cases, new indicator
descriptions were prepared. These proposed indicator descriptions are presented in Appendix A of this
paper. Complete details of the workshop have been archived on CD and are available on request from
solec@ec.gc.ca
3. Biological Integrity Survey of Experts
Subsequent to the Biological Integrity workshop, a group of some 40 Great Lakes experts, identified by
Lakewide Management Plan Committees, was interviewed to get a basin-wide impression of other
stressors on biological integrity (e.g., habitat loss, nutrients, toxic chemicals). These people were
interviewed using the same set of issues and questions that was used for the case studies for the
workshop (see Appendix B). The results of these hterviews were meant to be a starting point for
identification of the complete suite of biological integrity indicators. Some of the results of this survey are
presented in this paper. Additional information will be presented at SOLEC 2002, and all the information
will be available after SOLEC 2002 in CD ROM format.
The indicators shown in the table above were those identified by the experts surveyed. The objective of
the survey was to get a quick overview of those indicators in the SOLEC suite that relate to aspects of
biological integrity. This list, and that relating to non-native species, represents an initial starting point for
further discussion. The opportunity to discuss the proposed indicators, and any other indicators of
biological integrity in the SOLEC suite, exists at SOLEC 2002 and for a time beyond. The results from this
discussion will be the basis for reporting the state of Great Lakes biological integrity at SOLEC 2004.
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
4. Summary and Emerging Issues
The following summaries represent the key points raised by experts interviewed in each Lake basin or
connecting channel. These statements are presented here to help stimulate discussion at SOLEC 2002.
Non-native species pose a singularly powerful impediment to the restoration and maintenance of
the biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin. In the catchment of each Great Lake, non-native species
are directly and indirectly implicated in the deterioration and loss of many native species whether they be
avian, terrestrial or aquatic. Non-native species are predators on, and competitors with native species;
non-native species are changing trophic dynamics [pathways of energy transfer], nutrient availability,
habitat, and the flow and sequestering of contaminants [subsequently, human health may come at risk].
These effects may also make native species more vulnerable to parasites and diseases.
There appears to be no measure to anticipate which species may be the next immigrant to the
basin, nor are there means to prepare for the usual resultant damage to the biological integrity of native
and now naturalized species under management. In most instances, monitoring describes only changes,
good or bad, in the biological integrity of the basin. Some agencies have data about non-native species
captured near the front and side doors of the basin, the St Lawrence and Chicago rivers, respectively.
For example, tench [Tinea tinea], a European fish species, has been introduced into the Richelieu River,
a tributary to the St Lawrence, and Asian carp are known to be in the Chicago River. These species, and
others, many unknown, are likely candidates to form the next wave of invaders.
To change an old quote about species extinction being forever, the introduction of non-native
species is also forever.
Habitat modifications continue to affect communities of Great Lakes plants and animals. Direct
losses result from changes in land use, from near shore and shore land alterations and from water levels
that are dissimilar to natural fluctuations. Although smaller areas of suitable habitat may remain, these
plots are often only unconnected fragments of inefficient shapes, so that both form and function of
biological integrity are lost. As well, with these changes, the perturbed system becomes more vulnerable
to the introduction of non-native species.
Nutrient quality and quantity are important for primary production in any biological system.
Although Great Lakes concentrations have decreased as the result of improved sewage treatment and
other control measures, periodic inflows of high concentrations of nutrients associated with storm water
run-off are compromising local embayments and streams and attracting non-native species. Changes
caused by non- native species combine with sediment contamination and increases in pathogen
concentrations to degrade the biological integrity of local benthic communities and may have
ramifications for other trophic levels.
Related to the storage, ebb and flow of nutrients in the Great Lakes ecosystem are chemical
contaminants that use similar pathways. Chemical contaminants may reduce the reproductive success of
some Great Lakes species, increase vulnerability to predation and, thus, contribute to population
imbalances that result in decreased diversity.
There is some concern for the apparent increase in the incidence of Type E botulism in birds,
fish, and their predators and scavengers. Zebra mussels are suspect as one of the pathways for
infection.
Many Great Lakes indicators use data that relate to biological integrity. Most of these indicators
were prepared to measure the state of a particular part of the health the Great Lakes ecosystem. Some
also measure pressure and response. None was initially developed specifically to assess biological
integrity. The proposed indicators are a first attempt at drafting a suite of indicators to describe biological
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
integrity as it is affected by non-native species. The indicators proposed through the interview process
support many of the indicators from the workshop and some additional indicators relating to other
stresses are proposed for consideration.
The challenge for SOLEC 2002 and beyond is identifying those indicators that integrate
information collected at all trophic levels in the basin. It may be that combinations of indicators will lead to
developing indices like those proposed by Karrin 1991.
References Cited:
Karr.J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological
Applications, 1:66-84
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Appendix A: Descriptions of the indicators identified through the
Biological Integrity Workshop Process
NOTE: The following indicator descriptions are revised versions of the existing indicators,
based on comments received at the Biological Integrity workshop. Three indicators are NEW.
None of the indicators here has undergone a review through the SOLEC criteria.
Fish Habitat #6
NOTE: This indicator has not received expert review, and has not undergone the SOLEC
screening for necessary, sufficient and feasible. It is merely a place holder. It is expected that
discussions at SOLEC 2002 and beyond will result in significant revision to this indicator.
Measure
1) Quality, quantity (area), and distribution of aquatic habitat (e.g., shore, spawning shoals, tributaries,
wetlands, etc.); 2) percent disturbed habitat and3) population of sentinel fish species. For example, the
measures for tributary quality could include the number of dams, number of miles of river channel that is
impounded, number of miles of (formerly) high-gradient stream channel that is impounded, and the
number of miles between the river mouth and the first dam. The number and location of fish passage
facilities (up- and downstream) that could be used successfully by species or communities of concern (for
example, lake sturgeon, or other anadromous fishes listed in FCGO) could also serve as measures.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the quality, quantity and location of aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes
ecosystem, including the percent of habitat that has been disturbed or destroyed, and will be used to
infer progress in rehabilitating degraded habitat and associated aquatic communities.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator addresses the general Fish Community Goals and Objectives (FCGO) to protect and
enhance fish habitat, achieve no net loss of the productive capacity of habitat supporting fish
communities, and restore damaged habitats. Annex 2 of the GLWQA calls for the restoration of lost or
damaged habitat. The indicator also supports the policy position of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
(GLFC), Habitat Advisory Board, presented in their 1998 Draft Binational Policy and Action Plan for the
Protection and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat in the Great Lakes.
Endpoint
The endpoints will need to be specific to habitat types and FCGO. In the Great Lakes and connecting
channels, for example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Ontario Ministry of Environment
numerical guidelines for dumping of contaminated dredged sediments can be used to protect aquatic
habitat quality.
Features
This indicator will measure/calculate changes in aquatic habitat by area, by type, by location, by Lake.
Significant losses and degradation of aquatic habitat have occurred in the Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystem since the late 1800s when European settlement of the region was completed. Logging,
navigation projects, dam construction, shoreline development, agriculture, urbanization, municipal and
industrial waste disposal, and water withdrawal by power generation facilities for once-through cooling
have all acted to reduce the amount and quality of aquatic habitat in the system. These affected habitats
8
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
include the Great Lakes proper, their connecting channels and coastal wetlands, and the tributaries that
provide linkages with inland aquatic habitats and terrestrial habitats via the surface water continuum.
Wetland losses in the region have been reasonably well documented and quantified, but losses of the
other major habitat types have not. Recent efforts to relicense hydropower dams in the United States
have led to a reconsideration of the habitat losses associated with these dams and a useful picture is
emerging which allows an assessment of the adverse impacts of habitat fragmentation on anadromous
and resident stream-fish communities. Data for tributary habitat are being developed in connection with
FERC dam relicensing procedures in the United States. Data are presently available for Michigan, New
York State, and Wisconsin.
Large volumes of water are withdrawn from the Great Lakes and their connecting channels for use by
industry and municipalities. Steam-electric power plants using once-through cooling, and pumped-
storage hydropower plants withdraw the greatest volumes of water. Fish of all sizes are entrained with
this water and substantial mortality occurs basin-wide among the entrained population. Rates of water
withdrawal and associated fish mortality rates are known for existing steam-electric power plants using
once-through cooling and for pumped-storage hydropower plants. Reduction in water withdrawal rates or
the addition of effective screening devices at existing facilities would reflect an improvement in fish
habitat, and hence a reduction in fish entrainment mortality.
Illustration
Certain anadromous fish species e g Atlantic salmon and walleye depend on unimpeded access to
spawning habitats in streams. In many cases dams and other obstructions [e g roads and culverts]
prevent mature fish from reaching spawning habitat and thus compromise stock and species diversity,
losses in annual recruitment and reduced production and harvests. In either case not even fish passing
facilities will mitigate these effects because walleye cannot jump and even large female salmon are
unable to use fishways. As well, many other stream-dwelling species of fish [e g suckers and minnows]
suffer discontinuity in their ranges because of barriers
Limitations
Restoration ecology is an emerging scientific discipline requiring an understanding of multiple disciplines
and partnerships. Comprehensive, detailed habitat inventory, classification, and mapping of Great Lakes
aquatic habitats has not been undertaken. Much more research will be required to recognize critical fish
habitat and to understand the relationship between quantity of habitat and aquatic production.
Interpretation of habitat measurements is confounded by issues such as interacting species and
connectivity of habitat between life stages.
Interpretation
Dam removal, switching from peak-power generating flow mode to run-of-the-river flow mode, and
provision of fully functional upstream and downstream fish passage facilities consistent with state
management strategies or FCGO would be considered to be rehabilitation of habitat and beneficial to the
riverine and anadromous fish communities using dammed tributaries.
Comments
Further development and ratification of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Habitat Advisory Board
(what's the update on this?), 1998 Draft Binational Policy and Action Plan for the Protection and
Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat in the Great Lakes should contribute significantly to furthering the goals
of aquatic habitat protection and restoration in the Great Lakes basin. Indicators 4510 & 4511 contribute
to this indicator, as does indicator 72. Sentinel species should be the same for each of these indicators.
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Unfinished Business
> Need to develop a list of sentinel fish species.
» Quantifiable endpoints and/or reference values need further development work.
» The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined. Will bar graphs or maps be
used to depict trends over time? What will appear on the graphs or maps?
» There needs to be more information added to help better understand the trends presented by this
indicator.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): water, fish
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental
integrity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
July, 2002
10
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
# 8 Naturalized Salmon and Trout
Measure
1) Productivity, yield, or harvest of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout and brown trout individual stocks (need
to explain this for non-fish people) using abundance (e.g., catch of each species in a given unit of
sampling effort), or biomass metrics; and 2) populations of these stocked and naturally produced fish.
Purpose
This indicator will show trends in populations of introduced trout and salmon populations, as well as
species diversity, and it will be used to evaluate the potential impacts on native trout and salmon
populations and the preyfish populations that support them.
Ecosystem Objective
"To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by
judicious plantings of hatchery-reared fish, and provide from these communities an optimum contribution
of fish, fishing opportunities and associated benefits to meet needs identified by society for: wholesome
food, recreation, cultural heritage, employment and income, and a healthy aquatic ecosystem. In
addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
The current Fish Community Goals and Objectives (FCGO) for htroduced trout and salmon species
establish harvest or yield targets consistent with FCGO for lake trout restoration, and in Lake Ontario, for
Atlantic salmon restoration. The following index targets for introduced trout and salmon species were
provided in the FCGO for the listed lake.
Lake Ontario (1999): Salmon and trout catch rates in recreational fisheries continuing at early-1990s
levels.
Lake Erie (1999 draft - is this still draft?): Manage the eastern basin to provide sustainable harvests of
valued fish species, including. . . lake trout, rainbow trout and other salmonids.
Lake Huron (1995): A diverse salmonine community that can sustain an annual harvest of 2.4 million kg
(5.3 million Ib) with lake trout the dominant species and anadromous (stream-spawning) species also
having a prominent place.
Lake Michigan (year?): A diverse salmonine community capable of sustaining an annual harvest of 2.7 to
6.8 million kg (6 to 15 million Ib), of which 20-25% is lake trout.
Lake Superior (1990): Achieve ... an unspecified yield of other salmonid predators, while maintaining a
predator/prey balance which allows normal growth of lake trout.
Salmonine abundance should be great enough to keep alewife abundance below levels associated with
the suppression of native fishes, but should also be below levels where predatory demand threatens the
forage base and the integrity of the system.
Features
This indicator will assess trends of Pacific salmon and rainbow and brown trout populations over time.
These species were introduced into the Great Lakes ecosystem, are reproducing successfully in portions
of the system, and can be considered to be permanent, "naturalized" components of the system.
Stocking of these species continues to augment natural reproduction and enhance fishing opportunities,
which is generally viewed favourably by the angling public. However, diversification of the salmonine
11
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
component of the fish community is a significant departure from the historic dominance by lake trout; the
impacts of diversification on native species and ecosystem function is not yet fully understood.
Illustration
Rainbow trout stocks in the Lake Ontario Basin have declined in the last decade, with fewer fish in
harvests and in spawning runs. Some stocks are from natural reproduction and others from regular fish
plantings. Declines may be related to habitat changes, lower stream and lake productivity,
losses/reductions of specific gene pools, over harvest, climate warming, drought, and/or groundwater
withdrawals.
Limitations
The data for this indicator are collected annually by the states for certain segments of the fishery (e.g.,
Michigan's segment of the Lake Michigan charter boat fishery) and are available for reporting, but there
is no coordinated, basin-wide data collection program. Reporting occurs as news releases and as reports
to the Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. More analysis of existing data and
evaluation of management alternatives through mathematical modelling is needed before more detailed
species-by-species harvest can be defined.
Interpretation
To be developed
Comments
Pacific salmon and rainbow and brown trout are introduced species. Some of these are now naturalized
but stocking still occurs. Atlantic salmon, which were native to Lake Ontario, have been introduced at
times to the other four Great Lakes. Atlantic salmon introductions to the upper four Great Lakes should
be treated as potentially beneficial range extensions of the species within the basin. This valuable
species is in decline in most of its historical Western Atlantic range, and the establishment of naturalized
populations in the Great Lakes would help ensure the survival of the Western Atlantic gene pool. The
salmonine community will consist of both wild and planted salmonines and exhibit increasing growth of,
and reliance on, natural reproduction. Short-term restrictions of harvest may be required to achieve long-
term goals of natural reproduction.
The measure of abundance of individual stocks will give a clue as to diversity within a species.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
To be developed
Sources
GLFCSGLFMP; FCGO
1 Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes
Fisheries, Ann Arbor, Mi.
12
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
# 9 Walleye
Measure
Relative abundance, biomass, or annual production of walleye populations in historical, warm-cool water,
mesotrophic habitats of the Great Lakes.
Purpose
This indicator will show the status and trends in walleye populations in various Great Lakes' habitats, and
it will be used in conjunction with the Hexagenia indicator, to infer the basic structure of warm-cool water
predator and prey communities, the health of percid populations, and the health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Historical mesotrophic habitats should be maintained as balanced, stable, and productive elements of the
Great Lakes ecosystem with walleye as the top aquatic predator of the warm-cool water community [and
Hexagenia as a key benthic invertebrate organism in the food chain]. (Paraphrased from Final Report of
the Ecosystem Objectives Subcommittee, 1990, to the IJC Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.) In
addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Appropriate quantitative measures of relative abundance, yield, or biomass should be established as
reference values for self-sustaining populations of walleye in mesotrophic habitats in each lake. The
indicator for walleye can be based on the following index target abundances provided in the Fish
Community Goals and Objectives:
Lake Huron (1995): Reestablish and/or maintain walleye . . . with populations capable of sustaining a
harvest of 0.7 million kg
Lake Michigan (1995): Expected annual yield: 0.1-0.2 million kg
Lake Erie (1999): Manage the western, central and eastern basin ecosystems to provide sustainable
harvests of valued fish species, including walleye
No reference values available for Lakes Superior and Ontario.
The walleye is a highly valued species that is usually heavily exploited by recreational and (where
permitted) commercial fisheries, and harvest or yield reference values established for self-sustaining
populations probably represent an attempt to fully utilize annual production; as a result, harvest or yield
reference values for these populations can be taken as surrogates for production reference values.
Features
The historical dominance of walleye in mesotrophic habitats in the Great Lakes provides a good basis for
a basin wide evaluation of ecosystem health. Maintaining or reestablishing historical levels of relative
abundance, biomass, or production of self-sustaining populations of walleye throughout their native
range in the basin will help ensure dominance of this species in the ecosystem and the maintenance of a
desirable and balanced aquatic community in warm-cool water mesotrophic habitats. Historical data can
be used to develop status and trend information on walleye populations. Commercial catch records for
walleye in the Great Lakes extend back to the late 1800s; recreational catch data and assessment fishing
data supplement these commercial catch records in some areas in recent years and are especially useful
in areas where the commercial fishery for the species has been closed.
13
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Illustration
To be developed
Limitations
Walleye abundance can be reduced by overfishing; harvest restrictions designed to promote
sustained use are required if the species is to be used as an indicator of ecosystem health.
The walleye indicator cannot reliably diagnose causes of degraded ecosystem health.
Target reference values for the indicator have not been developed for Lakes Ontario and
Superior.
Interpretation
The desired trend is increasing dominance to historical levels of the indicator species in mesotrophic
habitats throughout the basin. If the target values are met, the system can be assumed to be healthy; if
the values are not met there is health impairment.
Comments
To be developed
Unfinished Business
The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined. For example, will bar graphs
or maps be used to depict trends in walleye populations overtime?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of benthos
Last Revised
July, 2002
14
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
# 9 a Hexagenia
Measure
Abundance, biomass, or annual production of burrowing mayfly (Hexagenia sp.) populations in historical,
warm-cool water, mesotrophic habitats of the Great Lakes. Presence or absence of a Hexagenia mating
flight (emergence) in late June early July in areas of historical abundance.
Purpose
This indicator will show the status and trends in Hexagenia populations, and will be used to infer the
health of the Hexagenia populations and the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Historical mesotrophic habitats should be maintained as balanced, stable, and productive elements of the
Great Lakes ecosystem with Hexagenia as the key benthic invertebrate organism in the food chain.
(Paraphrased from Final Report of the Ecosystem Objectives Subcommittee, 1990, to the IJC
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.) In addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Appropriate quantitative measures of abundance, biomass, or production should be established as
reference values for self-sustaining populations of Hexagenia in mesotrophic habitats in each lake.
Features
The historical dominance of Hexagenia in mesotrophic habitats in the Great Lakes provides a good basis
for a basin-wide evaluation of ecosystem health. Maintaining or reestablishing historical levels of
abundance, biomass, or production of Hexagenia throughout their native range in the basin will help
ensure their dominance in the ecosystem and the maintenance of a desirable and balanced aquatic
community in warm-cool water mesotrophic habitats. Hexagenia are a major integrator between detrital
and higher levels in food web. Hexagenia are highly visible during emergence in June- July and the public
can easily use the species as an indicator to judge ecosystem health in areas where it is now abundant
or was historically abundant but now is absent. Historical data can be used to develop status and trend
information on Hexagenia populations. Sediment cores from Lake Erie show major trends in abundance
of Hexagenia extending back to about 1740 and other data are available to document more recent and
present levels of abundance in Lake Erie and other parts of the basin.
Illustration
To be developed
Limitations
Hexagenia are extirpated at moderate levels of pollution, and more research is needed to develop data
needed to show a graded response to pollution. Target reference values for the indicator are being
developed for all major Great Lakes mesotrophic habitats.
Interpretation
The desired trend is increasing dominance to historical levels of the indicator species in mesotrophic
habitats throughout the basin. If the target values are met, the system can be assumed to be healthy; if
the values are not met there is health impairment. The presence of an annual Hexagenia mating flight
(emergence) in late June-early July can also be used by the public and other non-technical observers as
a specific indicator of good habitat quality, whereas the lack of a mating flight in areas where the species
was historically abundant can be used as an indicator of degraded habitat. High Hexagenia abundance
is strongly indicative of uncontaminated surficial sediments with adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in
15
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
the overlying water columns. Probable causative agents of impairment for Hexagenia include excess
nutrients and pollution of surficial sediments with metals and oil.
Comments
Hexagenia were abundant in major mesotrophic Great Lakes habitats including Green Bay (Lake
Michigan), Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron), Lake St. Clair, western and central basins of Lake Erie, Bay of
Quinte (Lake Ontario), and portions of the Great Lakes connecting channels. Eutrophication and
pollution with persistent toxic contaminants virtually extinguished Hexagenia populations throughout much
of this habitat by the 1950s. Controls on phosphorus loadings resulted in a major recovery of Hexagenia
in western Lake Erie in the 1990s. Reduction in pollutant loadings to Saginaw Bay has resulted in limited
recovery of Hexagenia in portions of the Bay. Hexagenia production in upper Great Lakes connecting
channels shows a graded response to heavy metals and oil pollution of surficial sediments.
Hexagenia should be used as a benthic indicator in all mesotrophic habitats with percid communities and
percid FCGOs. Contaminant levels in sediment that meet USEPA and OMOE guidelines for "clean
dredged sediment" and IJC criterion for sediment not polluted by oil and hydrocarbons will not impair
Hexagenia populations. There will be a graded response to concentrations of metals and oil in sediment
exceeding these guidelines for clean sediment. Reductions in phosphorus levels in formerly eutrophic
habitats are usually accompanied by recolonisation by Hexagenia, if surficial sediments are otherwise
uncontaminated.
Unfinished Business
Has a quantitative endpoint for Hexagenia populations been developed? If not, then further development
work is necessary for this indicator.
The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined. For example, will bar graphs
or maps be used to depict trends in walleye and Hexagenia populations overtime?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of benthos
Last Revised
March 2002
16
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
#17 Preyfish Populations
Measure
Abundance and diversity, as well as age and size distribution, of preyfish species stocks (i.e., deepwater
ciscoes, sculpins, lake herring, rainbow smelt, and alewives) in each lake.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the abundance and diversity of preyfish populations, and it will be used to infer
the stability of predator species necessary to maintain the biological integrity of each lake.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain a diverse array of preyfish populations to support healthy, productive populations of
predator fishes as stated in the Fish Community Goals and Objectives (FCGOs) for each lake. For Lake
Michigan, the Planktivore Objective (GLFC, 1995) states: Maintain a diversity of prey (planktivore)
species at population levels matched to primary production and to predator demands. This indicator also
relates to the 1997 Strategic Great Lakes Fisheries Management Plan Common Goal Statement for
Great Lakes Fisheries Agencies and to Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
This indicator will refer to index target abundances for preyfish the values used to regulate the amount
of predator fish stocked in each lake provided in the FCGO for each lake as quantitative reference
values that represent the necessary diversity and structure of the preyfish community. Lakes Huron,
Michigan and Superior provide general guidelines for prey species prioritizing
species diversity and a return to historical population levels. Lake Michigan FCGO proposed a lakewide
preyfish biomass of 0.5 to 0.8 billion kg (1.2 to 1.7 million Ibs.). Lake Ontario FCGO proposed an
average annual biomass of 110 kilogram/hectare for the production of top predators.
Features
An inadequate preyfish base might signal the need for reduction in predator species abundance by
increasing harvest or reducing number of predator fish stocked. If preyfish populations also support a
major recreational or commercial fishery, or are reduced significantly by entrainment mortality at water
withdrawal sites in the Great Lakes, curtailment of these losses would be appropriate. Maintaining
species diversity in the preyfish base may also require more detailed consideration and management of
the predator species mix in the lake. Preyfish populations in each of the lakes is currently monitored on
an annual basis. Changes in species composition, as well as changes in size and age composition of the
major preyfish species, are available for review from long-term databases. Changes in prey fish
biomasses and age distributions could also be early warnings of changes in quality and quantity of
essential habitat.
Illustration
Lake-wide annual trends are displayed for each lake in bar chart format. A CIS-based reporting system is
under development that will show annual trends at multiple sampling locations within each lake.
Limitations
Index target abundances, the quantitative reference values for this indicator, have not been established
for all preyfish species in each lake.
Question: Is it possible to have an endpoint for stock diversity?
Interpretation
To be developed
17
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Comments
Diversity in preyfish species imparts some overall stability to the forage base by minimizing the effects of
year-to-year variations typically experienced by a single species; therefore, managing the preyfish
resource for the exclusive benefit of a single preyfish species, such as alewife, is not recommended. A
substantial component of native preyfish species should be maintained, especially if new research
implicates thiaminase in introduced preyfish species, such as alewives and rainbow smelt, as a major
factor contributing to reproductive failure in lake trout and Atlantic salmon in the Great Lakes. There is
interest expressed in some FCGOs in protecting or reestablishing rare or extirpated deepwater Cisco
preyfish species in their historic habitats in the Great Lakes. This should be reflected in future reference
values for affected lakes.
Unfinished Business
> A discussion on how this indicator will be interpreted using the endpoint(s) is needed. For example, this
indicator may need to be analyzed in conjunction with an indicator on primary production and/or predator
species abundance and
diversity.
Develop an endpoint for stock diversity (if possible).
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, non-native species, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity GLFC Objective(s):
Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife
populations.
18
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
# 93 Lake Trout
Measure
Absolute abundance, relative abundance, yield, or biomass, and self-sustainability through natural
reproduction of lake trout in coldwater habitats of the Great Lakes.
Purpose
To show the status and trends in lake trout populations, a major coldwater predator and subject of an
international effort to rehabilitate populations to near historic levels of abundance.
Ecosystem Objective
The coldwater regions of the Great Lakes should be maintained as a balanced, stable, and productive
ecosystem with self-sustaining lake trout populations as a major top predator.
Endpoint
Self-sustaining, naturally reproducing populations that support target yields to fisheries is the goal of the
lake trout rehabilitation as established by the Fish Community Objectives drafted by the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission. Target yields approximate historical levels of lake trout harvest or adjusted to
accommodate stocked exotic predators such as Pacific salmon. These targets are 4 million pounds from
Lake Superior, 2.5 million pounds from Lake Michigan, 2.0 million pounds from Lake Huron and 0.1
million pounds from Lake Erie. Lake Ontario has no specific yield objective but has a population
objective of 0.5-1.0 million adult fish that produce 100,000 yearling recruits annually through natural
reproduction. The lake trout is a highly valued species that is exploited by recreational and (where
permitted) commercial fisheries, and harvest or yield reference values established for self-sustaining
populations probably represent an attempt to fully utilize annual production; as a result, harvest or yield
reference values for these populations can be taken as surrogates for production reference values.
Features
Self-sustainability of lake trout is measured in lakewide assessment programs carried out annually in
each lake. The historical dominance of lake trout in oligotrophic waters in all of the Great Lakes provides
a good basis for a basin-wide evaluation of ecosystem health. Maintaining or reestablishing historical
levels of abundance, biomass, or production and reestablishing self-sustaining populations of lake trout
throughout their native range in the basin will help ensure dominance in the ecosystem and the
maintenance of a desirable aquatic community in oligotrophic, coldwater habitats. The desired trend is
increasing dominance of the indicator species to historical levels in coldwater, oligotrophic habitats
throughout the basin.
Illustration
For each lake, a graph with lake trout metrics including natural reproduction on the x-axis and year on
the y-axis will be presented.
Limitations
The indicator is of greatest value in assessing ecosystem health in the oligotrophic, open-water portions
of Lake Superior; it may be less useful in nearshore areas of the lake. Because the indicator includes
only a single species, it may not reliably diagnose ecosystem health. Also, because lake trout abundance
can be easily reduced by overfishing and sea lamprey predation, harvest restrictions designed to
promote sustained use and enhanced sea lamprey control are required if the species is to be used as an
indicator of ecosystem health. Annual interagency stock assessments measure changes in relative
abundance, size and age structure, survival, and extent of natural reproduction but do not provide direct
feedback to yield goals.
19
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Interpretation
Interpretation is direct and simple. If natural reproduction is observed and contributing significantly to the
target values, the system can be assumed to be healthy; if the values are not met then causative agents
of impairment are implicated and need to be addressed.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior, Erie
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
Last Revised
August 2002
20
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
93a Scud (Diporeia spp.)
Measure
Abundance or biomass, and self-sustainability of Diporeia in cold, deepwater habitats of the Great Lakes.
Purpose
To show the status and trends in Diporeia populations, and to infer the basic structure of coldwater
benthic communities and the general health of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
The cold, deepwater regions of the Great Lakes should be maintained as a balanced, stable, and
productive oligotrophic ecosystem with Diporeia as one of the key organisms in the food chain. Relates
to Annex 1 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
In Lake Superior, Diporeia should be maintained throughout the lake at abundances of >200/m2 at
depths <100m and >30/m2 at depths >100m. In the open waters of the other lakes, Diporeia should be
maintained at abundances of > 1,000/m2 at depths 30-100m and >200/m2 at depths > 100m. These are
conservative density estimates for these depths. Density estimates at depths < 30 m in all the lakes can
be highly variable and subject to local conditions. Thus, densities at these shallower depths may not be
a good indicator of lake-wide trends.
Features
Diporeia abundances are measured in assessment programs carried out annually in each lake. Other,
more regional assessments occur less frequently. The historical dominance of Diporeia in cold,
deepwater habitats in all of the Great Lakes provides a good basis for a basin-wide evaluation of
ecosystem health..
Illustration
For each lake, a figure with Diporeia metrics on the y-axis and year on the x-axis will be presented. For
less frequent but more spatially-intense regional assessments, a figure giving metric contours or
isopleths will be presented.
Limitations
The indicator is of greatest value in assessing ecosystem health in the cold, open-water portions of the
Great Lakes. It may also be useful when assessing long term trends within a specific lake region in the
nearshore (< 30 m), but its value is questionable if widely applied to nearshore areas overall the lakes..
Because this indicator consists of only one taxa, it may not reliably diagnose causes of degraded
ecosystem health. A number of lakewide surveys and assessments of benthic invertebrate communities
have been made over the past several decades in the Great Lakes and the current status of Diporeia
populations is generally known, and an understanding of the changes related to the Dreissenid mussel
invasion is emerging.
Interpretation
Target values are provided to evaluate abundances on a historic basis. Trends over time provide a
means to assess indicator direction. On a more direct basis, if target values are met, the system can be
assumed to be healthy; if the values are not met there is health impairment. Causative agents of
impairment are not addressed by the indicator.
21
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Comments
Diporeia is the dominant benthic macroinvertebrate in the cold, deepwater habitats of all the Great
Lakes, comprising over 70% of benthic biomass in these regions. It feeds on material settled from the
water column and, in turn, is fed upon by many species of fish. As such, it plays a key role in the food
web of deepwater habitats. Among the fish species that are energetically linked to Diporeia is the lake
trout. Young lake trout feed on Diporeia directly, while adult lake trout feed on sculpin, and sculpin feed
heavily on Diporeia. Lake trout are a top predator in the deepwater habitat and abundances are another
SOLEC Indicator. Therefore assessments of both Diporeia and lake trout provide an evaluation of lower
and upper trophic levels in the cold, deepwater habitat.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of benthos
Last Revised
July 2002
22
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
#104 Benthic Biomass: Production, Yield, Diversity and Abundance
Measure
Species diversity, abundance, production and yield over time and space in the aquatic benthic
community.
Purpose
This indicator will assess trends in time and spatial distribution of species diversity, abundance,
production and yield in the aquatic benthic community, and it will be used to infer the relative health of
the benthic community, including the relative abundance of non-native species.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator addresses the general Fish Community Goals and Objectives to protect and enhance fish
habitat, achieve no net loss of the productive capacity of habitat supporting fish communities, and restore
damaged habitats. This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Appropriate quantitative measures of species abundance, production, yield and diversity should be
established as reference values for a healthy, diverse benthic community.
Features
The aquatic benthic community has been used as one index to assess the relative health of the aquatic
community in general. Benthic organisms are widespread and their abundances and species composition
vary directly with the degree of nutrient enrichment and food supply. In addition, benthic species differ in
their tolerances to polluted conditions. The desired trend is toward a diverse benthic community with
inclusion of pollution-sensitive species.
Illustration
For each lake or sub basin, a graph showing the species composition and abundance of the
representative benthic species community on the y-axis and years on the x-axis will be presented to
illustrate the changes in species metrics over time. A map will be used to show the major, within lake,
spatial-temporal differences.
Limitations
Identifying benthic taxonomy is a highly specialized and time consuming activity that requires
training and experience.
Historical data are not housed in a data base.
An endpoint for this indicator has not been established.
Interpretation
Abundant, pollution-tolerant benthic species indicate degraded habitats. Increasing species diversity and
decreasing abundance of pollution-tolerant species indicate return to healthy habitats. Abundance and
production of non-native species indicates a potentially unbalanced and degraded ecosystem.
Comments
This indicator measures the composition and production of the native and non-native benthic community
over time and space. The relative abundance of non-native benthos such as zebra mussels, is indicative
of a disrupted benthic community. Water depth has a strong effect on benthic community composition
and should be standardized in any sampling design. Sampling design should also consider areas near
sources of pollution as well as clean, offshore areas.
23
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Unfinished Business
* May want to consider identifying specific species of interest to measure.
* Need to quantify "abundant", "production", "yield" and "diverse".
* What will be the baseline to determine if species diversity is increasing or decreasing?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 6: Degradation of benthos
Last Revised
July 2, 2002
24
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
#116 Zooplankton Populations
Measure
Spatial and temporal trends in community composition; mean individual size; and biomass and
production.
Purpose
This indicator will assess characteristics of the zooplankton community overtime and space, and it will be
used to infer changes over time in vertebrate or invertebrate predation, system productivity, energy
transfer within the Great Lakes, or other food web dynamics.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain the biological integrity of the Great Lakes and to support a healthy and diverse fishery as
outlined by the Goals and Objectives of the LaMPs and Great Lakes Fishery Commission. This indicator
supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
For mean individual size, Mills et al. (1987) suggest 0.8 mm as an optimal size when the water column is
sampled with a 153-/^m mesh net. Endpoints for community composition and biomass and productivity
depend on the desired trophic state and type of fish community. Zooplankton as indicators of plankton
and ecosystem community health are still in the early stages of development. Some information on the
variability in zooplankton mean length is presented in Mills et al. (1987), and Johannsson et al. (1999b,c).
Empirical relationships can be found in the literature relating zooplankton biomass and production to
other state variables, such as total phosphorus, chlorophyll a concentration, primary production and
zooplankton mean length (Makarewicz and Likens 1979 (if rotifers are measured), (McCauley et al.
1980), Hanson and Peters 1984, Yan 1985, McQueen et al. 1986, Johannsson et al. 1999a). End points
for community structure are not clear now that new non-native zooplankton (Bythotrephes and
Cercopagus) have entered the lakes.
Features
This indicator tracks trends in zooplankton populations, including community composition, mean
individual size, and biomass and production, over time and space. Some data are available for Lake
Ontario from 1967, 1970, 1972 on composition and abundance. Composition, density, biomass and
production data are available for 1981-1995 from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Lake Ontario Long-Term Biological Monitoring (Bioindex) Program (Johannsson et al. 1998). Mean
individual size was not measured for the community during these years, but could be obtained from
archived samples. Zooplankton work on Lake Erie has been reviewed by Johannsson et al. (1999c).
Illustration
Zooplankton mean length, ratio of calanoids to cladocerans + cyclopoids and biomass can be presented
as line graphs if trend data a-e available. Shifts in composition might be better tracked using factor
analysis followed by multi-dimensional scaling to show how the community structure moves in a two-
dimensional space.
Limitations
At this point, it is not possible to rate mean individual size of zooplankton if they do not equal 0.8 mm. It is
unclear how different energy flow is if the mean size is 0.6 mm or 1.0 mm, and if 0.6 mm is equivalent to
1.0 mm.
Interpretation
Some of the other measures which would help with the interpretation of the zooplankton data would
include, total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, temperature, oxygen (in some regions), and, if possible, primary
production and phytoplankton composition and biomass.
25
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Comments
Composition: Changes in composition indicate changes in food-web dynamics due to changes in
vertebrate or invertebrate predation, and changes in system productivity. Ratios such as calanoids to
cladocerans + cyclopoids have been used to track changes in trophy. This particular ratio may NOT work
in dreissenid systems (Johannsson et al. 1999c).
Mean Individual Size: The mean individual size of the zooplankton indicates the type and intensity of
predation. When the ratio of piscivores to planktivores is approximately 0.2, the mean size of the
zooplankton is near 0.8 mm. These conditions are characteristic of a balanced fish community (Mills et al.
1987). There is a high degree of variability about this relationship and further work needs to be done to
strengthen this indicator. Total biomass and possibly production decrease with decreases in the mean
size of the zooplankton (Johannsson et al. 1999b).
Biomass and Productivity: Biomass can be used to calculate production using size and temperature
dependent P/B ratios for each of the major zooplankton groups. Production is a much better indicator of
energy transfer within a system than abundance or biomass.
Of these measures, composition and mean size are the most important. However, these factors provide
the information needed to calculate biomass and production.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 13: Degradation of phyto/zooplankton populations
Last Revised
July, 2002
26
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
#8132 Land Use
This indicator needs to be linked to #7002 Land Conversion - but we still need to be able to pull
out data for 1 km along shore.
Measure
Land use types, and associated area, throughout the Basin. Land use types could include urban
residential, commercial, and industrial, non-urban residential, intensive agriculture, extensive agricultural,
abandoned agricultural, closed canopy forest, harvested forest, wetland and other natural area.
Purpose
To assess the types and extent of major land uses throughout the Basin, and to identify real or potential
impacts of land use on significant natural features or processes, including the twelve special lakeshore
communities identified in the Biodiversity Investment Area work in SOLEC 1998-2000.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain diverse, self-sustaining terrestrial and aquatic communities. This indicator supports Annex 2 of
the GLWQA.
Endpoint
No net loss or alteration of significant natural features or processes from current conditions.
Features
This indicator will track trends in land uses over time (ideally 5 to 10 year periods) and focus on
identifying areas experiencing the greatest changes in land use intensity over time. To identify and map
land uses, this indicator will rely on a variety of methods, including remote sensing; aerial photography;
available land use planning data for areas identified as already experiencing rapid land use changes
(e.g., urban areas and cottage development); municipal data on building permits; and official plan/zoning
bylaw amendments. Subsequent yearly monitoring will establish an increase or decrease in the extent of
major land use types. This indicator is related to indicator #8136, Nearshore Natural Land Cover and to
#7002, Land Conversion.
Illustration
For each lake basin, lake, jurisdiction, and ecoregion, a table or graph will display annual changes in the
area and degree of interspersion of each land use (same as Land Conversion indicator).
Limitations
Data collection may be difficult for many reasons. Collection of detailed data on a regular basis may be
difficult due to the large area and the number of different jurisdictions to be examined. Differences in
types of land use planning data collected by jurisdictions may also hamper the collection of consistent
data to support this indicator. Some limited historical data are available on land use types, but these data
are focused on specific areas. A few basin-wide studies have been conducted that would provide a basic
description of land use trends (e.g., U.S. National Shoreline Inventory from the early 1970s and a recent
IJC water levels reference study) but it may be difficult to compare these data due to differences in
methodology and generalizations that may have been used.
Interpretation
Developing a baseline for this indicator will require both a review of existing data sources to determine
their usability, and a discussion among agencies to establish a common list of land use types and
parameters. Computerized analysis of satellite imagery may provide a cost-effective means of data
collection. A more detailed study and groundtruthing of selected areas, however, will be needed to
assess the relationship of land use changes to the loss or alteration of significant natural features and
processes. In particular, results from this indicator should be compared to results from indicator 8129,
27
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities, to assist in identifying land use change
patterns that threaten natural habitats.
Comments
The twelve special lakeshore communities are sand beaches, sand dunes, bedrock and cobble beaches,
unconsolidated shore bluffs, coastal gneissic rocklands, limestone cliffs and talus slopes, lakeplain
prairies, sand barrens, arctic-alpine disjunct communities, Atlantic coastal plain disjunct communities,
shoreline alvars, and islands.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental
integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised July 2, 2002
28
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
# NEW Health of terrestrial plant communities
Measure
Trends in time and space of 1) non-native insect or disease infestation of plants and 2) plant mortality or
damage (including deformities) throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the presence, abundance, distribution and trends over time of non-native
insects and diseases infesting plants, and their impacts on plant mortality or damage (including
deformities), as well as the impact of airborne and groundwater pollution on plant community health.
Ecosystem Objective
Healthy, diverse plant communities throughout the Great Lakes basin, providing habitat to support
diverse communities of animals. Plants should be abundant and readily available for human medicinal,
cultural and decorative use.
Endpoint
None at present, but presumably something such as "Absence or minimization of non-native disease or
insect infestations of plants, also, minimization of airborne and groundwater pollution, and therefore
absence or minimization of plant mortality or damage including deformities."
Features
Healthy native plant communities dominated the Great Lakes basin before European settlement. Many of
these plants were used by First Nations / Tribes as an integral part of their culture. Some of these
communities have sustained multiple ecological insults though non-native diseases, insect infestations
and pollution from atmospheric and groundwater sources. Re-establishment of healthy plant communities
means that appropriate habitat will be available for dependent animal communities as well. Human use of
these plants can then occur at a sustainable rate throughout much of the basin.
Illustration
To be developed
Limitations
Areal extent of insect and disease infestation on non-commercial plant communities.
Areal extent of pollution impacts on plant communities.
Control of the entry of non-native diseases and insects.
Interpretation
The target is an increase in areal extent of healthy plant communities, free of non-native insects,
diseases and impacts due to pollution. If the target values are met, the system can be assumed to be
healthy; if the values are not met then there is health impairment.
Comments
To be developed
Unfinished Business
To be developed
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, plants
Related Issue(s): pathogens, non-native species, habitat, atmospheric pollution, ground water pollution
SOLEC Grouping(s): terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring; 15: Airborne toxic substance; 16: Pollution from contaminated groundwater
29
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss of (fish and) wildlife habitat
30
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
NEW Landscape Ecosystem Health
Measure
The quantity, distribution and configuration of terrestrial natural cover, and the influence of adjacent land
uses on the natural system.
Purpose
To describe the makeup of land cover, especially the natural cover, and evaluate the state of the
terrestrial ecosystem and the effects of landscape changes over time on the terrestrial ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA
Endpoint
A sustainable ratio of natural, agricultural and urban land cover, in a distribution and configuration which
maximizes their function throughout the basin.
Features
This indicator will track changes in natural, agricultural and urban cover over time. It will look at their
relative abundance (ratio) and distribution. It will look at the configuration of the natural system, in
particular the size and shape of individual habitat patches (or habitat fragments). It will also look around
individual patches to determine the influence of land uses adjacent to the natural system. In some
measures the patches are evaluated individually but all results are reported as a value for the region (or
the natural system). The parameters can include Quantity (percent natural cover), Distribution, Land Use
Influence, Patch Size and Shape, and Connectivity (this one we don't have a measure for as yet and we
may decide that it is redundant given the other measures but we're still debating). This reporting of
landscape makeup will provide a summary or model of the function of the natural system in relation to
how it looks from the air. It will determine how efficient we are with the land and where pressures are more
than the terrestrial system can handle. This should correlate to water issues as well. Not only negative
but also positive changes will be reported on, such as those occurring from restoration, reduction of
intrusive land uses, or better conservation through official plans and policies.
Illustration
Individual habitat patches and broad land use categories are digitized using digital orthophotography or
satellite imagery. Patches, and subsequently the natural system, are analyzed using landscape analysis,
Geographical Information Systems (GIS), and a patch ranking system. Correlation of landscape mapping
to field data on species informs the landscape analysis model. Maps are generated showing the natural
system results for each measure.
Limitations
The landscape analysis provides some interpretation from the patch to the ecosystem scales despite the
lack of field data. However, the accuracy of the model and therefore the interpretation of landscape
health depends on the calibration to a valid field collected data sample. One question may be the
regional differences in how species react to habitat patch size, for example, therefore models may need
to be calibrated to ecoregions. Base mapping may be difficult to obtain uniformly across the entire
nearshore area, either due to funding or source issues.
Interpretation
Even today, the comparison of patches and their land use context can offer some insights into how to
make decisions at the landscape level. For example, we may see that isolated 10 hectare patches in
urban settings cannot perform as well as 10 hectare patches in agricultural settings. We may find that 10
hectare patches generally do not occur in urban areas. Over time, we can compare temporally the effect
of decisions on the landscape (we may find that the water management indicators are also correlated).
The landscape measures (quantity, distribution, configuration and land use) are prescriptive and provide
31
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
clear and concise suggestions such as "more habitat is needed here" or "improve the patch shape here".
It assists in the comparison of past decisions (good official plan design between Areas of Concern, for
example). Supported by field level species and community reporting, landscape reporting assists in
providing simple, large-scale summaries and recommendations.
Comments
This work lends itself well to developing targets for health, perhaps more than the field collected species
and community indicators on which it is based. Clarity is important if information will feed the policy
development process. The landscape model in a sense summarizes the field data and, although it cannot
be looked at alone, provides a more simple means of predicting change, quantifying targets and
generating specific actions. The field data is the "proof in the pudding".
Unfinished Business
Decide on the calculations at the patch and ecosystem scales
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state (and to some degree stress, in relation to the land use or matrix influence)
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): ??
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): (percent natural cover at different scales??)
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
32
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
NEW Status and Protection of Special Places and Species
Measure
Area, quality, and protected status of special places at the landscape level, and counts of those species
of special cultural or spiritual significance to peoples in the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To assess the status and degree of protection (at the landscape level) in area and quality of special
places and special species of cultural and spiritual significance especially to First Nations/ Tribes.
Special places include: ecologically unique areas e.g. rocky outcrops, large dead trees; and cultural
treasures, e.g. burial grounds and areas where medicinal herbs grow. Special or iconic species are ones
such as pileated woodpeckers, turtle, wolf, martens, medicinal herbs, bald eagles, American Otter, or
rare species.Additionally this indicator will infer the success of management activities associated with the
protection of areas and species.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports the overall goal of the GLWQA: "...maintain...biological integrity of the Great
Lakes basin." and Article IV, 1,c "outstanding resource value" and Annex 2, 1(c) xiv& 4(a), iii
Endpoint
No net loss in area or quality of special places or of the number and abundance of special species.
Features
To be developed
Illustration
Colour mapping could show the size and distribution of each special place including trends overtime (net
losses or net gains). Graphs and maps could show population distributions of special species and trend
in time information on populations.
Limitations
Data collection may be difficult because many of the special places may only be identified through
cultural association. It may not be possible to use remote sensing, for example. Data collection will
depend on individual memories. Special species counts may be easier, in that communities may be willing
to provide volunteers to do the counts.
Interpretation
Baseline information, frequency of monitoring (suggest 3-5 years) - see #8129 for other points to add.
Comments
This indicator provides easily understood information on the status of special places and culturally
significant species throughout the Great Lakes. The information conveyed by this indicator will help
aboriginal peoples and others to focus attention and management efforts on preserving and / or
rehabilitating these places and species.
Unfinished Business
To be developed
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state and societal response
Environmental Compartment(s): land, biota
Related Issue(s): habitat, societal response
33
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
SOLEC Grouping(s): societal
GLWQAAnnex(es):?????
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental
integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
July 2002
34
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Appendix B: Questions asked of the experts identified by LaMP
Committees
Science Issues concerning extent and impact of [non-native species /other stressors]
When (at what stage in the lifecycle) do the non-native species /other stressors interfere with native
species?
How does the non-native species /other stressor interfere? i.e. with other species or the habitat.
How do the native species compensate, if at all?
Do environmental conditions favour the success of the non-native species? Why? Are these
conditions reversible? How?
Indicators and Indices to monitor extent and impact of non-native species / other stressors
How did you monitor the relationship between native species and non-native species / other
stressors?
Is there an appropriate Great Lakes indicator, or set of indicators, that could be used to monitor the
biological integrity of the native species?
Is it feasible to develop indices of biological integrity to better categorize or classify the state of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem? If yes, what are some possible indices of Biological Integrity?
Supplementary Issues
The following questions were addressed at the Biological Integrity Workshop as time permitted. These
discussions are included in the Biological Integrity Workshop Proceedings and will be revisited at SOLEC
2002.
Managerial Actions
What management actions need to be taken to protect or restore the biological integrity of the Great
Lakes basin ecosystem? (With respect to non-native species / other stressors? With respect to
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)?)
What action(s) would enable recovery of the native species?
What action(s) would ensure the recovery was sustainable?
Potential Invaders to the Great Lakes
What are potential invaders to the Great Lakes? Are the effects of these invaders anticipated to be
more deleterious than the non-native species that we have previously encountered?
What research has been done on these potential invaders?
What preventative measures exist to hinder this invasion of non-native species?
Are there indicators/evidence to predict the number of non-native species that will enter the Great
Lakes region?
35
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
Appendix C: James Karr's Presentation at the Biological Integrity
Workshop
Notes prepared to outline in some detail the points made in my impromptu comments at SOLEC
Biological Integrity workshop at Windsor, Ontario, December 4-5, 2001 -James R. Karr
1. Need to tie several concepts together to make the framework and goals
coherent. Those concepts are:
Integrity: the biological condition and character of sites with minimal human influence,
ideally this is "wild nature"
Biological condition, the character of sites. Wild nature has a condition equal to
biological integrity defined above.
Healthy: a human defined goal that specifies the desired condition at a site. It may
diverge from integrity
Unhealthy: biological condition below some threshold that results in local or nearby
degradation.
Sustainable: sites with biological integrity or above the healthy-unhealthy threshold are
assumed by definition to be sustainable.
Unsustainable: sites below the threshold are both unhealthy and their use in that context
or framework is unsustainable.
For more on the context of my use of these words, see figures and accompanying text as follows:
Fig. 3, page 19 in Karr and Chu, Restoring Life in Running Waters (1999) and Fig. 12.1, page
213 in paper by Karr in Pimentel et al., Ecological Integrity (2000). Both of the cited documents
are in books published by Island Press.
2. Think gradient.
Avoid the tendency to think in terms of sites that are impaired or unimpaired as if there are two
classes. In reality, we are dealing with places that reflect a gradient of biological condition from
undisturbed (biological integrity) to various levels of degradation. See figures cited above and
premise 30, page 139 in Karr and Chu (cited above).
3. Understand the benchmark or baseline condition.
All sites have a biological condition expected in the absence of human activity (biological
integrity) although few if any sites truly reflect that condition today because of the pervasive
influence of human actions. But that benchmark condition still provides a stable base that can be
used to evaluate sites with diverse human influence. That biological condition of integrity (or
desired divergences from that condition as in healthy above) can serve as benchmark, guide,
and goal for assessment and planning processes (see section of paper from Ecological
Integrity book cited above on pages 214-215).
36
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
4. Think integratively about the entire process from conception of the problem to
development of indicators through to the communication of the results to policymakers and
citizens. I group these into 5 critical phases and no matter how good one step may be the
system will fail unless attention is paid to all of them, including to moving all of them forward,
at the same time. Those phases are conceptual, design, sampling, analytical, and
communication. The lessons here include the importance of thinking in terms of all three
levels of view (satellite, biplane, and canoe), for different kinds of environments (wetlands,
lakes, uplands), organisms (birds, fish, bugs), and kinds of human influence (mining,
agriculture, industrialization, point and non point sources, etc.). Failing to connect across
these dimensions will, over the long-term, result in a flawed process. In short, don't spend an
infinite amount of time on selecting indicators without giving attention to the other core and
crucial issues.
5. Understand the importance of two questions: What to measure? How to decide?
The failure to develop a systematic approach to answering these two questions has derailed
many monitoring and assessment programs before they get off the ground.
It is generally important to avoid the use of species as indicators. They are not widely distributed
enough to provide strong signal in a wide diversity of circumstance. Moreover, population sizes
of single species are often so naturally variable that it is difficult to sort out signal from noise.
Several other thoughts on this general topic. First, theory and logic are often not a good guide to
metric selection. Empirical evidence of a consistent relationship across a gradient of human
influence is crucial. When selecting measures be sure to pick measures that are relevant to the
societal endpoints that encompass the primary goal. That goal is most often some framing of
biological condition. Counts of bureaucratic activity (permits issued, fines levied, and other such
bean counts) rarely directly connect to that biological condition. In streams, trophic dynamics are
often mentioned as the best measures. Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Here again
don't trust theory and logic.
It is important to have multiple measures from diverse levels of biology (individual health,
population, community, landscape, etc.) that reflect biological sensitivity to various human
influences and over a range of spatial scales. (Note that the levels and the scales here are not
the same although they are often confused.)
6. Be careful about habitat goals.
Scientists and mangers often resort to language that says to restore habitat. Remember that the
goal is biological and just as connections between permits issued or chemical water quality
standards and biology are often not strong, our presumptions about the desired configuration of
habitat is often not connected to the real habitat needs of species. Besides, the goal here is to
protect biological or ecological integrity, not manage places to maximize the presumed optimal
habitat of some narrowly defined species.
37
-------
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
7. The goal needs to be understanding of the importance of "whole things."
Here I quoted from my paper in the Ecological Integrity book mentioned above. The title of that
paper is "Health, integrity, and biological assessment: The importance of measuring whole
things" (pages 209-226).
8. Think carefully about organizing and framing indicators in new ways.
Current discussions of indicator development focus on huge list of measures. Attempt to find the
common measures or classes of measures fiat will boil the metrics down to 10 or 12, and
discuss them as the same set of a dozen or so indicators, framed to convey biological character
regardless of habitat type. We use the same set of indicators to assess the condition of small
streams in areas as wide ranging as the Tennessee River system, the Pacific Northwest
(Oregon, Washington, and Idaho), Rocky Mountains (Wyoming) and several regions in Japan.
Rather than being buried in indicators, we select using the 2 questions listed above. We invoke
a standard process of indicator evaluation and assessment. Low and behold, when this
happens, a very similar set of measures emerges. The process of indicator development and
selection should work harder to define that common ecological principle and context framework,
as opposed to the current one which seems more attuned to making long lists, repetitively at
sequential meetings.
9. Keep in mind that the goal is assessment, not monitoring.
Biologists and water managers in a larger sense have monitored for most of the last century or
more. It can be shown without much trouble that not much useful has come from much of that
monitoring. A process that simply advocates more of the same "unguided or poorly guided
monitoring" will not change the situation. Frame and form the process as one with an
assessment goal, not a data collection (monitoring) goal. By doing that we refocus the energies
and efforts to more effectively answer the two questions above as well as to place the task in the
larger 5-phase process that I mentioned in item 4 above. That should both strengthen the
intellectual foundations of the process as well as the probability that it will produce policy relevant
information that can be communicated to diverse stakeholders.
38
------- |