The Great Lakes Indicator Suite:
Changes and Progress 2004
Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
Prepared by:
Christina Forst, ORISE Intern to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nancy Stadler-Salt, Environment Canada
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
-------
Table of Contents
1. Preface
2. Revised Great Lakes Indicator Framework
3. Changes to the Indicator Assessment Process
4. 2004 Great Lakes Indicator Suite and Status of Descriptions
5. Deleted or Replaced Indicators
6. Proposed Indicators with Descriptions and Sample Reports
7. Progress Indicator Reports - status of information
a. Sand Dunes #8129 (Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities)
b. Islands #8129 (Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities)
c. Ground Surface Hardening #7054
d. Non-native Species - Terrestrial, #9002
e. Breeding Birds #8150
Appendix 1 - Descriptions for all Indicators in the Great Lakes Suite of Indicators
Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
1. Preface
This document presents information to SOLEC participants about the development of Great Lakes
indicators since the release of the State of the Lakes Report 2003. Included are changes to the organizing
framework as well as to the indicators themselves.
Background
During 2003 and early 2004, external and internal peer reviews were conducted to objectively identify
strengths and weaknesses of the process, products and indicators of SOLEC. The external peer review
was conducted by a panel of experts on indicator monitoring and reporting systems outside the Great
Lakes basin. They examined SOLEC on a broad scale by evaluating overall SOLEC efficiency, the
Parties' approach to science-based reporting on Great Lakes assessments, and the SOLEC approach
compared to other regional, national and international indicator efforts.
The second, internal peer review workshop consisted of a review and evaluation of the suite of Great
Lakes basin indicators by an independent, knowledgeable group of data generators and information users
from the Great Lakes basin. The objectives of this second session included evaluating the entire suite of
indicators for their utility, success and effectiveness in reporting and influencing decision makers.
Suggestions for improvement as well as positive validations emerged from both of these peer reviews. A
full description and record of the proceedings and results of the SOLEC Peer Reviews is being prepared
by U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, and will be available in early 2005.
In the months preceding SOLEC 2004, specific recommendations originating from the peer reviews and
from SOLEC 2002 were recognized and where possible, incorporated. For example, steps were taken to
reduce or consolidate existing indicators into a more manageable presentation by "bundling" groups of
related indicators together. This was a suggestion made at both peer review sessions. Additionally, the
indicators themselves underwent review and revision resulting in the deletion, combination, replacement
or proposal of indicators and their descriptions. These and other changes are documented for review by
SOLEC 2004 participants in this paper.
2. Revised Great Lakes Indicator Framework
A strong message that emerged from both Peer Review sessions was the need to reduce the overall
number of indicators by identifying and eliminating those indicators that may be unnecessary or
redundant. An additional and related comment was that in order to accomplish this reduction, categorical
groupings of indicators by topic, issue or theme could be developed. Based on these recommendations,
SOLEC organizers grouped related indicators into the following categories and sub-categories (or
"bundles" and "sub-bundles") for ease in and presentation of related information and understanding of the
larger issue:
1. Contamination
a. Nutrients
b. Toxics in Biota
c. Toxics in Media
d. Sources and Loadings
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
-------
2. Biotic Communities
a. Fish
b. Birds
c. Mammals
d. Amphibians
e. Invertebrates
f. Plants
g. General
3. Invasive Species
a. Aquatic
b. Terrestrial
4. Coastal Zones
a. Nearshore Aquatic
b. Coastal Wetlands
c. Terrestrial
5. Aquatic Habitats
a. Open Lake
b. Groundwater
6. Human Health
7. Land Use - Land Cover
a. General
b. Forest Lands
c. Agricultural Lands
d. Urban/Suburban Lands
e. Protected Areas
8. Resource Utilization
9. Climate Change
In this approach, many indicators are relevant to more than one category. For example, "Contaminants in
Sport Fish" is included in both "Contamination: Toxics in Biota" and "Human Health." All of the
indicators within a category, however, contribute to a more complete evaluation of environmental
conditions pertaining to that category.
Other categories are possible, and they may of greater usefulness in the future. Likewise, the "old"
categories previously used for reporting Great Lakes indicators may still be relevant for some users. As
originally conceived, the Great Lakes suite of indicators was developed around the topics of open and
nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, land use, human health, societal, and unbounded.
Each indicator was associated with one primary category, but all the indicators were also evaluated for
relevancy to other SOLEC categories and to other major environmental groupings (e.g., land, water, air,
biota), issues (e.g., contaminants, invasive species, urban sprawl), or indicator systems (e.g., IJC Desired
Outcomes, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Impaired Beneficial Uses).
The categories currently listed are incomplete, and others may be incorporated in the future. For
example, under "Aquatic Habitats," indicators have yet to be identified and developed for inland surface
waters, including tributaries, inland lakes, and inland wetlands. The category "Resource Utilization" is
also very incomplete and will require quite extensive consideration of socio-economic indicators relevant
to the assessment of Great Lakes ecosystem components. Likewise, "Human Health" could be expanded
to "Human Health and Well Being" and include indicators to assess social values of residents in the Great
Lakes basin.
Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
3. Changes to the Indicator Assessment Process
In response to suggestions from the peer reviews that the SOLEC process for the assessment of indicators
was not sufficiently transparent or standardized, some changes were made to make assessments more
credible and internally consistent. Previously, the available assessment options were restricted to Good,
Mixed Improving, Mixed, Mixed Deteriorating, and Poor. These were not always sufficient or helpful.
For SOLEC 2004, a system is being used to better express the relative condition and trend for all
indicators. Authors have provided a qualitative assessment as they have done in the past, but the
assessment categories are now less ambiguous. Specifically, authors have provided a "condition" of the
ecosystem related to their indicator by selecting a "good, fair, poor or mixed" status and then assigning a
"direction" of "improving, unchanged, deteriorating or undetermined" to each indicator.
Four broad ranking categories were used to characterize the assessments:
Good. The state of the ecosystem component(s) is/are presently meeting ecosystem objectives or
otherwise is in acceptable condition.
Fair. The ecosystem component(s) is/are currently exhibiting minimally acceptable conditions,
but it is not meeting established ecosystem objectives, criteria, or other characteristics of fully
acceptable conditions.
Poor. The ecosystem component(s) is/are severely negatively impacted and it does not display
even minimally acceptable conditions.
Mixed. The ecosystem component(s) displays both good and degraded features.
In addition, four ecosystem trajectories (or trends overtime) were recognized:
Improving. Information provided by the report shows the ecosystem component(s) to be
changing toward more acceptable conditions.
Unchanging. Information provided by the report shows the ecosystem component(s) is/are
neither getting better nor worse.
Deteriorating. Information provided by the report shows the ecosystem component(s) to be
changing away from acceptable conditions.
Undetermined. Data are not available to assess the ecosystem component(s) over time, so no
trend can be identified.
4. 2004 Great Lakes Indicator Suite and Status of Descriptions
The current 2004 Great Lakes indicator suite is organized under the "bundle" structure. Each of the
indicators has been reviewed relative to its status in 2002, including possible changes in the descriptions
of the indicators (full descriptions for all indicators in the Great Lakes Suite can be viewed in
Appendix 1 to this report). Some indicators have been modified or added, and new descriptions have
been developed. In some cases, modifications have been suggested, but one or more experts have not yet
reviewed the indicator description in the context of the suggested changes. Indicators that have been
deleted since 2002 are listed in the next section of this report. The following definitions were applied to
the "Status" of each indicator:
New Indicator, New Description This indicator was not part of the 2002 suite, but it was
developed through a process that included a SOLEC-recognized group,
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
-------
No Action Taken
No Change
Proposed at 2002
Replaces #xxx
Revised Description
Revised Description Needed
e.g., Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium, Groundwater Indicator
Group, and Great Lakes Forestry Indicators Group
This indicator is currently on the Great Lakes indicators suite, but some
change has been suggested; to bring the description in line with the
current monitoring data, to revise the metrics being reported, or some
other action; but no action has yet occurred on this indicator, and no
report was prepared for 2004.
No change has been suggested in the indicator description from 2002,
and no change is required.
This indicator was proposed at SOLEC 2002, and it was accepted during
the SOLEC stakeholders review workshop of the indicator suite. A
description has been provided.
This indicator improves the suite of Great Lakes indicators by replacing
another that was being used in 2002.
The indicator was part of the Great Lakes indicators suite in 2002, but
the description has been revised.
This indicator remains part of the Great Lakes indicators suite, but
revisions are needed to the description/definition of the indicator. The
revisions have not yet been achieved, but a report was prepared for 2004
based on the old description.
Table 1. Great Lakes indicators included in SOLEC 2004 suite of indicators with status information.
Indicator
Number
111
4860
7061
114
115
121
124
4177
4201
4506
8135
8147
117
Bundle
CONTAMINATION
Nutrients
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels (Coastal Wetlands)
Nutrient Management Plans
Toxics in Biota
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Contaminants in Whole Fish
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearhore Fish
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Toxics in Media
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Status
No change
No change
Proposed at 2002
No change
No change
Proposed at 2002. Revised description
Proposed at 2002. Replaces 101
New title. Revised description
New indicator. Replaces 1 13 & 4083.
New description
Revised description
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
No change
Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
118
119
4175
4202
9000
117
4202
9000
8
9
17
93
125
4502
115
4507
8135
8150
8147
4504
7103
68
104
116
122
123
4501
109
4862
8162
8500
8114
8137
8161
8163
18
9002
9002
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Acid Rain
Sources and Loadings
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Air Quality
Acid Rain
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Fish
Salmon and Trout
Walleye
Preyfish Populations and Communities
Lake Trout
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Birds
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Wetland Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Mammals
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Amphibians
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Groundwater Dependent Animal and Plant Communities
Invertebrates
Native Freshwater Mussels
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Zooplankton Populations
Hexagenia
Benthic Amphipod (Diporeia spp.)
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Plants
Phytoplankton Populations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Health of Terrestrial Plant Communities
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
General
Habitat Fragmentation
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Threatened Species
Status and Protection of Special Places and Species
INVASIVE SPECIES
Aquatic
Sea Lamprey
Non-Native Species (Aquatic)
Terrestrial
Non-Native Species (Terrestrial)
COASTAL ZONES
Nearshore Aquatic
No change
No change
Revised description
New indicator. Replaces 4176. New
description
No change
No change
New indicator. Replaces 4176. New
description
No change
No change
No change
New title
Revised description
Proposed at 2002
Revised description
No change
New title. Revised description
Revised description needed
No change
Revised description needed
New title. Revised description
Proposed at 2002. Revised description
No change
No change
Revised description needed
No change
No change
Revised description
Revised description needed.
New indicator. Replaces #451 3. New
description
Proposed at 2002.
New indicator. Description available
No change
No action taken
No change
Proposed at 2002. No action taken
No change
New indicator. Need description
New indicator. Need description
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
-------
6
4860
4861
4864
8131
8142
8146
4501
4502
4504
4506
4507
4510
4511
4516
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4861
4864
8129
8129
8129
8129
8131
8132
8136
8137
8142
8149
6
111
118
119
8131
8142
8146
7100
7101
7102
7103
4175
4177
4179
Fish Habitat
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels (Coastal Wetlands)
Effect of Water Levels Fluctuations
Human Impact Measures (Coastal Wetlands)
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment
Artificial Coastal Structures
Coastal Wetlands
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Coastal Wetland Restored Area by Type
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels
Effect of Water Levels Fluctuations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Land Cover Adjacent to Wetlands (Coastal Wetlands)
Human Impact Measures
Terrestrial
Effect of Water Levels Fluctuations
Human Impact Measures
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Alvars
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Islands
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Cobble
Beaches
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Sand Dunes
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment
Protected Nearshore Areas
AQUATIC HABITATS
Open Lake
Fish Habitat
Phosphorus Concentration and Loadings
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment
Artificial Coastal Structures
Groundwater
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Base Flow due to Groundwater Discharge
Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities
HUMAN HEALTH
Drinking Water Quality
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
No action taken
No change
No change
New indicator. New description
No change
No action taken
No change
Revised description
Revised description
Revised description
Revised description
New title. Revised description
Revised description
Revised description
No action taken
No change
No change
New indicator. Replaces #451 3. New
description
New indicator. New description
New indicator. New description
No change
New indicator. New description
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
No change
No action taken
No action taken
No action taken
No action taken
No action taken
No action taken
No change
No change
No change
No change
No action taken
No change
Proposed at 2002. Revised description
Proposed at 2002. Revised description
Proposed at 2002. Revised description
Proposed at 2002. Revised description
Revised description
New title. Revised description
No change
Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
4200
4201
4202
4863
7002
7101
8114
8132
8136
8500
8501
8502
8503
7028
7061
7062
7000
7006
7054
8129
8129
8129
8129
8149
8163
3514
3516
7043
7056
7057
7060
7064
4858
9003
Beach Advisories, Posting and Closures
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Air Quality
LAND USE- LAND COVER
General
Land Use Adjacent to Wetlands (Coastal Wetlands)
Land Cover - Land Conversion
Groundwaterand Land: Use and Intensity
Habitat Fragmentation
Nearshore Land Use
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Forest Lands
Forest Lands- Conservation of Biological Diversity
Maintenance and Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems
Maintenance and Forest Ecosystem Health and Vitality
Forest Lands- Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources
Agricultural Lands
Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Nutrient Management Plans
Integrated Pest Management
Urban/Suburban Lands
Urban Density
Brownfield Redevelopment
Ground Surface Hardening
Protected Areas
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Alvars
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Cobble
Beaches
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Islands
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Sand Dunes
Protected Neashore Areas
Status and Protection of Special Places and Species
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
Commercial / Industrial Eco-Efficiency
Household Stormwater Recycling
Economic Prosperity
Water Withdrawal
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Generation
Vehicle Use
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Climate Change: Effect on Crop Heat Units
New indicator. Replaces 4081 . New
description
New indicator. Replaces 1 13 & 4083.
New description
New indicator. Replaces 4176. New
description
New indicator. New description
Revised description needed
Proposed at 2002. Revised description
No change
No action taken
No action taken
New indicator. New description
New indicator. Description needed
New indicator. Description needed
New indicator. Description needed
No action taken
Proposed at 2002
Proposed at 2002
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
Revised description needed
No action taken
Proposed at 2002. No action taken
Proposed at 2002
Proposed at 2002
Revised description needed
No change
No change
Revised description needed
Proposed at 2002. Replaces 7012. No
action taken
No change
Proposed at 2002
5. Deleted or Replaced Indicators
One of the expected outcomes from the external peer review of SOLEC processes and products and the
stakeholder's review of the Great Lakes suite of indicators is a recognition that some changes would
strengthen the biennial evaluation of the conditions of Great Lakes. Some indicators were unnecessary
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
-------
and redundant, some indicator topics were over-represented, and some indicators did not add value to
making better management decisions. The suggestions to delete or replace an indicator came from the
two peer reviews of the indicators, from recognized groups developing indicators for a particular
ecosystem component (e.g., wetlands, forest lands, groundwater), or from some other recognized
authority on the ecosystem component being assessed by the indicators.
The following table presents those indicator titles that have been removed from the active Great Lakes
suite of indicators since 2002. The indicator status and/or rationale for removal from the suite is also
provided.
Table 2. Great Lakes indicators removed from the suite during 2003 - 2004, with Status and Rationale
for the changes.
Indicator
Number
101
113
120
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
New-3515
New-3517
New-3518
New-3519
New-3520
New-3521
4081
4083
4088
4176
4178
4503
4513
4519
Deleted or Replaced Indicators
Deformities, Eroded Dins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in
Nearshore Fish
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminant Exchanges between Media: Air to Water and
Water to Sediment
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
Cosmetic Pesticide Control
Commercial/Industrial Environmental Management Systems
Community Engagement in Great Lakes Protection &
Decision Making
Environmental Education
Household Solid Waste Minimization
Taxes on Energy/CO2
E. coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore Recreational
Waters
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
Air Quality
Radionuclides
Deformities, Eroded Dins, Lesions and Tumors (DELT) in
Nearshore Fish
Presence, Abundance and Expansion of Invasive Plants
Climate Change: Number of Extreme Storms
Status and Rationale Change
Replaced by #124, External Anomaly Prevalence Index for
Nearshore Fish (new) which is more inclusive and representative.
Combined with #4083. Replaced by #4201 , Contaminants in Sport
Fish (new)
Deleted. Too research oriented; contaminant presence in the
media is already covered under #1 1 7, #1 1 8, and #1 1 9.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop. (In the future this
indicator will be replace by an indicator called: Residential and
Commercial Pesticide Consumption and Application)
Replaced/incorporated into #3514, Commercial / Industrial Eco-
efficiency.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop.
Deleted. Difficult to establish a solid connection between education
and the level of commitment to environmental issues.
Replaced/incorporated into Solid Waste Generation indicator
#7060.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop.
Replaced by #4200, Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
(new).
Combined with #113. Replaced by #4201 , Contaminants in Sport
Fish (new).
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop. Ambiguous and
difficult method of data collection and weak connection human
health impact.
Replaced by #4202, Air Quality (new)
Deleted. Difficult to measure and limited in its usefulness to policy
makers and regulatory agencies.
Replaced by #124, External Anomaly Prevalence Index for
Nearshore Fish (new) which is more inclusive and representative.
Replaced by #4862, Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
which is more inclusive and representative.
Deleted. Questioned for its usefulness, especially when other
climate change indicators might be more useful such as depth,
10
Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
4857
7012
7042
7053
7055
7059
New-7063
8134
8139
8140
8141
New-81 64
Climate Change: First Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal
Wetlands
Mass Transportation
Aesthetics
Green Planning Process
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Wastewater Pollution
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Nearshore Plant and Animal Problem Species
Community / Species Plans
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
Landscape Ecosystem Health
amount and duration of snow cover.
Proposed for deletion.
Replaced by #7064, Vehicle Use.
Deleted. Needs a clearer description; will be covered within other
indicators.
Proposed for deletion, January 2004 Workshop.
Replaced by #4863, Land Cover Adjacent To Wetlands
Combined with #7063: Municipal Wastewater Treatment. To be
replaced by Wastewater Treatment (proposed).
Combined with #7059: Wastewater Pollution. To be replaced by
Wastewater Treatment (proposed).
Deleted. Covered by #104 Benthos Diversity and Abundance
(revised), #8137 Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability and
#8129 Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities.
Deleted. Programmatic indicator that does not help with the
understanding of the ecosystem.
Deleted. Programmatic indicator that does not help with the
understanding of the ecosystem.
Deleted. Programmatic indicator that does not help with the
understanding of the ecosystem.
Deleted. Too similar to #7002, Land Conversion.
6. Proposed Indicators with Descriptions and Sample Reports
SOLEC is a continually evolving process and proposals for new indicators are accepted throughout the
SOLEC cycle for presentation, critique and potential acceptance into the full suite of Great Lakes
indicators. For SOLEC 2004, sample descriptions and/or sample reports for the proposed indicators in the
table below were submitted to SOLEC organizers. The descriptions and reports themselves are included
here. Please provide any comments back to SOLEC organizers.
Proposed Indicators
Wastewater Treatment
Status
sample description and report; proposed
to replace #7059 & #7063
The following indicators are grouped under the new proposed Well Being Indicator Suite:
Value of the Great Lakes to Basin Residents
Sense of Place: Indian Tribes Around the Great Lakes Basin
National Park Visitation
Capacity of Federal Program for Great Lakes Priorities
Public Recreational Access to the Great Lakes
Access to Information about the Great Lakes
Research/Educational Opportunities
Population and Income Distribution
sample description
sample description and report
sample description and report
sample description
sample description
sample description
sample description
sample description
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
11
-------
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
New Indicator; (Proposed sample report available)
Measure:
Proportion of the population served by municipal sewage treatment facilities, percent of collected
wastewater that is treated, level of municipal treatment provided (primary, secondary, tertiary, and/or
advanced treatment technologies), and the loadings of metals, phosphorous, BOD, and organic chemicals
that are released by sewage treatment plants and industrial discharges into water courses of the Great
Lakes basin.
Purpose:
This indicator will assess the scope of municipal sewage treatment and the commitment to protecting
freshwater quality in the Great Lakes basin. The quality of wastewater treatment in terms of the loadings
of pollutants discharged into the Great Lakes basin will be used to infer the potential adverse impacts to
human and ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective:
To reduce the pressures induced on the ecosystem by insufficient wastewater treatment networks and
procedures and further progression towards sustainable development.
Endpoint:
To provide municipal sewage treatment facilities to the greatest portion of the population and to treat all
wastewater to a quality that ensures waters released back into the ecosystem approach the ambient quality
of the area they are being discharged to.
Features:
This indicator measures progress toward safe and innocuous wastewater releases to the environment. In
particular, this indicator provides information on how well local governments are managing wastewater
generated in their communities. Measuring the level and type of treatment used provides additional
information on the quality of the water returned to the environment. Measures of the percent of
population connected to the municipal treatment facilities (over a select time period) can be used as an
indicator of sprawl, since greenfield development may not supported by municipal infrastructure services.
Illustrations:
• Percent of population connected to sewage treatment systems over specific time period (by
basin?) - bar
• Percent of wastewater treated vs. percent of wastewater collected - line
• Level of treatment based on type of treatment - pie
• Loadings over time (by jurisdiction / by basin / overall?) - multi bar
Limitations:
Though most municipalities produce wastewater treatment data, it may require considerable effort to
collect all the information, particularly in smaller or more rural communities. Wastewater treatment
technologies vary by municipality and, in some cases, may be difficult to classify. Although data are
largely available, they are not collected on a necessarily comparable fashion for both the U.S. and
Canada. Some work is required to ensure that Ontario data is consistent with the U.S. Since much
industrial wastewater flows to municipal sewage treatment facilities the efficiency of these in reducing
waste can be hidden.
Interpretation:
12 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
Wastewater treatment is dependent on the quality of the incoming wastewater, the state of the technology
used to process the wastewater, and other factors such as fugitive leaks that can increase volumes
dramatically at certain times resulting in a deterioration of the quality of wastewater. This indicator can
also be used to monitor progress toward more comprehensive wastewater treatment in terms of quality
and scale of the treatment system.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 13
-------
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution - Proposed Sample Report
New Indicator
Assessment: N/A
Purpose
This indicator will assess the scope of municipal sewage treatment and the commitment to protecting
freshwater quality in the Great Lakes basin. The quality of wastewater treatment in terms of the loadings
of pollutants discharged into the Great Lakes basin will be used to infer the potential adverse impacts to
human and ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Wastewater refers to the contents of sewage systems -liquid wastes from municipal, institutional, and
industrial sources as well as stormwater. Wastewater effluent is what is released into the environment
after treatment.
Wastewater contains a large number of potentially harmful pollutants, including some that are the result
of biological activity others such as the over 200 identified chemicals from industries, institutions,
households, and other sources.
Wastewater systems are designed to collect and treat wastes, however, wastewater receives various levels
of treatment to remove pollutants prior to discharge, ranging from no treatment to very sophisticated and
thorough treatments. Wastewater effluent is released into different environments: lakes, ponds, streams,
rivers, and estuaries. Despite treatment, effluents released from wastewater systems can still contain
pollutants of concern since even advanced treatment systems cannot remove all pollutants and chemicals.
Some sewer collection and treatment systems are combined with stormwater collection systems, and they
can become overloaded during heavy rainfalls, resulting in the release of partially treated effluent directly
into the waterways.
According to Environment Canada's publication The State of Municipal Wastewater Effluents in Canada,
municipal wastewater effluents can contain:
• grit, debris, and suspended solids, which can discolour the water, make it unfit for
recreational, domestic, and industrial use, and eventually smother and contaminate plant and
animal life on the bottom of the receiving water body;
• disease-causing pathogens (e.g., bacteria and viruses), which can make the water unfit for
drinking, swimming, and other recreational uses and can contaminate shellfish;
• decaying organic wastes, which use up the water's dissolved oxygen and threaten the survival of
fish and other aquatic life;
• nutrients, which overstimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plants, giving rise to odours
and other aesthetic problems, diminished biodiversity, and, in some cases, toxic contamination of
shellfish; and
• about 200 different identified chemicals, many of which may be either acutely or chronically
toxic to aquatic organisms and may pose a health risk to humans. Many of these chemicals may
have long-term environmental effects, as they are not easily broken down and tend to accumulate
in aquatic or terrestrial organisms through the food chain.
Concentrations of these contaminants can be high in untreated sewage, stormwater, and combined sewer
overflows (CSO), but even treated sewage may contain smaller quantities of these harmful substances.
14 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
The goals of wastewater treatment are to reduce the pressures induced on the ecosystem by insufficient
wastewater treatment networks and procedures and further progression towards sustainable development.
State of the Ecosystem
The concentration and type of effluent released into the receiving body of water depends heavily on the
type of sewage treatment used. The three most common types of sewage treatment, are primary,
secondary, and tertiary.
Primary Sewage Treatment
To prevent damage to pumps and clogging of pipes, raw wastewater passes through
mechanically raked bar screens to remove large debris, such as rags, plastics, sticks, and cans.
Smaller inorganic material, such as sand and gravel, is removed by a grit removal system. The
lighter organic solids remain suspended in the water and flow into large tanks, called primary
clarifiers. Here, the heavier organic solids settle by gravity. These settled solids, called primary
sludge, are removed along with floating scum and grease and pumped to anaerobic digesters
for further treatment.
Secondary Sewage Treatment:
The primary effluent is then transferred to the biological or secondary stage. Here, the
wastewater is mixed with a controlled population of bacteria and an ample supply of oxygen.
The microorganisms digest the fine suspended and soluble organic materials, thereby removing
them from the wastewater. The effluent is then transferred to secondary clarifiers, where the
biological solids or sludges are settled by gravity. As with the primary clarifier, these sludges
are pumped to anaerobic digesters, and the clear secondary effluent may flow directly to the
receiving environment or to a disinfection facility prior to release.
Tertiary Sewage Treatment:
Advanced wastewater treatment is the term applied to additional treatment that is needed to
remove suspended and dissolved substances remaining after conventional secondary treatment.
This may be accomplished using a variety of physical, chemical, or biological treatment
processes to remove the targeted pollutants. Advanced treatment may be used to remove such
things as colour, metals, organic chemicals, and nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen).
Source: The State of Municipal Wastewater Effluents in Canada (http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-
ree/English/soer/MWWE.pdf)
Within the Great Lakes basin tertiary treatment is the most common type of sewage treatment, as is
illustrated in figure one.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 15
-------
Percent of Population Served by Each Treatment Type (in
1999)
D primary
• stabilizing ponds
• secondary
• tertiary
71.31 %
21.26%
Source: Municipal Water Use Database Web site: (http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/use/e_data.htm)
After treatment the concentration of harmful contaminants is reduced, but the following constituents,
mostly associated with human waste, are present in all sewage effluent.
• biodegradable oxygen-consuming organic matter (measured as biochemical oxygen demand or
BOD);
• suspended solids (measured as total suspended solids or TSS);
• nutrients, such as phosphorus (measured as total phosphorus and/or ortho-phosphates) and
nitrogen-based compounds (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and ammonium, which are measured either
separately or in combination as total nitrogen);
• microorganisms (which are usually measured in terms of the quantity of representative groups of
bacteria, such as fecal coliforms or fecal streptococci, found in human wastes); and
• sulphides.
Acknowledgements
Author: Erin Clark, Environment Canada
16
Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL BEING
A Proposed Suite of Societal Indicators
For the last several years State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLECs) participants have
attempted to scope out a potential suite of "societal" or "human response" or "well being" indicators.
Thus far, we have succeeded in illuminating the topic but have not managed to succinctly state and define
indicators that would make up the suite. There are several reasons for this. First, in general, SOLEC
participants are scientists and managers, not social scientists. Societal indicator development requires a
group of economists and social scientists to work together much as the coastal wetlands scientists
developed the current coastal wetlands indicator suite. Second, SOLEC participants have been occupied
with developing chemical, biological, and physical indicators of ecosystem health, including human
health, and have had little time to focus on the other factors associated with the well being of people.
Proposed below is a suite of eight "well being" indicators. It is our intention that these indicators
complement the human health indicator "bundle" or category. We recommend that the "Human Health"
category be renamed "Human Health and Well Being" once the following indicators are vetted in the
SOLEC process.
Each indicator below is followed by a draft indicator description. Two—Sense of Place: Indian Tribes
Around the Great Lakes Basin and National Park Visitation—have been analyzed with available data in
order to demonstrate that there is data available and that societal indicator analyses are possible within our
current SOLEC process. Both of the analyzed indicators need review by social scientists and other experts
in order to edit to proper language and eventually provide valuable information as Great Lakes indicators.
We recommend a new working group of social scientists to review the following indicators, revise them,
and present a suite of "well being" indicators at SOLEC 2006.
DRAFT
Well Being Suite of Indicators:
1. Value of the Great Lakes to Basin Residents
2. Sense of Place: Indian Tribes Around the Great Lakes Basin
3. National Park Visitation
4. Capacity of Federal Programs for Great Lakes Priorities
5. Public Recreational Access to the Great Lakes
6. Access to Information about the Great Lakes
7. Research/Educational Opportunities
8. Population and Income Distribution
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 17
-------
Value of the Great Lakes to Basin Residents
New Indicator
Measure
Survey of representative number of Great Lakes Basin residents about responsibility for and awareness of
the Great Lakes as a vital resource.
Purpose
To explore the connections, values, attitudes and general knowledge which residents of the Great Lakes
basin hold about the Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Provide Great Lakes educators and managers information about the importance of the Great Lakes to the
region's residents.
Endpoint
All Great Lakes basin residents will act responsibly in managing Great Lakes resources because the Great
Lakes are a vital resource.
Features
A representative population of the Great Lakes basin will be surveyed by telephone to elicit responses in
the following areas:
- Sense of personal responsibility for the Great Lakes
- Impressions of the Great Lakes
- Awareness of present or potential threats to the Great Lakes
- Support for water exports
- Reasons for caring about the Great Lakes
- Effectiveness of government actions to protect the Great Lakes
Illustration
An analysis of percentages of responses to the survey questions will be graphed.
Limitations
An independent group such as the Biodiversity Project must initiate any survey on the US side due to the
constraints of the Government Paperwork Reduction Act which limits surveys by US government
agencies to nine without OMB permission.
Interpretation
The responses to the survey questions will indicate a qualitative measure of Great Lakes residents'
awareness and understanding of Great Lakes resources and issues.
Comments
In January 2003, The Biodiversity Project (Madison, Wisconsin) with the Joyce Foundation, released a
report based on a survey conducted by Belden, Russonello & Stewart. The report that resulted from the
survey is called Great Lakes: Responsibility and Awareness about a Vital Resource, Summary Analysis of
Public Opinion in Great Lakes States. The report contains information that is continuing to inform Great
Lakes education and outreach programs. The survey results can be found at
http://www.biodiversityproject.org/GLSummaryAnalysis.PDF. A similar report is found in Canada.
Unfln ish ed Busin ess
18 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
The indicator requires scrutiny and refinement by the originators of the reports and by social scientists.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Human response
Environmental Compartment: Societal
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping: Social Values
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
September 2004
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 19
-------
Sense of Place: Indian Tribes Around the Great Lakes Basin
New Indicator; (Proposed sample report available)
Measure
Importance of the Great Lakes ecosystem to Great Lakes Indian Tribes/First Nations.
Purpose
To assess how and why Indian Tribes/First Nations value natural resources, how natural resources are
managed on Indian reserves, and how Indian Tribes/First Nations are affected by natural resources
management decisions.
Ecosystem Objective
Human impacts to Great Lakes natural resources continue to degrade ecosystems.
Recognition by the Great Lakes community that many Great Lakes Indian Tribes/First Nations embrace
an ecosystem approach to management of natural resources and that this approach provides a model for
management in other areas of the basin.
Endpoint
To be determined.
Features
A variety of Indian Tribe/First Nation ideas and practices with regard to natural resource management
(traditional ecological knowledge or TEK) could be analyzed to contribute to ecosystem management
throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Illustration
A distribution map of the different Indian tribes around the Great Lakes Basin is the starting point for the
study of TEK practices. Narratives of natural resource management practices need to be collected.
Limitations
American Indians do not view themselves as a "special interest" group. In fact, there are close to 100
different Indian Tribes/First Nations in the Great Lakes basin, all with differing histories, natural resource
holdings, and cultural needs. In the US, Indian Tribes retain a status equal to states. Also, Tribal lands
contain natural resources important to the culture and Indian Tribes/First Nations are not likely to readily
share information about either the resources or cultural practices associated with them (i.e., medicinal
plants). In addition, the past and current history of Indian Tribe/First Nation lands in both the US and
Canada is contentious.
Interpretation
Human values, beliefs, and attitudes, including those of resource professionals, are part of social and
institutional environments, which support management decisions or create restraints on what managers
accomplish.
The identity associated with that community does not occur automatically; rather, identity centers around
the interactions devoted to constructing a sense of place and commitment to the surrounding environment
called home. However, community identity encompasses interrelated components centering on social
interaction, including personal commitment, professional obligation, civic duty, and leisure.
20 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
Comments
Documents cited and analyzed are Exposure assessment and initial intervention regarding fish
consumption of tribal members of the Upper Great Lakes Region in the United States' Environmental
Research. Volume 95, Issue 3, July 2004, Pages 325-340
John A. Bellinger. And the other document cited is Linking Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
SOLEC: Summary and Final Recommendations, prepared by Environment Canada -Ontario Region and
Chiefs of Ontario by Deborah McGregor July 2001.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Human Response
Environmental Compartment: Societal
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping: Social Values
GLWQA Annex (es):
IJC Desired Outcomes:
GLFC Objectives
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
September 2004
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 21
-------
Sense of Place: Indian Tribes around Great Lakes Basin - Proposed Sample Report
Assessment
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indians are experiencing cultural, economic, and political shifts in local community development efforts.
The intense interest of Indian peoples and their tribal governments in the region's ecosystems and natural
resources is founded in their long-term relationship with and spiritual attachment to the land As a Tribe
chooses a particular development strategy, it must also "negotiate" the accompanying social identities
associated with these efforts. Factors including length of residence, feeling accepted or welcomed within
the community, and values placed on environmental protection and economic development are evaluated
in relation to community identity.
Purpose
To assess how and why Indian Tribes/First Nations value natural resources, how natural resources are
managed on Indian reserves, and how Indian Tribes/First Nations are affected by natural resources
management decisions.
State of the Ecosystem
Human dimensions refer to how and why humans value natural resources, how humans want resources
managed and how humans affect or are affected by natural resources management decisions. It covers a
variety of ideas and practices including cultural, social, and economic values, individual and social
behavior, demographics, legal and institutional frameworks of management, communication and
education and decision making process of ecosystem management.
Ecosystems are places where biophysical and social components interact as a whole. All ecosystems have
flows of energy, organisms, water, air, and nutrients and each element is affected by other elements. All
ecosystems change over space and time.
CULTURE
\
\ tfW
— \ SOCIAL j -j- | i'.;'!•'"'!
/ -'"!'.' '• , /
',%$
Aboriginal people contribute to the Great Lakes ecosystem, providing valuable insight as how current
society might reestablish more harmonious ways of relating to the Great Lakes basin.
22 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
First nations collectively hold thousands of years of knowledge and understanding of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. This knowledge, referred to as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), has allowed
aboriginal people to live, prosper from and contribute to the Great Lakes ecosystem. (Ref Linking
Traditional Ecological Knowledge and SOLEC: Summary and Final Recommendations, prepared by
Environment Canada -Ontario Region and Chiefs of Ontario by Deborah McGregor July 2001).
Indian Tribes settlements in 1600:
1 Sontee
7 Menominea 7 Sauk
3 laway ft MaMautan
4 . fa-chunk 9 Fox
S Illinois ID
Kickapao
13 Shawne*
14
lS*PMun
17 Nfeiulna
1ft. Aljoiikin
19 Huron
30*
Indian Tribes in the present around the Great Lakes Basin-Canada:
In this map, Canadian communities with a significant Aboriginal population and currently producing
mines are geographically displayed. Aboriginal communities, for purposes of these maps, are defined as
those Canadian communities with a self-identified population of 20% or more Aboriginal people, as
enumerated by the 1996 Census. For more information on the 1996 Census, visit the Statistics Canada
web site at www.statcan.ca.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
23
-------
•Whitesand/Arrn strong
Gull 6
Fort William
p«,;k, ff' long Lake #58
• Ginoogaming
Lake Nlpigon Ojlbw£y\c>^Rocky Bay
<,
Late Helen/Red Rocl<^,»
/^-rT*r<*—S-v» -P
Pic^iver)1* »pic Mc
Heron Bay\
Mi^ipiCOti
First Nation Communities
of the Great Lakes Basin
issanabie Cree
hapleau ujibway
eau Cree
runswick House
,_
Achippewas of N^
" Lake Huron
Note: The communities of Caldwell and Sand Point do not currently have a land base.
24
Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
Indian Lands
in the
Great Lakes Basin
vw t*t*» MvH *rJy M • ^ irtp
US &JN 4w «
Pressures
S American Indians do not view themselves as another "special interest" that needs to be factored
in (or trade off) with other interests when Federal agencies develops a management plan.
^ In addition to environmental complexity, cultural and political boundaries in the Great Lakes
Basin create one of the most complex resource management situations in the world. Two nations,
two provinces, eight states, a growing number of Indian tribes, and scores of local institutions
formally participate in basin management.
S Resource acquisition activities such as fishing, hunting, and plant and mineral gathering are
usually done within the context of traditional socio-cultural and economic systems. These native
foods are collected usually from a tribe's or traditional community's homeland and its socially
and /or traditionally significant ecological places-typically places on reservation or public lands.
^ Research is needed that integrates knowledge about the human and environmental dimensions to
aid decision-making about the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Management Implications
S A framework for ecosystem management is a description of steps and components necessary to
achieve desired goals. Steps and components to establishing a framework using TEK might
include criteria, principles, concepts, processes, interactions, fundamentals, relationships,
methods, and rules. Such a framework would place planning procedures within a broader,
proactive process that considers the social, economic, and biophysical components of Tribal/First
Nation ecosystems at the earliest stages of policy design. Specifically a framework based on an
ecosystem approach and using TEK would:
o Strive to maintain the integrity of ecosystems;
o Include long-term ecosystem health and the resiliency and vitality of social and economic
systems in its construct;
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
25
-------
o Recommend procedures for examining relations between the biophysical (land, air,
water, plant, and animal) and social (community, economic, cultural, and political);
o Consider people's expectations, management and ecological capabilities, scientific
methods, and current scientific literature;
o Describe temporal and spatial dimensions for planning and risk assessment, assessment
approaches, monitoring and evaluation needs, and stakeholder participation processes;
and,
o Identify ecosystem principles that can be used to develop agency procedures for
interagency coordination, planning, stakeholder involvement, and management.
S Meaningful dialogue through an effective consultation process is an important issue among tribes.
Consultation is not a single event but a process that leads to a decision. Even though consultation
means different things to different tribes: it can be a formal process of negotiation, cooperation
and policy level decision government and the Federal government or a more informal process.
Developing a consistent approach to consultation that meets tribal needs is one of the challenges
of Great Lakes ecosystem management.
•S The intimacy with and length of attachment to the land and the totality of landscape importance
has contributed to a strong sense of place for Indian people. Places of significance are created by
an intersection of nature, cultural uses, social system and cultural meanings.
^ Most managers, as well as biological and social scientists recognize an urgent need for integration
of biological and human dimensions in management as practiced in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Systematic evaluations are necessary to determine which techniques have been successful and
why, what are impediments for adoption o these innovative and what are human dimensions
research priorities to improve management.
S The human dimensions theme seeks to promote research into the value humans place on natural
resources, the expectations people have for management, how and why governance structures
have emerged the way they have and how stakeholders relate to the management process.
Further Work Necessary
S Management of the Great Lakes ecosystem is difficult because there is no single overarching
management authority. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes/First Nations need to be included in natural
resource management planning wherever appropriate.
S An evaluation of current human dimensions information and processes used in ecosystem
management, and impediments to adoption of more effective decision processes, is needed.
Acknowledgments:
Authors: Yamille Cirino-Santana, REM (Registered Environmental Manager), ORISE Research
Specialist on contract to USEPA Region 5- Great Lakes National Program Office. Karen Rodriguez,
Program Specialist, USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office.
Advice on the development and selection of Sense of Place indicator was received from:
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office: Mark Elster
USEPA Region 5: Tom Brody, Carmen Maso, John Haugland, Noel Kohl,
Environment Canada: A; Jamal
Sources:
Norton, Bryan G. 1992. A new paradigm for environmental management. In: Costanza, Robert; Norton,
Bryan G.; Haskell, Benjamin D., Eds. Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management.
Washington, DC: Island Press: 23-41.
Kassi, N. (1996). A Legacy of Maldevelopment. In J. Weaver (ed.), Defending Mother Earth: Native
American Perspectives on Environmental Justice. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 72-84.
26 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
Kauffmann, M.R.; Graham, R.T.; Boyce, D.A., Jr. [and others]. 1994. An ecological basis for ecosystem
management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-246. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p.
Krech, S., III. (1999). The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 27
-------
National Park Visitation
New Indicator; (Proposed sample report available)
Measures:
Number of acres (US) and square kilometers (Canada) of Great Lakes National Parks compared to
national totals.
Number of recreational visitors each year to US and Canadian Great Lakes National Parks compared to
national totals.
Proposed National Parks taken into consideration for an analysis are:
US Parks: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Grand Portage National
Monument, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Isle Royale National Park, Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
Canada Parks: Bruce Peninsula National Park, Georgian Bay National Park, Point Pelee National Park,
Pukaskwa National Park, St. Lawrence Islands National Park.
Purpose
The purpose is two-fold: 1) To compare acreage and visitation to Great Lakes National Parks and to other
National Parks in the US and Canada in order to assess their values as recreational resources; 2) To assess
the human impacts of recreation on the resources of the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
National Parks in the Great Lakes region protect in perpetuity fragments of the original landscape. They
often protect unique features or remnant populations of plants and wildlife. They also serve as important
reference sites to compare changes in the landscape due to increasing human use. Great Lakes National
Parks will continue to be recreational destinations for thousands of visitors to the Great Lakes region and
are important assets to the economies of both the US and Canada.
Endpoint
The US and Canada increase total acres (square kilometers) of National Park lands within the Great Lakes
region. The trend for Great Lakes National Park recreational visits is maintained overtime or increases to
year 2000 numbers.
Features
Total acreage (square kilometers) of Great Lakes National Parks and annual visitation will be compared
to the national US and Canada totals. In the US, historical visitation records are available since 1990. In
Canada, visitation records are available beginning in 1998.
In the US, visitation is defined as the number of days (1 person for four days equals 4 visits) or the
number of visits (1 person visits a park, stays four days but it is still one visit).
Illustration
A pie chart or graph will illustrate number of acres (square kilometers) for each Great Lakes National
Park and the total number of acres (square kilometers) for the country. A pie chart or graph will also
illustrate visitation totals for each park and totals for the countries.
Limitations
National Parks are only one of numerous recreational opportunities available to Great Lakes residents and
visitors. This indicator will provide a beginning to our understanding of Great Lakes recreational values.
28 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
Currently, data on visitation may not be consistently collected for a given park and the data are not
necessarily comparable between parks because of the different methods of estimating visitation.
Interpretation
Proportional acreage preserved and the number of annual visits can measure the value of National Parks
in a very simplistic way. Acreage of National Park lands in the Great Lakes is expected to remain more or
less constant, though some new parks may be added and the total acreage could increase through time.
This indicator will track the number of parks, total acreage, and visits so that we can assess relative use.
Visitor use per park and per acre in the Great Lakes will enable us to test whether visitation in the region
stays constant, increases or decreases through time. By comparing these numbers with national averages
we can assess the relative economic impact as well as the resolve of the citizens, communities and public
servants of the Great Lakes region to preserve the natural resources.
Comments:
If visitation decreases proportionally nationally, then decreased visitation to Great Lakes National Parks
may be attributed to general attitudes and not necessarily degradation of the resources.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Human response
Environmental Compartment: Societal
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping: Social Values
IJC Desired Outcome:
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
September 2004
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 29
-------
National Park Visitation - Proposed Sample Repor:
Assessment
Status: Fair; Trend: Improving
Visitor counts represent an inexact portrayal of the actual number of visitors to an area, as well as an
attraction's impact on the community. To ensure that existing sites are conserved for the use and
enjoyment of present and future generations, management, in conjunction with state leadership and user
groups, should develop consensus on criteria and methods to systematically assess existing sites and
proposed new sites. This assessment should be made to determine whether the site is of statewide
significance and whether adequate resources exist to operate and maintain the site.
Purpose
The purpose is two-fold: 1) To compare acreage and visitation to Great Lakes National Parks and to other
National Parks in the US and Canada in order to assess their values as recreational resources; 2) To assess
the human impacts of recreation on the resources of the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
National Parks in the Great Lakes region protect in perpetuity fragments of the original landscape. They
often protect unique features or remnant populations of plants and wildlife. They also serve as important
reference sites to compare changes in the landscape due to increasing human use. Great Lakes National
Parks will continue to be recreational destinations for thousands of visitors to the Great Lakes region and
are important assets to the economies of both the US and Canada.
State of the Ecosystem
US and Canadian National Parks provide a unique resource for outdoor recreation opportunities. The
presence of these parks in urban and rural areas is a significant natural resource that adds to the base of
opportunities for recreation and leisure. In the US, National Park attendance seems to have remained
steady or decreased over the last few years. In Canada, visitation has increased.
Parks Canada Attendance
V)
Bruce Peninsula georgianBay Point Pelee Pukaskwa St.Lawrence Islands
Islands
Canadian Parks
-1998-99 —• 1999-00 2000-01 —X 2001-02 —X 2002-03
30
Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
US Great Lakes National Park Visitation 1990-2003
I
-Sleeping Bear Dunes
-Grand Port age
Pictured Rocks
IndianaDunes
-IsleRoyale
-Cuyahoga Valley
-Apostle Islands
Total visitations of Great
Lakes national parks ( data
si nee 1990-2003).
Pressures:
•S In the US, racial and ethnic minorities are largely absent among visitors to national parks
(Goldsmith 1994). Several visitor surveys at parks throughout the country support this
observation. Without understanding the factors that may inhibit visitation among minority groups,
it will be difficult to develop strategies to engender support for National Park programs among a
broader and more diverse segment of the population.
•S In the US, acreage of National Park lands in the Great Lakes is expected to remain more or less
constant, or at least proportional to national acreages. A drop in visitation may be due to one or
more of the following:
o The self-selection factor (when people choose activities they enjoy and locations they
perceive to best provide for their chosen recreation experiences).
Parks are not walking distance and sometimes are difficult to get to.
Sagging economy or economic barriers: higher unemployment and high gas prices seem
to be determining factors.
Terrorism fears may have influenced travelers. (People are going to be sticking closer to
home).
A decrease in the value of the resource for recreational purposes.
Competing recreational opportunities.
Changes in recreational preferences.
Degradation of the resources so that their attractiveness is lessened.
Visitors are not satisfied with appropriate park facilities, services and recreational
opportunities. Park visitors may not understand and appreciate the significance of the
park they are visiting.
Education about park resources has been scaled back.
Adjacent development has changed historic view sheds, contributing to a lack of
understanding of their significance.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
31
-------
o New recreations (e.g., snow mobiles) are incompatible with resource preservation.
o Minorities' park visitation seems to be increasing, so the approach to visitor's services,
park history and interpretation are not well represented.
Management Implications:
S If visitation decreases proportionally nationally, then decreased visitation to Great Lakes parks
may be attributed to general attitudes and not necessarily degradation of the resources.
^ The disparity in National Park visitation between the majority and minority populations should be
a major concern among National Park managers and policy-makers for at least two important
reasons.
o First, racial and ethnic minority populations, particularly Hispanic populations, have
dramatically increased their share of the US population and will continue to increase over
the next several decades. For the first time in history, the Hispanic population will soon
supplant African Americans as the largest minority group in the US population.
o Second, if current patterns of visitation persist into the future, along with current
demographic trends, the probability of lower demand for National Park experiences
increases. If this should result, where will National Park programs rank among other
public policy priorities in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society?
• Without greater visitation and interest from among those populations that are
growing most rapidly, National Park programs, over time, are likely to be
supported by a smaller and shrinking segment of the US population.
Further Work Necessary:
National Park managers in both the US and Canada are confronted with increasingly complex and
challenging issues that require a broad-based understanding of the status and trends of park resources as a
basis for making decisions and working with other agencies and the public for the benefit of park
resources.
Acknowledgements:
ORISE Research Specialist on contract to USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office: Yamille Cirino-
Santana
Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network, U.S. National Park Service, Ashland, WI: Bill Route,
Coordinator
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office: Karen Rodriguez
Sources:
Floyd Myron. (2001). Managing National Parks in Multicultural Society: searching for common ground.
Managing Recreational Use. Vol. 18(3), pp.41-51.
Gobster, P.H., and A. Delgado. 1993. Ethnicity and recreation use in Chicago's Lincoln Park. In
Managing Urban and High-use Recreation Settings. P.H.
Gobster ed. General Technical Report NC-163. St. Paul, Minn.: U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
Goldsmith, J. 1994. Designing for diversity. National Parks 68 (May/June), 20-21.
32 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
Capacity of Federal Programs for Great Lakes Priorities
New Indicator
Measure
Annual budgets of key federal programs for Great Lakes priorities.
US: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of State, US Army Corp of
Engineers, Department of Interior, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Canada: Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment
Purpose
To assess the yearly overall funding for Great Lakes programs from US and Canada federal agencies.
Ecosystem Objective
To effectively allocate appropriate federal funding for Great Lakes environmental priorities.
Endpoint
To be determined. Must first run a cost exercise to determine the need.
Features
The budgets of key US and Canada federal programs with dollar amounts spent for key Great Lakes
programs.
Illustration
A chart of the key federal programs in the US and Canada with dollar amounts spent for key Great Lakes
programs.
Limitations
Data is available with interpretation by Northeast-Midwest Institute and a parallel organization in Canada.
Interpretation
The total of the Great Lakes funding by key US and Canadian federal programs will indicate the capacity
of federal programs to manage these priorities. Baseline will be the Great Lakes at the Millennium,
Priorities for Fiscal 2001 report by the Northeast-Midwest Institute (Sturtevant and Cangelosi 2001) and
a comparable report or reports for Canada.
Comments
This indicator would allow us to state what could be accomplished with full funding for particular
programs.
Unfln ish ed Busin ess
The indicator requires scrutiny and refinement by the originators of the reports and by social scientists.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Human response
Environmental Compartment: Societal
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping: Social Values
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 33
-------
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
September 2004
34 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
Public Recreational Access to the Great Lakes
New Indicator
Measure
Number of recreational boat access points, marinas, public beaches and public parks along the Great
Lakes shoreline.
Purpose
To assess public recreational access to the Great Lakes shoreline.
Ecosystem Objective
To ensure recreational access to the Great Lakes shoreline by the public.
Endpoint
To maintain the recreational boat access points, marinas, public beaches and public parks along the Great
Lakes shoreline in the numbers assessed in the baseline.
Features
Once the baseline is established, re-survey every five years.
Illustration
Bar chart for each access parameter by lake.
Limitation
Except for public parks and beaches, the information may be difficult to obtain. How many recreational
access points are sufficient for the Great Lakes public is unknown.
Interpretation
The higher the number of access points, the greater the recreational opportunities for the public.
Comments
The next step might be to determine number of access points relative to population density.
Unfin ish ed Busin ess
This indicator needs a "champion" agency or agencies to establish the baseline and collect and interpret
data.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Human response
Environmental Compartment: Societal
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping: Social Values
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
September 2004
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 35
-------
Access to Information about the Great Lakes
New Indicator
Measure
Average number of Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) visits, pages, files and hits to the GLIN
Internet website per year.
Purpose
To interpret the degree of public access to electronic information about the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Information about the Great Lakes ecosystem will be readily available electronically through the Great
Lakes Information Network.
Endpoints
Number distinct visits, average time each visit lasted, percentage of total visits that were repeat visits and
hits to GLIN continue to increase yearly.
Features
Number of visits represents
Number of pages represents
Number of files represents
Number of hits represents
Illustration
Average yearly visits, pages, files and hits to the GLIN Internet website will be graphed and compared to
GLNPO web server statistics.
Limitations
GLIN is only one media for retrieving information about the Great Lakes. The information is contained in
web logs and can be extrapolated and interpreted but they cannot truly answer simple questions like "How
many people visited site X last week?"
Interpretation
An increase in the average yearly visits, pages and files and hits to the GLIN Internet website will
indicate access to information about the Great Lakes by an increasing number of Great Lakes public. This
data will be selected randomly to state a trend in the variables.
Comments
The Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) is a partnership that provides one place online for people
to find information relating to the binational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region of North America. GLIN
offers a wealth of data information about the region's environment, economy, tourism, education and
more. Based on a strong network of state, provincial, federal and regional partner agencies and
organizations, GLIN provides a reliable source of information for those who live, work or have an interest
in the Great Lakes region.
The GLIN model accommodates three different pathways to its information: geographic, subject and
administrative. Analysis of GLIN usage statistics and feedback from users indicates that these pathways
are the most likely routes to information that people follow. Examples of these pathways include:
36 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
• Geographic: Map-based or textual links to a locality, lake basin, pollution hotspot, tourist site, or
other physical area in the region.
• Subject: Links based on a wide range of topics important to the sustainable development of the
Great Lakes region, including agriculture, tourism, manufacturing, education, water levels, exotic
species, pollution and more.
• Administrative: Organizational links, including an agency's home page, staff list, mission
statement and newsletter.
Statistics also indicate that links buried several levels into a web site don't get as much attention. The
most frequently hit pages are those linked directly from the home page. As a result, GLIN was carefully
designed to provide more link options for people to pursue right off the top pages
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Human response Environmental Compartment: Societal
Related Issue(s)
SOLEC Grouping: Societal Values
GLWQA Annex (es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairments:
Last Revised
September 2004
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 37
-------
Research/Educational Opportunities
New Indicator
Measure
Survey of Great Lakes colleges and universities that are integrating Great Lakes topics into their curricula
or conducting Great Lakes-related research.
Purpose
To gauge interest by academic institutions in Great Lakes topics as topics for study and research.
Ecosystem Objective
Provide opportunities for students to learn about and research Great Lakes topics.
Endpoint
Students have an opportunity to study and research Great Lakes topics at academic institutions around the
basin.
Features
Great Lakes academic institutions will be surveyed to determine a) what Great Lakes-related courses are
offered, and b) research being conducted on Great Lakes topics.
Illustration
An analysis of responses will be characterized in a narrative.
Limitation
An independent group must initiate any survey on the US side due to the constraints of the Government
Paperwork Reduction Act, which limits surveys by US government agencies to nine without Office of
Management and Budget permission.
Interpretation
The responses will indicate interest in Great Lakes topics for both education and research.
Comments
No data currently exists.
Unfin ish ed Busin ess
Currently, there is no agency or organization in place to further develop this indicator.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Human response
Environmental Compartment: Societal
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping: Social Values
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised - September 2004
3 8 Indicator changes and Progress 2004 - Draft for Comment and Discussion
-------
Population and Income Distribution
New Indicator
Measure
Distribution of the population and income across the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To understand population densities relative to geography and income relative to geographic location.
Ecosystem Objective
Provide Great Lakes managers with information about Great Lakes population movements and income
distribution across the basin.
Endpoint
To be determined.
Features
Use of US and Canada census data will provide a picture of distribution of both population and income.
Illustration
A map of the basin showing population and income.
Limitation
Although this information is important in understanding population movement and income distribution, it
is not clear what the endpoint would be.
Interpretation
Tracking population density and income distribution over several years will indicate movement and
contribute to our understanding of sprawl and natural resource use overtime and the landscape.
Comments
Census data exists for both the US and Canada.
Unfin ish ed Busin ess
Currently, there is no agency or organization in place to further develop this indicator.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Human response
Environmental Compartment: Societal
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping: Social Values
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
September 2004
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 39
-------
Progress Indicator Reports
This section contains records of progress toward reporting on selected indicators. Some
describe the available state of information while others report progress toward
development of the indicator.
Number
7054
8129
8129
9002
8150
Indicators
Ground Surface Hardening
Area, Quality and Protection of Great Lakes Islands
Extent and Quality of Great Lakes Sand Dunes
Terrestrial Non-native Species
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Status
Further research and revised report needed.
A group has been formed to pursue further
work on this indicator for reporting at SOLEC
2006.
Further research and revised report needed.
Further research and revised report needed.
Development Report including suggested
future direction submitted by Save the Dunes
Conservation Fund.
-------
Ground Surface Hardening
Indicator 7054
Assessment
Not assessed - the available information are incomplete, or outdated.
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to indicate the degree to which development is affecting natural
water drainage and percolation processes and thus causing erosion, and other effects through
high water levels during storm events and reducing natural ground water regeneration processes.
Ground surface hardening or imperviousness (the sum of area of roads, parking lots, sidewalks,
rooftops and other impermeable surfaces of the urban landscape) is a useful indicator with which
to measure the impacts of land development on aquatic systems (Center for Watershed
Protection, 1994).
Ecosystem Objectives
A goal for the ecosystem is sustainable development. This would entail minimizing the quantities
of impervious surface by using alternatives for replacement and future development.
State of the Ecosystem
Information on ground surface hardening in the Great Lakes basin is currently in the development
stage. Different organizations are working towards developing effective systems of analyzing the
status of this indicator. The use of technology such as Landsat imagery and Geographic
Information Systems (CIS) applications are being utilized in efforts to evaluate the current state.
The instruments on the Landsat satellites have acquired millions of images. These images form a
unique resource for applications in agriculture, geology, forestry, regional planning, education,
mapping, and global change research. This type of information will help illustrate the land use
qualities of the Great Lakes basin.
In attempts to obtain information for this indicator many avenues were explored. Within Ontario,
the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, conservation authorities and municipalities of different
sizes were contacted for a random survey to see what information was available. Each
organization had very little available information on impervious surfaces.
In the Great Lakes basin, data on ground surface hardening are rare. The Ministry of Natural
Resources is in the process of implementing a project called Southern Ontario Land Resource
Information System (SOLRIS). SOLRIS is a mapping program designed accurately measure the
nature and extent of Southern Ontario's natural resources and will be used to track changes to
the natural, rural and urban landscape (Mussakowski, 2004). SOLRIS integrates existing base
resource information and advanced CIS and remote sensing techniques to derive a
comprehensive land cover database. SOLRIS is attempting to complete the assembly of all layers
into comprehensive landcover/use mapping by 2006 and will continue to upgrade on 5 or 10 year
intervals.
Recently, Christopher Elvidge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, along with colleagues from several universities
and agencies produced the first national map and inventory of impervious surface areas (ISA) in
the United States. The new map is important, because impervious surface areas affect the
environment. The qualities of impervious materials that make them ideal for construction also
create urban heat islands, by reducing heat transfer from Earth's surface to the atmosphere. The
replacement of heavily vegetated areas by ISA reduces the sequestration of carbon from the
atmosphere (Elvidge, 2004).
Pressures
Growth patterns in North America can be generalized, with few exceptions, as urban sprawl. As
our cities continue to grow outwards there is a growing dependency on personal transportation.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 41
-------
This creates a demand for more roads, parking lots and driveways. Impervious surfaces collect
and accumulate pollutants deposited from the atmosphere, leaked from vehicles or derived from
other sources. Imperviousness represents the imprint of land development on the landscape
(Center for Watershed Protection, 1994).
A long-term, adverse impact to water quality could occur as a result of the continued and likely
increase of nonpoint-source pollution discharge to stormwater runoff from roads, parking lots, and
other impervious surfaces introduced into the area to accommodate visitor use. If parking lots,
roads, and other impervious surfaces were established where none currently exist, then vehicle-
related pollutants and refuse may accumulate. This impact could be mitigated to a negligible level
through the use of permeable surfaces and vegetated or natural filters or traps for filtering
stormwater runoff (National Park Service, 2001).
Management Implications
Ground surface hardening is an important indicator in the Great Lakes basin that needs to be
explored further. The information available for this indicator is incomplete, or outdated. With
current technological advancements there are emerging methods of monitoring impervious
surfaces, and hopefully within 5 years the data required for this report will be complete. Ground
surface hardening has many detrimental effects on the environment; thus, it is essential to
monitor and seek alternatives.
Acknowledgements
Lindsay Silk, Environment Canada, Downsview, Ontario
Sources
National Park Service, 2001. Merced Wild and Scenic River: Comprehensive Management Plan.
http://www.cwp.org/SPSP/TOC.htm
Center for Watershed Protection, 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness
Chris Elvidge, 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Mussakowski, R. 2004. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 42
-------
Developing, Evaluating, and Selecting SOLEC Indicators for Area,
Quality, and Protection of Great Lakes Islands
June 2004 Status Report
Submitted by Linda Wires, Karen E. Vigmostad and Megan Seymour on behalf of the
Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands
Background
The 30,000 islands of the Great Lakes form the world's largest collection of freshwater islands
and contribute significantly to the ecology of North America. The unique biodiversity of these
islands includes endemic species such as the Lake Erie Watersnake, rare communities such as
alvar, and some of the largest concentrations of colonial waterbirds in the world. As such, the
biological diversity of the islands is globally significant (Crispin in Vigmostad 1999).
To work towards conservation of the biodiversity of species and communities on Great Lakes
islands, a binational Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands formed in 1996.
Recently, a small Science Advisory Team of the Collaborative received a habitat grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National Program Office to develop a
framework for the binational conservation of Great Lakes islands. With this funding, the Team
is developing:
• An island assessment and ranking system (based on a subset of biodiversity parameters) that
will provide a foundation to prioritize island conservation
• A freshwater island classification system
• A suite of indicators that can be monitored to assess change, threats, and progress towards
conservation of Great Lakes islands biodiversity
These products are essential if we are to conserve the diversity of Great Lakes islands in
perpetuity. Below we present a summary of progress we have made on developing the last
item: a suite of indicators to inform and guide island conservation over time.
Developing Island Indicators
Work on indicator development formally began with a March 29-30, 2004 workshop in Chicago.
Participants included the Collaborative's Science Advisory Team and two indicator experts,
Drs. Lucinda Johnson and Paul Bertram. Dr. Johnson is a scientist with the Natural Resource
Research Institute in Duluth, MN, and has a leading role in developing indicators for the Great
Lakes near shore region. Dr. Bertram is a scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, and has a leading role in developing indicators
for use in the Great Lakes Ecosystem Basin. Dr. Johnson provided an overview of
environmental condition, pressure, and response indicators and Dr. Bertram provided an
Draft Report for Review at SOLEC 2004
-------
update on the selection of indicators by the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC).
During the workshop we began discussions of the special attributes and features of the Great
Lakes islands—i.e., conservation targets—that need to be captured by a suite of indicators.
After the workshop, we reviewed relevant literature addressing the development, selection and
evaluation of environmental indicators. Because there is a large body of scientific literature on
indicator development and selection, during the initial consultation and workshop, we asked
Drs. Johnson and Bertram to identify key indicator references and thus narrowed the body of
literature for review specifically to the Collaborative's goal. Specifically, the process of
developing island indicators was closely related to the island ranking and classification systems
already under development. These systems provide a basinwide assessment of Great Lakes
islands and biodiversity, and identify conservation targets. Thus indicators considered for
island biodiversity conservation must apply directly to these targets.
With this in mind, several frameworks for indicator development and selection were considered
and discussed via conference calls and an in-person meeting in May 2004. The Team with a few
other members of the Collaborative primarily used the framework developed by the Scientific
Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2002). This framework identifies
six Essential Ecological Attributes (EEAs) that summarize and logically organize the major
ecological components of a system: Landscape Condition, Biotic Condition, Chemical and
Physical Characteristics, Ecological Processes, Hydrology and Geomorphology, and Natural
Disturbance Regimes. In this approach the focus is on condition measures because these relate
directly to the ecological values we are interested in conserving, and they are considered a
critical link in the information base upon which environmental reporting rests. This framework
also incorporates parallel development of pressure indicators, using the EEAs as a checklist to
identify assessment endpoints that should be evaluated to detect adverse effects or threats to
ecological condition (EPA 2002).
To date, the Team has tentatively proposed ten condition and five pressure indicators as
summarized in Table 1 below. It is important to note that the indicators on this list are still
being evaluated and are not final. Final selection of indicators will take place after peer review
and discussions at SOLEC 2004, and will be based on relevance, feasibility, response variability,
and interpretation and utility.
Draft Report for Review at SOLEC 2004
-------
Table 1. Essential ecological attributes and suggested indicators for monitoring.
Essential
Ecological
Attribute
Condition Variable to Monitor
(Indicator or Indicator Suite)
Pressure Variable to Monitor
(Indicator or Indicator Suite)
Landscape Condition
Extent of each
ecological system
Landscape
composition
Total island area and island
perimeter at ordinary high water
mark (USACOE)
Percent of shoreline in natural
cover within 500 m of water's edge
(USACOE)
Percent of landscape within 20 km
in natural cover
Extent of hardened lake shoreline
Number of mainland marinas; distance
from marinas; presence of safe harbor
on island; roads; nearness to shoreline
community
Biotic Condition
Ecosystems and communities
Community
extent
Community
composition
Trophic structure
Extent of native ecological
communitites (target)
Native fish diversity, colonial
waterbird diversity, neo tropical
migrant diversity, vegetation
diversity; monitor top 10 sites for
each target
Colonial waterbirds, bald eagle,
diporeia
Percent non-native species
Species and Populations
Population size
Habitat
suitability (focal
species)
Colonial waterbirds, piping
plovers, L. Erie watersnake
Endemics or near endemics
Habitat for colonial waterbirds,
piping plover, watersnakes,
migrants, nearshore spawning fish
Abundance of non-native species
Hydrology and Geomorphology
Surface and
ground
waterflows
Sediment and
material
Water levels
Transport
Regulated water levels / water stability
Draft Report for Review at SOLEC 2004
-------
We also examined SOLEC indicators in this framework and incorporated those that were
applicable. Indicators for only three EEAs have been developed; we may also incorporate
indicators for the Chemical and Physical Characteristics and Ecological Processes attributes.
Additional pressure indicators may include: transportation to and from islands; concentration
of contaminants in sediment cores; contaminants in snapping turtle eggs; duration of ice on
lakes; and extent habitat modified by non-native species.
Importantly, we will also include response indicators as measures of how well island protection
programs are achieving conservation goals. Thus far two response indicators have been
proposed and are being evaluated. These include: percent of island area and shoreline in
protective status; and percent area of native communities (targets) in protection at priority sites.
We anticipate developing additional response indicators and may be able to incorporate SOLEC
response indicators.
Next Steps
We are scheduling a conference call with members of the Collaborative's Science Advisory
Team in the latter half of June 2004 to continue discussion and evaluation of these and other
potential indicators. We also have planned an in-person meeting in mid-July 2004 to continue
this work. We will present the island indicators at SOLEC 2004 for discussion. At that point,
we will finalize a suite of island indicators for final submission to SOLEC and other relevant
venues.
For further information
Megan Seymour
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services Field Office
6950 Americana Pkwy., Suite H
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
(614) 469-6923 ext. 16
(614) 469-6919 fax
Karen E. Vigmostad, Ph.D.
Northeast-Midwest Institute
218 D Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 464-4016
(202) 544-0043 fax
www.nemw.org/islands.htm
Draft Report for Review at SOLEC 2004
-------
-"
Distribution of Ontario's
provincially rare species
and vegetation communities
on islands in the Great Lakes.
Elem ent Occurence
Ecological Site District
k ATI IRA I
;^ \T.;I
N OU 6 m t) 6 r 2 DD2
uran Kepon tor Keview at bULtu
-------
Distribution of globally rare specie
on islands in the Great Lakes
\J~
I
Draft Report for Review at SOLEC 2004
Natural Heritage
Information Centre
NATURE _,
CONSERVANCY
-------
Extent and Quality of Great Lakes Sand Dunes (8129)
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating
Purpose
To assess the extent and quality of Great Lakes sand dunes.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain total a real extent and quality of Great Lakes sand dunes, ensuring adequate
representation of sand dune types across their historical range.
State of the Ecosystem
Sand dunes continue to be lost and degraded, yet the ability to track and determine the extent
and rate of this loss in terms of both area and quality in a standardized way is not yet feasible.
Great Lakes sand dunes comprise the world's largest collection of freshwater dunes. They are
home to endemic, rare, endangered, and threatened species. Sand dunes can be found along the
coasts of all the Great Lakes. Lake Michigan, however, has the greatest number of sand dunes
with a total of 111,291 hectares, followed by Ontario with 8,910 hectares, Indiana with 6,070
hectares, New York with 4,850 hectares, and Wisconsin with 425 hectares. This information is not
complete. No comprehensive map of Great Lakes sand dunes exists.
Degree of protection varies considerably among jurisdictions so it is difficult to assess the overall
loss or status of sand dunes because although information about the quality of individual sand
dunes is locally available, this information has not been collected across the entire basin.
Nevertheless, conversations with local managers and environmentalists indicates a continued
loss of sand dunes to development, sand mining, recreational trampling, and non-indigenous
invasive species. The Lake Ontario Dunes Coalition, Michigan Dunes Alliance, and the Save the
Dunes Council in Indiana are making some progress in both protecting and restoring sand dunes
in their respective regions.
Pressures on the Ecosystem
Threats to sand dunes are numerous. Non-indigenous invasive species such as baby's breath
(Gypsophila paniculate) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) tend to spread rapidly if
not controlled. Habitat destruction, however, is the greatest threat. In addition to sand mining,
shoreline condominium and second home development level dunes. And recreational use by
pedestrians and off road vehicle use destroys vegetation, thereby causing dune erosion.
Further Work Necessary
A group of sand dune managers and scientists is organizing to convene a conference for all
persons involved in Great Lakes sand dune ecosystem ecology, management, research and
education efforts. The purposes of the conference will be to compile information about sand
dunes and sand dune research and management and to form the Great Lakes Sand Dunes
Coalition. This group could work actively to collect available data about Great Lakes sand dunes
and begin collaborative actions to protect them.
Management Implications
Many actions have been taken to protect Great Lakes sand dunes. For example, in Eastern Lake
Ontario boardwalks and dune walkovers have been constructed to provide public access to
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 49
-------
beaches without compromising dune ecology. Native beach grasses have been planted to retard
erosion. On the eastern shores of Lake Michigan, invasive plants have been systematically
removed by dune stewards. Michigan has legislation in place to control or reduce sand mining
impacts.
In order to protect sand dunes there is a need for improved communication between government
agencies and stakeholders with regard to sand dune management. Public education would help
alleviate stress to dunes cause by recreational trampling. Stronger legislation could limit some
damaging activities. Local government creativity in managing dune areas through creative zoning
would improve the protection of sensitive and irreplaceable areas.
Acknowledgments
Author: Lindsay Silk, Environment Canada, Downsview, Ontario
Sources
Bonanno, S. (1998). The Nature Conservancy.
Byrne, M.L. (2004). Personal communication.
Cabala, T. (2004). Personal communication.
Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997). State of the Great
Lakes 1997.
Lewis, J. (1975). Michigan Geological Survey Division Circular (#11). Retrieved on April 6, 2004.
From: http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/sand.html
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (2004). Retrieved on April 6, 2004. From:
http://www.michigan.gOv/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311 4114 4235—,00.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Protecting and Restoring Great Lakes Sand
Dunes. Retrieved on March 29, 2004. From:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/dec02/sand dunes.html
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 5 0
-------
Terrestrial Non-Native Species
Assessment: Unknown
Data from multiple sources not consistent
Purpose
This indicator reports the extent of cover by terrestrial non-native species (including plants,
animals and other organisms, such as insects and microbes) in the Great Lakes watershed, and
assesses the biological integrity of the basin ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Only a small percentage of non-native species introduced into the ecosystem, primarily through
human activity, pose a hazard to the economy, environment or human health. However, the lack
of naturally-occurring predators allows some non-native species to become invasive by colonizing
and proliferating unchecked. This destroys wildlife habitats, crowds out competitors and depletes
prey, thereby threatening biodiversity.
Once established, terrestrial non-native species can also impact water quality, by changing water
tables, runoff dynamics, fire frequency, and other watershed attributes that in turn can alter
watershed conditions. Attempts to eradicate terrestrial non-native species could lead to greater
use of pesticides and herbicides, in turn potentially increasing the amount of chemicals entering
surface water through runoff.
State of the Ecosystem
The negative impact of a wide range of non-native species, such as reed canary grass, garlic
mustard, common buckthorn and purple loosestrife, has been documented throughout the Great
Lakes basin. However, the extent of invasion by terrestrial non-native species is not known. It is
not clear what metric should be used to report on this indicator.
Federal and state agencies, tribal governments, nongovernmental organizations, and universities
are actively collecting data on terrestrial non-native species. At this point, most projects focus on
a single species on a local basis. Projects range from mapping where non-native species have
been detected in a given jurisdiction, to measuring the actual population or extent of area covered
by that species. This large body of research presents an opportunity to increase our
understanding of the problem posed by terrestrial non-native species. Coordination of these data
collection efforts may produce the comprehensive data necessary for assessment, not to mention
monitoring, control and eradication.
Future Pressures
Growth in international trade and travel increases the risk that a larger number of terrestrial non-
native species will become established in the Great Lakes region. The spread of microbes such
as the West Nile virus and the SARS virus demonstrates the speed and ease in which non-native
species can migrate on a global basis. Response efforts vary by species. It is believed that
terrestrial non-native species that do not pose an immediate threat to agriculture, industry or
human health may not prompt sufficient response to mitigate their impacts to the ecosystem.
Acknowledgements
Mervyn Han, ECO Associate on assignment to U.S. EPA
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 51
-------
Developing a Breeding Bird Indicator for the Great Lakes Region
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Assistance Agreement GL-97523301-1
Sandra L. Wilmore
Save the Dunes Conservation Fund
444 Barker Road
Michigan City, IN 46360
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 52
-------
24 September 2004
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 5 3
-------
Acknowledgments
Save the Dunes Conservation Fund is grateful to those who contributed to the development of this proposal.
Special thanks go to David DeSante (Institute for Bird Populations) Alex DaSilva (Indiana Department of
Environmental Management), Ralph Grundel (US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division), Paul
Labus (The Nature Conservancy), Thomas Martin (Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Breeding
Biology Research and Monitoring Database), Nicole Michel (Institute for Bird Populations), Phil Nott
(Institute for Bird Populations), Karen Rodriguez (US Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Office), Thomas Gardali (Point Reyes Bird Observatory) and the following MAPS
station operators: Dennis DeCourcey, James R. Coffman, Richard & Brenda Keith, David Miller, William
Michalek, and Jerry H. Smith.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 54
-------
Table of Contents
DEVELOPING A BREEDING BIRD INDICATOR FOR THE GREAT LAKES REGION 52
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 54
INTRODUCTION 56
BREEDING BIRD INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT 56
MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 58
MAPS: Great Lakes sites 59
MAPS: Applicability/limitations for contributing to the breeding bird indicator 60
BREEDING BIOLOGY RESEARCH AND MONITORING DAT ABASE (BBIRD) 62
BBIRD: Existing sites around Great lakes 62
BBIRD: Applicability/limitations for contributing to breeding bird indicator 63
LOCAL APPLICATION OF THE BREEDING BIRD INDICATOR USING MAPS AND/OR BBIRD 64
APPENDIX 1: MAPS STATIONS SURVEY - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES 73
APPENDIX 2: IJC LISTING AND DELISTING GUIDELINES FOR
HABITAT-RELATED BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS 74
APPENDIX 3: MONITORING PROGRAMS FOR OTHER HABITATS/BIRD GROUPS 75
LITERATURE CITED 76
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 5 5
-------
Developing a Breeding Bird Indicator for the Great Lakes Region
Introduction
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) are hosted every two years by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada to fulfill the reporting requirement of the
binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The purpose of the Agreement is "to restore
and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin." The first SOLEC
was held in 1994. For SOLEC 1998, a suite of indicators was developed to represent the condition of the
Great Lakes ecosystem components. The indicator suite fulfills Annex 11 of the GLWQA (Surveillance
and Monitoring) and is also used to address the monitoring and evaluation needs of the Lakewide
Management Plans (LaMPs) and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern identified in Annex
2 (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/1978/index.html').
The SOLEC Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance Indicator (ID #8150) was developed to assess the
status of breeding bird populations and communities and to infer the health of breeding bird habitat in the
Great Lakes basin. This indicator is listed as unbounded because it could apply to more than one of the
seven SOLEC ecological categories (open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial,
land use, human health, and societal). The SOLEC indicators are also classified according to the following
types: State (of the Environment), Pressure (activities that affect environmental quality), and Human
Activities (Response). The Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance Indicator is a State indicator for
assessing the state of the environment, the quality and quantity of natural resources, and the state of human
and ecological health. These indicators reflect the ultimate objective of environmental policy
implementation, and are chosen by considering biological, chemical, and physical variables and ecological
functions (Paul Bertram and Nancy Stadler-Salt 2000).
In its current preliminary state, the SOLEC Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance Indicator does not
address productivity or survivorship parameters. To address the second purpose of the indicator, to infer
the health of breeding bird habitat in the Great Lakes Basin, demographic parameters must be measured.
The diversity and abundance of birds in any given area do not provide sufficient data for evaluating the
health of that habitat for supporting birds. Environmental factors may negatively affect reproduction or
survival, but local population size and/or diversity can be maintained by immigration from other
populations, with the result that local environmental problems may not be reflected in population trends
until problems become severe (Conway and Martin 1999). A habitat may host a great diversity and
abundance of birds, and yet serve as a population sink for one or several species. In addition, depending on
the types of species present and the natural diversity of the target habitat, increased diversity is not always
desirable (Howell et al. 2000). While point count surveys such as the Breeding Bird Survey are less
expensive and easier to conduct, a breeding bird indicator must include demographic data to be effective
and avoid misleading information. Estimating primary demographic parameters is essential to assessing the
viability of populations, which indicates the health of the habitat.
The purpose of this project is to investigate established protocols for monitoring avian productivity and/or
survivorship in habitats of interest; identify projects around the Great Lakes Basin that use these protocols;
assess the applicability and feasibility of these protocols/projects for contributing to the breeding bird
indicator; and develop a framework for integrating the most appropriate protocols into the breeding bird
indicator.
Breeding bird indicator development
Birds are good indicators of ecosystem health for several reasons, including their high metabolic rate,
abundance and distribution within and across habitats, and relatively high position in the food chain.
Songbirds are sensitive to changes in food supply, vegetative cover, and predator densities (Gardali et al.
2001). Estimates of their productivity and survivorship can provide early warning signals of environmental
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 5 6
-------
problems, and can demonstrate environmental improvement to address delisting beneficial use impairments
(BUIs) for Areas of Concern (AOCs) as well as fulfilling Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) goals. In
addition, demographic data can help determine whether population trends are related to breeding
productivity or winter survival factors, and help identify habitat conditions associated with successful and
failed breeding attempts (Martin et al. 1995, Phil Nott, pers. comm., Robinson and Morsel 1999). The
breeding bird indicator as presented here can thus serve as both a State and Pressure indicator by providing
information on what is happening in the environment and why.
As noted earlier, the goals of the breeding bird indicator are 1) to assess the status of breeding bird
populations and communities and 2) to infer the health of breeding bird habitat in the Great Lakes basin.
These goals may be applied at the local, landscape, or regional scale. In addition, as a SOLEC land use
indicator, the breeding bird indicator should influence decision-makers in the Great Lakes basin to make
environmentally informed development decisions (SOLEC 1998 Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 3). These varied goals cannot be effectively addressed with a single
monitoring approach.
At the regional level, MAPS and BBIRD data from existing and new sites in the Great Lakes Basin could
be used in conjunction with Breeding Bird Survey data to reveal the health of bird populations using the
Great Lakes Region. The British Trust for Ornithology's Integrated Monitoring program
(http://www.bto.org/survev/ipmhtm) could serve as a model for integrating data on the numbers, breeding
performance, and survival rates of birds. This program brings together data on several long-running
monitoring schemes such as the Common Birds Census and Constant Effort Sites Scheme (constant effort
mist-netting) to monitor population trends, identify which stage of the life cycle is affected, and provide
data to assist with identifying causes of change.
Here we focus on applying the breeding bird indicator goals at the local level, i.e., assessing local bird
populations and inferring the health of local habitats. In this capacity, the breeding bird indicator can serve
the needs of some AOC RAPs and LaMPs by measuring progress toward delisting habitat-related
beneficial use impairments and achieving goals such as ecosystem integrity. The three habitat-related
beneficial use impairments are 1) degradation offish and wildlife populations, 2) bird or animal deformities
or reproductive problems, and 3) loss offish and wildlife habitat. The breeding bird indicator is relevant to
AOCs in which one or more of these impairments exists and includes a degraded, breeding songbird
populations). The status of the breeding bird population(s) may be known directly or indirectly by the
degraded condition of the impaired habitat.
To estimate the vital rates (productivity and survivorship) of a bird population requires more resource-
intensive protocols than are used for monitoring population size and diversity (census and survey
techniques). The latter monitoring protocols provide measurements of abundance, density, and/or diversity
that can reveal population composition and trends, but do not necessarily reflect the health of the local bird
population or their habitat. Population size and diversity measurements are affected by varying emigration
and immigration rates, and do not differentiate dysfunctional from functional demographic units (Conway
and Martin 1999, Bias 1996, Smallwood 2001). Because of confounding effects of population sources and
sinks, information on presence/absence or even relative abundance or population size can provide
misleading indicators of habitat quality (Van Home 1983, Pulliam 1988). There is also concern that some
management strategies may attract high numbers of adults but create an "ecological trap" in which adult
density is high but reproductive success is low (Reme 2003, Purcell and Verner 1998).
Several methods are available to measure survivorship and annual productivity. Monitoring breeding pairs
by color banding (in addition to using the Fish and Wildlife Service aluminum band) and resight data is the
most resource intensive method and can provide the most detailed information about a local population's
productivity and survivorship. Banding (without the use of color bands and resight data) and nest
monitoring are somewhat less resource intensive and provide the best methods available for estimating and
assessing bird populations' demographic parameters. Existing protocols developed by the Institute for Bird
Populations (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship or MAPS) and the Montana Cooperative
Wildlife Research Unit of the US Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division (Breeding Biology
and Research Monitoring Database or BBIRD) programs can provide data necessary for fulfilling the needs
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 5 7
-------
of the breeding bird indicator. The MAPS and BBIRD monitoring programs can also fulfill several of the
criteria for delisting the three habitat-related beneficial use impairments as identified in the Pathway for
Delisting (US EPA GLNPO 2004). These include determining that target habitat quantities are sufficient to
support desired wildlife (bird) populations and that desired bird communities are showing signs of
sustainable recovery. The cost and labor requirements should be feasible for most areas. Coordinating and
combining the resources of federal, state, and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, and academic
institutions is expected for implementing AOC RAPs, and should alleviate the burden on any one entity and
improve the success of planning, monitoring, and implementation. The availability of the nationally
standardized bird banding (MAPS) and nest monitoring (BBIRD) programs facilitate their use,
repeatability, and interpretation of results. These protocols combined are recommended for monitoring
abundance and breeding bird demography at Olympic National Park (Jenkins et al. 2003) and are also used
by other long-term monitoring efforts such as those conducted by Point Reyes Bird Observatory. They are
recommended for priority areas and species by the Canadian LandbirdMonitoring Strategy
(http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/birds/strat e.cfm).
For the Great Lakes breeding bird indicator, we recommend the MAPS and/or BBIRD protocols for
collection of demographic data, depending on the impairments and environmental goals of the AOC. These
protocols are designed to measure the population demographics of small-medium sized songbirds.
Reference information on protocols for marsh birds and waterbirds is included in Appendix 2. Descriptions
of the MAPS and BBIRD programs are provided below and followed by a template for their application in
AOCs. Cost estimates are provided, but will vary locally. We emphasize the importance of addressing
costs for the full duration of the monitoring requirement as well as the training, data processing, evaluation,
and reporting components for successfully contributing to delisting requirements. The BBIRD program is
more labor intensive than MAPS, and is recommended for use in areas where contamination problems are
known or suspected to affect songbird populations and/or where songbird productivity problems have been
documented. (The latter can be determined by implementing the MAPS program.)
In addition to recommending the MAPS and BBIRD programs, we recommend pursuing the potential of
contracting with Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) to conduct a pilot study. We also suggest
consideration be given to contracting with a single entity to coordinate the initial stages of identifying
target bird communities/habitats, restoration goals, and monitoring methodologies for the appropriate Areas
of Concern.
If the breeding bird indicator is limited to measurements of diversity and abundance, we suggest that its
purpose be limited to assessing the status of breeding bird populations and communities in the Great Lakes
basin. Again, these data may or may not reflect the health of the habitat, and are insufficient to make any
such determination.
Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS)
The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program is a cooperative effort among
public agencies, private organizations, and individual bird banders in North America to operate a network
of over 500 constant-effort mist netting and banding stations during the breeding season. MAPS was
established in 1989 by The Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) and was modeled after the British Constant
Effort Sites (CES) scheme operated by the British Trust for Ornithology. A network of station operators
uses a standardized constant-effort mist-netting protocol. Each station typically consists of about ten
permanent net sites located within the interior eight hectares (ha) of a 20-ha study area (DeSante et al.
2001). Usually one 12-m, 36-mm mesh mist net is operated at each net site for six morning hours per day,
for one day during each of six to ten consecutive 10-day periods. Starting dates vary between May 1 and
June 10 (later at more northerly latitudes and higher elevations) and operation continues through the ten-
day period ending August 8. All birds captured during the program are identified to species, age, and sex
using criteria in Pyle (1997) and, if unmarked, are banded with a uniquely numbered aluminum band
provided by the U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division (USGS/BRD) Bird Banding
Laboratory or the Canadian Wildlife Service/Bird Banding Office.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 5 8
-------
MAPS protocols also require station operators to record the probable breeding status of all avian species
seen, heard, or captured at each station using methods similar to those employed in breeding bird atlas
projects, and to assign a composite breeding status for every species at the end of the season based on those
records (DeSante et al. 2001). In addition, a station map and standardized quantitative habitat descriptions
are prepared for each major habitat type contained in the station by means of the MAPS Habitat Structure
Assessment protocol (Nott 2000). Finally, MAPS operators are able to enter or import, verify, edit, and
submit all their data to IBP by means of MAPSPROG, a Windows-based computer program distributed
free of charge for that purpose by IBP. MAPSPROG has four modules that deal, respectively, with
banding, effort, breeding status, and habitat assessment data. The program includes within- and between-
record verification algorithms that substantially improve the quality of the banding data, particularly age
and sex determinations. Importantly, it allows the persons who actually collect the data to also verify and
edit them. Moreover, this process can be carried out during the field season, allowing station operators to
learn from their errors in a timely manner.
MAPS has grown from 16 to over 500 stations and has received the support and endorsement of many
federal agencies and conservation groups, including USGS/BRD, the Department of Defense Legacy
Resource Management Program, the National Audubon Society, and the international cooperative
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Initiative, Partners in Flight (PIF). The substantial growth of the
Program is attributed in part to its endorsement by PIF and the involvement of various federal agencies in
PIF, including the USD A Forest Service; the USDI National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Bureau of Land Management; and the USDoD Department of the Navy, Department of the Army, and
Texas Army National Guard. The National Park Service recommends MAPS protocols for monitoring
landbirds in National Parks to aid in determining the causes of population trends and differences in
abundance among species, habitats, and areas or to identify and evaluate management actions to reverse
declining trends and increase low population sizes (Fancy and Sauer 2000). As noted earlier, the Canadian
Landbird Monitoring Strategy recommends MAPS and BBIRD for priority areas and species. During
2000, IBP personnel operated 151 'agency' stations under federal contracts. Support for the operation of the
remaining 356 'independent' stations (those not operated by IBP personnel) has come from a wide variety
of federal, state, and private sources (http://www.birdpop.org/Eurinews/overview.htm).
A panel assembled by USGS/BRD reviewed and evaluated the MAPS pilot project. The review concluded
that: (1) MAPS is technically sound and is based on the best available biological and statistical methods;
(2) it complements other landbird monitoring programs such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey
(BBS) by providing useful information on landbird demographics that is not available elsewhere; and (3) it
is the most important project in the nongame bird monitoring arena since the creation of the BBS (Geissler
1996).
The online National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII)/MAPS Avian Demographics Query
Interface provides access to the annual reports of the MAPS program and MAPS information on adult
populations and productivity, survivorship, station information, habitat information, and breeding status of
each species captured, seen, or heard at each station (Institute for Bird Populations 2003). The data is
currently limited to information on stations that operated between 1989 and 2000 and on annual
productivity and survivorship data acquired between 1992 and 1998. The IBP partnered with USGS/BRD
to create this web-based electronic information network, and plans regular updates. Data from 2001 and
2002 should be online by the beginning of 2005.
MAPS: Great Lakes sites
According to the IBP MAPS Roster for 2004, there are four MAPS sites operating in Ontario's Great Lakes
Basin, one each on Lake Huron, Georgian Bay, Lake Ontario, and Lake Superior. Within the states, there
are MAPS sites across most of the Great Lakes Basin: two in Illinois, two in Indiana, four in Michigan,
two in Minnesota, one in New York, three in Ohio, and two in Wisconsin. Information on MAPS stations
operating between 1989 and 2000 is available at http://www.birdpop.org/nbii/station/default.asp.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 5 9
-------
We surveyed those MAPS stations within the Great Lakes states by email to learn more about their efforts
and how they may contribute to the breeding bird indicator. Of the six respondents, five stations are
located in the Great Lakes Basin and three are in or near an AOC. Three are interested in contributing to
the breeding bird indicator and one needed more information. Existing Great Lakes stations may offer
valuable data for use in identifying reference conditions or other habitat comparisons, as well as
contributing to the selection of target bird species and/or habitats. Such stations may also be helpful in
identifying contacts for student, professional, and volunteer assistance and support. See Appendix 1 for a
complete summary of the survey results.
MAPS: Applicability/limitations for contributing to the breeding bird
indicator
In order for the MAPS protocol to yield data sufficient for meaningful analyses of both productivity and
survivorship rates and trends in a single AOC, a cluster of six stations each using ten net lanes over
approximately 20 ha is recommended (Phil Nott, pers. comm.). Ideally, the stations are situated 5-10
kilometers apart from each other. To meet these criteria, a fairly large tract or several tracts of very similar
habitat are required (>= 5,510 ha or 13,615 acres total). In addition, reference sites would require the same
area for equal evaluation. Not all target habitats of the AOCs will meet these size requirements. Use of
private property(s) would obviously require consulting with the owner(s) for approval and access
arrangements. If it is uncertain whether the size and/or contiguity of the habitat(s) targeted and available
for monitoring is sufficient for effective implementation of the MAPS protocol, we recommend consulting
with IBP (P.O. Box 1346, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956-1346; (415) 663-1436;
http://www.birdpop.org/index.html).
Based on the dominant and sub-dominant habitat types recorded for the 516 current and/or former MAPS
stations continent-wide, this protocol can be used in most Great Lakes habitats. The dominant and sub-
dominant types represented at the 833 stations break down as follows (Nicole Michel, pers. comm.):
35.5% forest (crowns overlapping, forming 60-100% cover),
24.9% woodland (crowns not touching, forming 25-60% cover),
18.3% shrubland (shrubs >0.5 m tall, shrubs form >25% cover, trees <25% cover), and
20.8% herbaceous (herbs - graminoids, forbs, and ferns - form >=25% cover; trees,
shrubs, and dwarf-shrubs with <25% cover and/or herbs exceed tree, shrub, and
dwarf-shrub cover, respectively).
All habitat types are taken from the top two levels (Class and Sub-Class) of the National Vegetation
Classification Standard (NVCS) Formation Codes list included in the MAPS Habitat Structure Assessment
(HSA) Protocol (Nott et al. 2003).
Although MAPS may be implemented in all of these habitat types in general, mist netting is not the ideal
method for surveying some species (those that prefer upper canopy habitats) and habitats. It is not
recommended for closed canopy with little understory or grassland habitats. In addition, the MAPS
protocol is not for monitoring larger species such as crows and raptors, and poorly samples several species
that forage on the wing, such as swallows and nighthawks (Wang and Finch 2002). Mist netting is a
superior method for bird species that frequently visit or nest in undergrowth and shrubby habitats,
particularly secretive species and those that vocalize infrequently, which point count surveys typically
underestimate.
Depending on the size of the target habitat and the surrounding land uses, high predation and/or parasitism
rates associated with edge habitats may confound interpretation of productivity levels, particularly as
related to habitat quality. Indicators intended to measure the quality of a habitat must consider the quantity
of the habitat as it relates to the space needed to support a viable population (Smallwood 2001). This
should include accounting for the edge affects that often lead to increased predation and brood parasitism.
Predation is known to be the primary cause of nest mortality for many songbird populations, and landscape
character affects predator populations (Howell et al. 2000, Rodewald and Yahner 2001, Knutson et al.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 60
-------
2004). Habitat patches may thus function as population sinks due to the affects of fragmentation and the
surrounding land uses, and not necessarily the quality of the target habitat.
MAPS data have revealed that the productivity of birds is influenced by the surrounding landscape within a
2-4 km radius (DeSante and Nott 2000, Phil Nott, pers. comm). It follows that if stations are situated such
that there is less than a 2-km wide habitat buffer, productivity levels may be low due to high rates of
predation and/or parasitism. Agricultural activities within a 3 km radius may increase nest parasitism
(Stribley and Haufler 1997). In such situations, BBIRD nest monitoring protocols may be preferable to
MAPS since MAPS data cannot distinguish the causes of low productivity. BBIRD data can reveal high
levels of predation, and restoration ecologists could then manage for habitats with more interior and
buffered edges to reduce nests' vulnerability to predation (Guepel and Elliot 2001). (This scenario
presumes sufficient habitat availability for the prescribed restoration.) Likewise, if brood parasitism is
identified as a primary cause of low productivity, a control plan for brown-headed cowbirds may be
designed and implemented to reduce the problem. The rates of cowbird parasitism and impacts on local
songbird productivity range from minimal to extreme (Ellison 1997, Greene 1997) depending on habitat
and host species factors, and do not necessarily correlate with the number of cowbirds in an area (Muehter).
Removal programs can be effective (De Groot et al. 1997. Eckrich et al. 1997), but are generally only
recommended as short-term means to reduce parasitism of threatened or endangered host species at the
local level (Muehter).
Other factors that must be considered when interpreting MAPS data include variation in juvenile dispersal,
capture probabilities, and vegetation structure (Heath et al. 2002).
The absence or unavailability of a bird bander (USGS master permit holder or subpermit holder) could
limit the use of the MAPS program, although contracting with IBP is an option that might resolve this issue
(see below). Potential MAPS station operators (interns or otherwise) must possess or obtain the necessary
permits from the appropriate state and federal authorities. To qualify at the federal level, persons at least
18 years of age must be able to safely trap, handle, and band the birds and identify all of the common birds
in their different seasonal plumages. Applications are submitted to the Federal Bird Banding Laboratory in
the USA or the Canadian Wildlife Service in Canada. The applicants must furnish the names of three well-
known bird banders or ornithologists who can vouch for their expertise as a bird bander
(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBL/homepage/whocan.htm). State permit requirements vary.
IBP offers training courses that cover MAPS protocols, including techniques for ageing and sexing the
birds. In addition, the North American Banding Council has developed a bander certification program and
provides resource materials and trainer contact information (http://www.nabanding.net/nabanding/). Ample
training is essential to ensure the integrity of the data collected and the safety of the birds captured.
For IBP, the approximate annual cost of running the minimum recommended number of six MAPS stations
at a single location in northern California, including two weeks intensive intern training, data analysis, and
a final report, ranges from $24,000 - $28,000. The cost varies depending on intern housing (David
DeSante, pers. comm.). The estimate includes a per diem ($18-$24) expense for a pair of interns to run the
stations, which may not be sufficient in some areas. The stations are configured as efficiently as possible,
such that three locations (six stations per location) are in reasonable proximity and one overseeing biologist
can rotate among them. The qualifications of the overseeing biologist(s) are not included in the training
expenses. The overseeing biologist in this instance is typically an IBP staff person; the position is usually
seasonal, but many seasonal staff return. All interns are trained and help with station set up and operation.
The interns (two per six MAPS stations) rotate between stations (banding once per 10-day period), and the
overseeing biologists spend one week at a time supervising the stations.
Given the variables, we used the higher end of the IBP estimate ($28,000) and added $2,000 for
interns/housing expenses to estimate an average cost of $30,000/MAPS location (six stations).
We suggest that consideration be given to contracting with IBP for implementing the MAPS protocol at
several AOCs simultaneously. This arrangement could serve as a pilot study to evaluate the use of the
MAPS protocols for the breeding bird indicator. It would ensure that all training and qualification needs
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
-------
are met, improve consistency in the effort, and reduce costs. IBP estimates that a network of three clusters
(with six stations each) could be implemented for $65,000, including data analysis and reporting. To
pursue this option requires a coordinated review of AOC impairments and habitats to determine appropriate
station locations (see procedures below), agency involvement for each locality, identification and
attainment of a funding source(s), and further discussion with IBP. Determining the details/logistics of
implementing MAPS should be locally driven, with specific objectives identified and presented to IBP to
ensure the program is designed to successfully address the objectives. It is recommended that IBP
contribute to this process, particularly to the identification of target habitats, bird communities, and/or
species for evaluation.
See Table 2 below for a summarized comparison of MAPS and BBIRD.
Breeding Biology Research and Monitoring Database (BBIRD)
University of Montana's Breeding Biology Research and Monitoring Database (BBIRD) program is a
national, cooperative program that provides standardized field methodologies for studies of nesting success
in birds. BBIRD monitors the nesting success, productivity, and habitats of nongame birds by finding and
monitoring nests at sites across North America. Studies at each local site are administered by independent
investigators. Point counts can be used to index population size at plots. Standardized vegetation sampling
is conducted at nest sites, the locations at which point counts are conducted, and where individual
investigators deem useful at "non-use" sites that are paired with locations of actual nests. Data from all
sites are merged annually and maintained in a central database to allow overview analyses of national
trends and patterns across sites. The BBIRD field protocols provide instructions to potential investigators
for initiating BBIRD sites and maintaining standardized data collection. Ultimately, the goal of BBIRD is
to enable scientists to identify relative population health and habitat requirements for a wide range of
species, and to examine responses to land conversion processes and global change.
There are two types of BBIRD sites: funded and volunteer. Funded sites follow the protocol completely.
Volunteer participants obtain their own funding and use BBIRD protocols to the extent possible. The
minimum requirement for participation in the program is data on nesting productivity and sources of
nesting mortality. Measurement of vegetation associated with nest sites is strongly encouraged. Point
counts are included whenever possible to provide population trend information (Martin 1997).
An additional benefit to the BBIRD program is the ability to address local objectives at individual sites.
Most monitoring programs require pooling data across a wide diversity of sites to provide statistical
inference. The BBIRD protocols allow for strong statistical inference to evaluate effects of local
management actions. Consequently, the program can address national and local goals simultaneously
(Conway and Martin 1999).
For several years after its establishment in 1992, BBIRD was extremely successful and went beyond the
objectives of the original four-year feasibility study (Conway and Martin 1999). More than 100 partners
have provided funding for one or more BBIRD sites, including federal, state, and local government
agencies, universities, non-governmental conservation organizations, industry, and private foundations.
Unfortunately, funding has since dwindled. Nonetheless, substantial data for many species are available
from multiple BBIRD sites, allowing for comparisons of nesting productivity across sites. The breeding
bird data website provides land managers and researchers with summary data of breeding parameters such
as nesting success, mean clutch size, mean number of fledged young, and proportion of nests parasitized by
Brown-headed Cowbirds. Data for approximately 40,000 nests of 241 bird species from 42 sites located
throughout the United States in a variety of habitats and fragmentation contexts are currently included
(http ://woodpecker. ornith. Cornell. edu/BBird/).
BBIRD: Existing sites around Great lakes
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 62
-------
Table 1 lists the previously active BBIRD sites across the Great Lakes states. Further information is
available at http://pica.wru.umt.edu/BBIRD/datasite.htm. Funding has been cut for BBIRD, so far fewer
sites are currently active and a list of such is not available (Thomas Martin, pers. comm.).
Table 1. Locations and years of operation for BBIRD sites in the Great Lakes states.
State
IN
MN
MN
MN
NY
OH
OH
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
Location
Hoosier National Forest
Chippewa National Forest
Minnesota
Minnesota
Finger Lakes
Beach City
Ravenna Training Site, (Army/NG Ammo plant)
Chequemegon National Forest
Land O'Lakes
Northern Highlands State Forest
Nicolet National Forest
Pewaukee
Rosendale
St. Croix River Valley
Years
91-97
92-98
97
92
92-93
93-00
97-98
91-93
97-00
96
96
97-99
98-00
91-93
BBIRD: Applicability/limitations for contributing to breeding bird indicator
The labor requirements for BBIRD are greater than those of MAPS. Each BBIRD site typically has 4-10
volunteers, technicians, and graduate students working in the field each summer. Plots are searched for
nests every two days, and individual nests checked every 3-4 days. Each full-time technician can
effectively monitor two nests plots, visiting each plot every other day.
The size and number of replicate plots at each site vary with local objectives and the productivity of the
habitat, but the overall land area requirement is much less than for MAPS. Nest plots must be sufficient to
generate at least 20 nests per year in a single treatment/habitat type of each of the most common local
species. Sites range from eight 35-50 ha (87-124 acres) plots in eastern hardwood forests to eight 10-20 ha
(24-50 acres) sites in western riparian sites. Most BBIRD sites are in eastern hardwood forests (Conway
and Martin 1999), but protocols for grassland habitat are now available
(http://pica.wru.umt.edu/BBIRD/protocol/protocol.htm). Plots should be separated spatially to the extent
possible such that they can be treated as independent sampling units, and be at least 200 x 200 m (4 ha) to
accommodate fixed-radius point counts (Martin et al. 1997).
Hejl and Holmes (1999) demonstrated the budgetary and other logistic constraints inherent in nest
monitoring studies. They found that one observer could monitor from 10 - 15 nests per day, and that old-
growth forest required one person/50-ha plot to find most nests of focal species and to monitor those nests,
resulting in the need for 16 field assistants for an ideal expanded study comparing nesting success in
fragmented versus continuous forests (with the expectation of finding about 20 nests per treatment per year
for each of five focal species). Hejl and Halmes (1999) recommended one to five focal species for using
BBIRD methodology in order to focus effort.
Knadle et al. (2001) demonstrated the need for estimating annual reproductive output (versus nest success
and/or number of young fledged) to account for different breeding strategies and the influence of renesting
and multiple brooding on avian productivity. They caution against relying on nest success estimates that
typically do not recognize these factors. However, nest success has been positively correlated with annual
productivity (Thomas Martin, pers. comm.).
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
63
-------
As with the MAPS protocol, one or two qualified and experienced biologist(s) must be available and
committed to project oversight and intern training.
Conway and Martin (1999) reported that funding for 76 BBIRD sites exceeded two million dollars
annually. Dividing by the number of sites, the approximate annual cost at the time was $26,300 per site.
Again, given the variability in costs, we round up and add costs for intern/housing/travel to arrive at the
same $30,000 figure for implementing BBIRD annually. The estimated cost of the BBIRD program is
coarser than for MAPS because less information was available and costs will vary with habitat productivity
and volunteer availability.
Table 2. Comparison of MAPS and BBIRD costs, requirements, and data products/limitations.
Resources
Estimated cost per site
Personnel
Duration
Training time
Habitat
Minimum area of habitat
Habitat restrictions
Data
Productivity data
Survivorship data
Uncontrolled variables:
MAPS
$30,000.00
2 field workers, 1 biologist
3 months/yr
two weeks
55 10 ha
closed canopy /grassland
yes
yes - fledglings/adults only
Juvenal dispersal rates
capture probabilities
BBIRD
$30,000.00
4-15 field workers, 1 biologist
10 weeks/yr
three weeks
320 ha
variations in labor requirements
yes - more detail/breeding stage
yes - eggs/nestlings only
renesting
multibrooding
Local application of the breeding bird indicator using MAPS and/or BBIRD
Steps for developing indicators and indices of biological integrity have been widely proposed (USEPA
2002a, USEPA 2002b, Block et al. 2001, von Euler 1999, Andreasen et al. 2001, Dale and Beyeler 2001,
International Joint Commission 1996). Dale and Beyeler (2001) identified three common problems with the
use of indicators: 1) small number of indicators fail to consider full complexity of the ecological system; 2)
vague long term goals and objectives confound the choice of indicators; and 3) lack of scientific rigor in
management and monitoring programs due to undefined protocol used to identify indicators. The NPS
Inventory and Monitoring program's Guidance for designing an integrated monitoring program provides a
compilation of resources (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/momtor/vsmTG.htnrfProtocols). and the EPA's
evaluation guidelines further facilitate the process of indicator selection (Kurtz 2001). Wherever possible,
we attempt to address and incorporate the issues and recommendations identified in the existing literature.
Although the breeding bird indicator itself has been identified and approved through the SOLEC efforts,
the specific methodologies, processes, and selection of any target species and/or groups have not been
addressed. To further the use of this indicator, we present here a process for determining the applicability
of the breeding bird indicator for use in AOCs (but generally applicable otherwise) and suggestions for
methodology and indicator species. We have integrated components of the draft Pathway for Delisting
Three Beneficial Use Impairments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern prepared by USEPA GLNPO (2004),
and referenced these components.
1. Determine the applicability of the breeding bird indicator to the data needs for delisting the
impairment(s). As stated earlier, if one or more of the habitat-related beneficial use impairments (BUIs)
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
64
-------
exists in the AOC and includes breeding songbird populations that are definitely or potentially degraded,
the breeding bird indicator may be useful. The three habitat-related BUIs are 1) degradation of fish and
wildlife populations, 2) bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems, and 3) loss offish and wildlife
habitat. If none of these BUIs exist in the AOC, the breeding bird indicator is not likely ideal at the local
level.
For most AOCs, the breeding bird indicator will probably be applicable primarily to the degradation offish
and wildlife populations impairment, since bird deformities and reproductive problems are often
documented in waterbirds or raptors and assessment of the loss offish and wildlife habitat is typically
habitat-based (e.g., to acquire/maintain 2,000 ha of riparian forest.) If deformities and/or reproductive
problems pertain to breeding songbird populations or if population-based objectives are preferred to ensure
the quality of habitat, the breeding bird indicator could contribute to delisting these impairments as well.
2. Presuming that the species, habitat type, and area requirements for MAPS and/or BBIRD are addressed,
consider what the breeding bird indicator (as presented here) can provide:
o data on the productivity and survivorship of local songbirds populations to demonstrate
serf sustainability and ecosystem integrity,
o if the population is impaired, data on what life stage is being affected by stressors, and
o data on habitat conditions associated with successful and failed breeding attempts.
Are such data necessary and sufficient to characterize the desired outcome (environmental goals and
targets) and evaluate progress toward delisting the BUI(s)? The International Joint Commission (IJC)'s
delisting guidelines may be referenced (Appendix 1), but are not recommended because of their vagueness.
AOCs are expected to set their own guidelines with approval from the appropriate government agency
(Bruce Kirschner, pers. comm.).
Are the costs feasible? It would be useful at this point, if not done previously, to determine the relevant
agencies/organizations to be involved and/or responsible for monitoring and achieving the environmental
targets.
The IJC's Indicators for Evaluation Task Force recommends the above criteria (data needs and feasible
costs) for selecting indicators (1996). Presuming proper selection and implementation by the AOCs, the
protocols proposed here (MAPS and BBIRD) for the breeding bird indicator fulfill the remaining criteria
recommended by the Task Force:
o Data and information availability,
o Integrative capacity,
o Scientific validity,
o Certainty and quality of results,
o Understandability by technical and lay persons,
o Policy relevance, and
o Ability to establish reference values, or targets to achieve (International Joint
Commission 1996).
If the breeding bird indicator is selected based on these criteria or further information is needed for the
decision, proceed through the following steps.
1) Determine bird community/habitat targets
a) Consider the status/make-up of the current bird community(s). Conduct inventories if necessary.
b) Consider what bird communities were present historically (i.e., prairie, woodland, forest, wetland,
riparian). Use the available data on bird occupancy patterns and habitats present just prior to the
impacts leading to the fish and wildlife related impairments. Earlier data may be needed or useful,
but the target community(s) must be restorable within the confines of the current landscape(s).
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 65
-------
c) Consider the quality and quantity of current habitat types within and surrounding the AOC.
Research pre-European settlement habitat and species in order to understand the magnitude of
changes and the range of improvement possibilities (part of Pathway Step 1, pg 4).
i) What is the extent of existing habitat?
ii) What is the potential for restoring functional conservation areas? Functional can be defined
as able to maintain the focal biotic and abiotic patterns and processes within their natural
ranges of variability over time frames relevant to conservation planning and management
(e.g., 100-500 years). Factors to consider include:
(1) composition and structure of the focal ecosystems and species,
(2) dominant environmental regimes, including natural disturbance,
(3) minimum dynamic area, and
(4) connectivity (Poiani et al. 2000).
d) Consider the stressors contributing to the impairment. To the extent possible, articulate the
specific impairments to bird populations and habitats and their causes (part of Pathway Step 2, pg
5). Distinguish between the five key stresses (International Joint Commission, 1996) as follows:
i) biological contamination: exotic species
ii) chemical contamination: nutrients
iii) chemical contamination: persistent toxic substances
iv) physical alterations
v) human activities and values
e) Given the current and historic conditions of the bird communities and habitat, identify the priority
impaired bird community(s) with restoration potential relevant to the fish and wildlife
impairment(s) and environmental goals of the AOC.
2) Determine restoration target(s)
a) Given the impairments, stressors, and restoration potential, determine objectives and timeline for
the target bird community(s) (part of Pathway Step 3, pg 5).
Usually data on existing bird productivity and survivorship is lacking and, therefore, specific
productivity and/or survivorship targets will be difficult to determine. Approximately five years of
monitoring is required to identify average productivity and/or survivorship levels at the restoration
and/or reference site. This should not, however, prevent objectives from being set as specifically
as possible, and progress toward them undertaken. Data on productivity and survivorship by
species and location are available at IBPs NBII data interface
(http://www.birdpop.org/nbii/NBIIHome.asp) and BBIRDs online database
(http://cornell.birdsource.org/BBIRD/Reports). If local data are unavailable or insufficient, we
recommend relying on the available literature and these online sources to estimate acceptable
productivity and survivorship goals. Depending on the monitoring methodology selected,
objectives should be identified in terms of percent average nesting success; the total number of
juveniles caught, the proportion of juveniles in the catch (number of juveniles captured/total
number of aged individuals captured), or the ratio of juvenile:adult captures; and annual adult
survival rates. (See below for more information related to data analysis.) An example of a more
general productivity objective would be above or equal to the minimum productivity required to
sustain the target population without relying on immigration. Specific objectives are better to
avoid any ambiguity that could lead to confusion and difficulty in evaluation. Objectives based on
estimated figures can change as more data become available.
b) Choose reference sites for each habitat type to be restored (part of Pathway Step 3, pg 5).
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
-------
Natural/sustainable reference conditions should help define the objectives while degraded
reference conditions define the socially unacceptable state. Identifying each end of the metric
enables development of its range and scale (Andreasen et al. 2001).
3) Determine methodology(s)
a) Review the size/connectivity of the target restoration area(s) and the stressor(s) impacting it or
them. As described earlier, minimum size requirements for BBIRD and MAPS protocols are
typically 320 ha (8 40 ha plots) and 5,510 ha, respectively. For BBIRD sites, the number and size
of plots varies with the habitat productivity and target species, and should support a sufficient
number of nest plots to find at least 20 nests per treatment/habitat type each year, for each of the
most locally common species (Martin et al. 1997).
b) If productivity is known to be impaired and adult survivorship is not a primary concern, BBIRD
protocols should be implemented to isolate the parameter of concern.
c) If chemical contamination is a known or potential problem, BBIRD protocols should be
implemented to isolate any impacts at the various nesting stages (egg-laying, incubation, nestling).
d) MAPS and BBIRD protocols may be implemented together to obtain a comprehensive
understanding of birds' productivity and survivorship, as well as any stressors affecting them.
This requires a more substantial investment of resources consistently over 5-10 years, and caution
must be taken to avoid and reduce disturbance impacts.
e) Both MAPS and BBIRD have habitat components that should be included in the monitoring
program. In addition to considering habitat type and vegetational characteristics, it is important to
consider landscape variables that may be affecting bird populations.
f) If MAPS protocols are implemented and productivity is found to be impaired and stable or
declining (this conclusion would require at least five years of data), BBIRD protocols may be
implemented to isolate the stressor(s). MAPS may then be continued or not, depending on
remaining data needs.
4) Select target species
Based on the habitat, bird community, and impairment information, select indicator species for
targeted evaluation. Five focal species are recommended for both BBIRD and MAPS programs (Hejl
and Holmes 1999, Phil Nott, pers. comm). The following steps should be used to select target species.
a) Make a list of all species in the area capable of reflecting the impaired habitat/ecosystem (specific
attributes, if known) and with adequate baseline information available on biology, taxonomy, and
tolerance levels.
Habitat assemblages are recommended versus foraging or nesting guilds (secondary
consideration). Habitat assemblages allow direct evaluation of community responses to the
modification of vegetation structure and likely integrate multiple effects of disturbance such as
changes in foraging and nesting substrates and scale-dependent fragmentation effects. In addition,
multiple habitat assemblages can be considered for evaluating entire communities (Canterbury et
al. 2000). Habitat association data are readily available for most species in the literature as well as
through online sources, including the Partners in Flight Species Management Synthesis
(http://www.partnersinflight.org/birdacct.htm). NatureServe Explorer
(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer). USGS Habitat Suitability Indices
(http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsiindex.htm). Forest Birds of the Western Great Lakes
Species Accounts (http://www.nrri.umn.edu/mnbirds/accounts.htm) and Bird Conservation,
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 67
-------
Western Great Lakes Basin (http://www.uwgb.edu/birds/greatlakes/index.htmX Local data and
expertise must also be considered, since species' habitat associations can vary geographically.
i) If cowbirds, starlings, or other exotic bird species are problems targeted for resolution, select
common host/victim species. If exotic vegetation is a stressor identified for restoration,
identify species sensitive to alteration of the habitat structure caused by the exotic(s).
ii) If chemical contamination is a problem, consider the material(s) impacted and identify species
that utilize or depend on this material in a part of their life cycle. Since contamination
problems in the AOCs are typically associated with water bodies, delisting this type of
impairment will most likely require monitoring fish-eating species for which MAPS and
BBIRD methods are not appropriate. See Appendix 2 for information on marsh bird,
waterbird, and shorebird monitoring programs.
The Contaminant Exposure and Effects-Terrestrial Vertebrates database (CEE-TV) contains
contaminant exposure and effects information for terrestrial vertebrates (birds, mammals,
amphibians and reptiles) that reside in estuarine and coastal habitats along the Atlantic, Gulf
and Pacific Coasts including Alaska and Hawaii and in the Great Lakes Region
(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/). This site also provides a template for
ranking the suitability of terrestrial vertebrate species as potential sentinels of exposure to
contaminants.
iii) If fragmentation (or another physical alteration) is a stressor targeted for restoration, select
species that depend on that component of the habitat most affected. For example, if the size
of habitat patch is limiting and management plans include expanding or linking habitats,
chose an area-dependent species that utilizes the target habitat. As noted earlier,
fragmentation can also result in increased predation. If this is a problem targeted for
resolution, select species that are common prey of the predator(s) at issue.
b) Preference should be given to year-round species. Demographic data on migratory birds are
complicated by factors beyond those existing on the breeding grounds and must be interpreted
with caution. In addition to populations being limited by nonbreeding habitats, migratory species
typically disperse far from natal areas and have the capacity to recolonize even very poor habitats
(Robinson and Morse 1999). However, depending on the habitat and impairments and with due
caution, it may be useful or necessary to choose a migratory species as part of an indicator group.
Most resident species are considered generalists, and thus may be more difficult to relate to a
specific impairment(s).
c) Consider species identified as priorities for the region by authorities on bird conservation, but see
caution below regarding the use of uncommon species as indicators. Bird priority lists include
those published by Partners in Flight (http://www.partnersinflight.org/). the Fish and Wildlife
Service (http://midwest.fws.gov/pdf/prioritv.pdf). and Partners in Flight - Canada
(http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/clms/app3 e.cfm). Also, Bird Studies Canada has
published Conservation Priorities for the Birds of Southern Ontario (http://www.bsc-
eoc.org/conservation/conservmain.html). The American Bird Conservancy's Green List identifies
the highest priority birds for conservation in the continental United States and Canada, building on
the species assessments conducted by Partners in Flight on landbirds and expanded to include
species of all taxa (http://www.abcbirds.org/greenlist.htm).
d) Very uncommon or rare species are not recommended because they will be difficult to monitor in
numbers sufficient for meaningful analyses. In addition, if a species is uncommon in the area, its
absence from a given habitat would not necessarily indicate inferior quality. If, on the other hand,
an uncommon species is documented in an area and monitoring reveals a decline or disappearance,
a reduction in habitat quality should be investigated. Information on BBS trends by Bird
Conservation Region is available online http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbsbcr2003.html. In
their study of breeding birds in Great Lakes National Forests, Lind et al. (2003) found highly
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
-------
significant declines for short-distance migrants and ground nesting birds in all study areas, while
other birds groups (long-distance migrants, permanent residents, shrub, sub-canopy, canopy, and
cavity nesters showed mixed results, increased, or were mostly stable.
e) To the extent possible, rank the species by their ability to meet the following criteria:
i) Measurable. Give preference to those species that can be easily detected and monitored with
available funds (Vora 1997, Linty et al. 2000, Dale and Beyeler 2001, Hilty and Merenlender
2000). Each target species must be one that MAPS and/or BBIRD would adequately sample
within resource limitations. Table 3 lists species that are regularly captured at MAPS sites
throughout the Midwest/Northeast and thus should provide adequate samples. Table 4 lists the
five most common species monitored at BBIRD sites in Great Lakes states, and Table 5
breaks these species down by site.
Table 3. Species commonly captured at Midwest/Northeast MAPS stations with general migratory
status/seasonal occurrence status for Great Lakes populations (the status rankings vary within the Great
Lakes region for some species).
Alpha Code
TRFL
REVI
BCCH
HOWR
VEER
WOTH
AMRO
GRCA
YELL
CSWA
MAWA
MYWA
WPWA
BWWA
AMRE
OVEN
NOWA
CONW
MOWA
COYE
HOWA
WIWA
FISP
SOSP
LISP
WTSP
Common Name
Traill's Flycatcher
Red-eyed Vireo
Black-capped Chickadee
House Wren
Veery
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Yellow Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Myrtle Warbler
Yellow Palm Warbler
Black-and- White Warbler
American Redstart
Ovenbird
Northern Waterthrush
Connecticut Warbler
Mourning Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Hooded Warbler
Wilson's Warber
Field Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lincoln Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Scientific Name
Empidonax alnorum/traillii
Vireo olivaceus
Poecile atricapilla
Trolodytes aedon
Catharsus fuscescens
Hylocichla mustelina
Turdus migratorius
Dumetalla carolinensis
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica pensylvanica
Dendroica magnolia
Dendroica c. coronata
Dendroica p. hypochrysea
Mniotilta varia
Setophaga ruticilla
Seiurus aurocapillus
Seiurus noveboracensis
Oporornis agilis
Oporornis Philadelphia
Geothlypis trichas
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia pusilla
Spizella pusilla
Melospiza melodius
Melospiza lincolnii
Zonotrichia albicollis
Migratory
Status*
N
N
R
S/N
N
N
S
S/N
N
N
N
S/N
S/N
S/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
S/N
Seasonal Occurrence
summer resident/migrant
summer resident
permanent resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident/migrant
summer resident/migrant
summer resident/migrant
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident/migrant
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident/migrant
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident/migrant
*Migration Status Key
R=Resident (winters in Great Lakes region)
S=Short-distance migrant (winters in S. USA)
N=Neotropical migrant (winters south of the Tropic of Cancer)
R/S=Resident to Short-distance migrant
S/N= Short-distance migrant to Neotropical migrant
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
69
-------
Table 4. Summary of top five species most commonly monitored at Great Lakes states BBIRD sites with
general migratory and seasonal occurrence status (the status rankings vary within the Great Lakes region
for some species).
Alpha Code
MALL
RTHU
YBSA
EAWP
ACFL
LEFL
REVI
BLJA
BRCR
HOWR
SEWR
BGGN
WOTH
HETH
AMRO
GRCA
NAWA
CSWA
BTNW
AMRE
PROW
OVEN
COYE
HOWA
SCTA
SOSP
WTSP
NOCA
RBGR
BOBO
RWBL
BAOR
Common Name
Mallard
Ruby -throated Hummingbird
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Eastern Wood Pee-Wee
Acadian Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue Jay
Brown Creeper
House Wren
Sedge Wren
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Wood Thrush
Hermit Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Nashville Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
American Redstart
Prothonotary Warbler
Ovenbird
Common Yellowthroat
Hooded Warbler
Scarlet Tanager
Song Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Northern Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Bobolink
Red-winged Blackbird
Baltimore Oriole
Scientific Name
Anas platyrhynchos
Archilocus colubris
Sphyrapicus varius
Contopus virens
Empidonax virescens
Empidonax minimus
Vireo olivaceus
Cyanocitta cristata
Certhia americana
Troglodytes aedon
Cistothorus platensis
Polioptila caerulea
Hylocichla mustelina
Catharus guttatus
Turdus migratorius
Dumetella carolinensis
Vermivora mficapilla
Dendroica pensylvanica
Dendroica virens
Setophaga ruticilla
Protonotaria citrea
Seiurus aurocapillus
Geothlypis trichas
Wilsonia citrina
Piranga olivacea
Melospiza melodia
Zonotrichia albicollis
Cardinalis cardinalis
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Icterus galbula
Migratory
Status*
S
N
S
N
N
N
N
R
S
S
S
S/N
N
N
R/S
S/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
S/N
N
N
S
S
R
N
N
S/R
N
Seasonal Occurrence
summer/perm, resident
summer resident
summer resident/migrant
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
permanent resident
winter/perm, resident
summer resident
summer resident/absent
summer resident/absent
summer resident/absent
summer resident/migrant
summer/perm, resident
summer resident
summer resident/migrant
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident/absent
summer resident
summer resident
summer resident/absent
summer resident
summer/perm, resident
summer resident/migrant
permanent resident
summer resident
summer resident
summer/perm, resident
summer resident
*Migration Status Key
R=Resident (winters in Great Lakes region)
S=Short-distance migrant (winters in S. USA)
N=Neotropical migrant (winters south of the Tropic of Cancer)
R/S=Resident to Short-distance migrant
S/N= Short-distance migrant to Neotropical migrant
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
70
-------
Table 5. Top five species per BBIRD sites of the Great Lakes states. See Table 4 for species alpha code
key.
State
IN
MN
MN
MN
NY
OH
OH
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
Location
Hoosier National Forest
Chippewa National Forest
Minnesota
Minnesota
Finger Lakes
Beach City
Ravenna Training Site, (Army/NG Ammo plant)
Chequemegon National Forest
Land O'Lakes
Northern Highlands State Forest
Nicolet National Forest
Pewaukee
Rosendale
St. Croix River Valley
5 Most Common Species
ACFL,WOTH,REVI,WEWA,OVEN
LEFL,OVEN,YB S A,REVI,HETH
BGGN,AMRE,EAWP,AMRO,SCTA
HOWR,YBSA,AMRE,PROW,BRCR
AMRO, OVEN, REVI, YBSA, COYE
ACFL,HOWA,WOTH,REVI,NOCA
ACFL,REVI,WOTH,AMRE,RTHU
OVEN,LEFL,REVI,WOTH,HETH
NAWA,WTSP,YBFL,CSWA,RBGR
OVEN,HETH,BTNW,SCTA,REVI
LEFL,OVEN,HETH,REVI,BTNW
BLJA,NOCA,GRCA,AMRO,BAOR
BOBO, SEWR, RWBL, SOSP, MALL
OVEN,WOTH,REVI,AMRO,LEFL
ii) Sensitive to identified stressor(s) (Linty et al. 2000, Hilty and Merenlender 2000). Sufficiently
high
signal strength (when compared with natural or seasonal variation) to allow detection of
ecologically significant changes within a reasonable timeframe (2% linear trend over a region
within 10 years, with a 0.20 probability of a Type I error and a power of 70% (Vora 1997)).
iii) Responds to identified stressor(s) in a known, predictable manner, with an established
correlation to the
ecosystem change. Reflects differences in ecological condition, pollutant exposure, or habitat
condition and responds to stressors across most pertinent habitats within a region (Vora 1997,
Dale and Beyeler 2001, Linty et al. 2000).
iv) Predicts changes that can be averted by management goals/targets. Is related unambiguously
to the
assessment endpoint (Vora 1997, Dale and Beyeler 2001).
v) Low variability in response (Linty et al. 2000, Dale and Beyeler 2001, Hilty and Merenlender
2000).
vi) If possible, remove species that may respond to changes occurring outside the system of
interest (Hilty
and Merenlender 2000).
vii) Select a set of complementary indicator taxa from different taxonomic groups so that all
selection
criteria are met by more than one taxon (Hilty and Merenlender 2000).
5) Evaluation
a) For MAPS, patterns in productivity may be calculated by analysis of 1) the total number of
juveniles caught; 2) the proportion of juveniles in the catch (number of juveniles captured/total
number of aged individuals captured); and 3) the ratio of juvenile:adult captures. Because of
differences inherent in juvenile versus adult captures, the use of juvenile captures per net hour is
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
71
-------
recommended where breeding population size is relatively stable. Where breeding density
fluctuates greatly, adult captures should be considered (Nur et al. 1999b). (Breeding density can
be measured roughly using the number of adult captures and/or with supplemental monitoring.)
IBP estimates annual adult survival rates and adult capture probabilities with modified Cormack-
Jolly-Seber mark-recapture models that account for between- and within-year length-of-stay
transients. The models permit estimation of the proportion of residents among newly captured
birds and provide survival rate estimates that are unbiased with respect to transient individuals
(DeSante and Nott 2000). The software, however, is proprietary and not available for distribution
(Phil Nott, pers. comm.). Nur et al. (1999a) suggest manual criteria for distinguishing transients
and provide other recommendations for data analysis. Nur et al. (1999b) review and offer
guidance and examples on methods and software for statistical analysis of data from bird banding
and other bird monitoring programs. This publication is available for download at
http://www.prbo.org/tools. The IBP website also offers publications that may assist in data
analysis (http://www.birdpop.org).
b) For BBIRD data, the Mayfield method (Mayfield 1975, Hensler and Nichols 1981) is used to
estimate daily nest mortality rates and percent nests lost to mortality due to all causes or due only
to predation. Also, Pease and Grzybowski (1995) present a mathematical model for measuring the
consequences of brood parasitism and nest predation on seasonal fecundity, since measuring the
impacts on individual nesting attempts may not reflect the impact on seasonal fecundity due to
renesting efforts.
c) A minimum of five years' data is required to establish baseline information on target
species/community(s).
d) Ten to twenty years has been suggested as an appropriate range of intervals to evaluate overall
restoration or management plans, depending on how immediate a response is expected from the
activities. Assessment of population response(s) to restoration/management activities should
occur subsequent to annual monitoring throughout the process (Donovan et al. 1999).
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 72
-------
Appendix 1:
MAPS stations Survey- Summary of Responses
MAPS Location/Station
Survey
Questions
Nearest Town
Great Lakes
Basin
Located in
AOC
Habitat(s)
Impact
Management
Area of
habitat
Duration
Costs
Interst in
contributing
to the BBInd
Chicago
Bird
Observatory
Illinois-GSU
no
shrubland
-
-
28 acres
MELC/MLFS
&MLWM
Goshen, IN
Lake Michigan
no
shrubland,
grassland
moderate
active
1150 acres
2002-?
>$5,250
Yes
PITS/PIFI
Vicksburg,
MI
Lake
Michigan
nearby
woodland,
old field,
gravel pit
moderate
active
900 acres
1990-?
>$5,000
Yes
BMAC/BAAR
Java, NY
Lake Erie
no
shrubland,
grassland
moderate
active
324 acres
2002-?
training/equip
only (all
volunteer)
need more info
KJOS
Lena, WI
Lake
Michigan
yes
northern
hardwood
swamp/scrub
-
minimal
122 acres
1993-2003,
2005-?
(permit
probs)
equipment
only
(all
volunteer)
No
STBR/STBR
Republic, OH
Lake Erie
nearby
2nd older growth
hardwoods,
remnant/farmed
orchard,
bottomland, etc.
moderate
minimal
1992-1997; 2004-
2009
equipment only
(all volunteer)
Yes
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004
73
-------
Appendix 2: IJC Listing and Delisting Guidelines for
Habitat-related Beneficial Use Impairments
Degradation of fish and wildlife population (BUI 3)
Listing guideline: When fish and wildlife management programs have identified degraded fish or wildlife
populations due to a cause within the watershed. In addition, this use will be considered impaired when
relevant, field-validated; fish or wildlife bioassays with appropriate quality assurance/quality controls
confirm significant toxicity from water column or sediment contaminants.
Delisting guideline: When environmental conditions support healthy, self-sustaining communities of
desired fish and wildlife at predetermined levels of abundance that would be expected from the amount and
quality of suitable physical, chemical and biological habitat present. An effort must be made to insure that
fish and wildlife objectives for Areas of Concern are consistent with Great Lakes ecosystem objectives and
Great Lakes Fishery Commission fish community goals. Further, in the absence of community structure
data, this use will be considered restored when fish and wildlife bioassays confirm no significant toxicity
from water column or sediment contaminants.
Rationale: Emphasizes fish and wildlife management program goals; consistent with Agreement and Great
Lakes Fishery Commission goals; accounts for toxicity bioassays.
Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems (BUI 5)
Listing guideline: When wildlife survey data confirm the presence of deformities (e.g. cross-bill
syndrome) or other reproductive problems (e.g. egg-shell thinning) in sentinel wildlife species.
Delisting guideline: When the incidence rates of deformities or reproductive problems in sentinel wildlife
species do not exceed levels in inland control populations.
Rationale: Emphasizes confirmation through survey data; makes necessary control comparisons.
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat (BUI 14)
Listing guideline: When fish and wildlife management goals have not been met as a result of loss of fish
and wildlife habitat due to a perturbation in the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the Boundary
Waters, including wetlands.
Delisting guideline: When the amount and quality of physical, chemical, and biological habitat required to
meet fish and wildlife management goals have been achieved and protected.
Rationale: Emphasizes fish and wildlife management program goals; emphasizes water component of
Boundary Waters.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 74
-------
Appendix 3: Monitoring programs for other habitats/bird groups
The Marsh Monitoring Program monitored wetland habitats in Great Lakes AOCs from 1995-2002, and
produced a series of reports on the status of breeding marsh bird and amphibian communities and
recommendations for future monitoring (http://www.bsc-eoc.org/MMP-AOCreports.html'). These data and
this program should be considered, but the protocol does not currently address demographic parameters.
Building on the MMP, the Development and Assessment of Environmental Indicators based on Birds and
Amphibians in the Great Lakes Basin is part of a multi-disciplinary investigation involving scientists from
seven academic institutions, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and US EPA Mid-Continent
Ecology Division. The final product will include a suite of wetland bird, shorebird, and amphibian
indicators of ecological condition in the Great Lakes basin and recommendations for a long-term
monitoring strategy that minimizes costs while maximizing statistical power for discriminating degraded
vs. high quality ecosystems (http://glei.nrri.umn.edu/default/birds.htm).
International Shorebird Survey (ISS), Program for Regional & International Shorebird Monitoring
(PRISM), US Shorebird Plan, and Canadian Conservation Shorebird Plan can all be accessed at
http://www.manomet.org/WHSRN/monitoring.htm.
Information on the Waterbird Monitoring Partnershp is at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/cwb/. and the
Breeding Season Population Census Techniques for Seabirds and Colonial Waterbirds Throughout North
America is available at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/cwb/manual/.
With regard to contributing to delisting AOC impairments, it should be noted that a major challenge in
linking the health of waterbird populations such as gulls, terns, and herons to water quality conditions is
identifying the specific feeding locations associated with breeding areas. Also, most waterbird and
shorebird populations are migratory throughout the Great Lakes, adding substantially to the variables that
affect productivity and survivorship.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 75
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Andreasen, James K., R.V. O'Neill, R. Noss, and N.C. Slosser. August 2001. Considerations for the
development of a terrestrial index of ecological integrity. Ecological Indicators 1 (2001)21-3 5.
Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. 2000. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Selection of
Indicators
for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
Block, William M, A.B. Franklin, J.P. Ward, Jr., J.L. Ganey, and G.C. White. 2001. Design and
implementation of monitoring studies to evaluate the success of ecological restoration on wildlife.
Restoration Ecology Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 293-303.
Browder, Sharoon Freshman, D.H. Johnson, and I.J. Ball. 2002. Assemblages of breeding birds as
indicators of grassland condition. Ecological Indicators 2 (2002): 257-270.
Bradford, David F., S.E. Franson, A.C. Neale, D.T.Heggem, G.R.Miller, and G.E. Cantebury. 1998. Bird
Species Assemblages as Indicators of Biological Integrity in Great Basin Rangeland. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 49: 1-22.
Brooks, Robert P., R.S. Mulvihill, T.L. Master, T.J. O'Connell, and S,E. Laubscher. Final Report: Using
bioindicators to develop a calibrated index of regional ecological integrity for forested headwater
ecosystems. (Project Period: June 1, 1998 through May 31, 2001.) URL:
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncer abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/displav.abstractDetail/abstract/273/report/F.
Brooks, Robert P., R.S. Mulvihill, T. Master, and T. J. O'Connell. 2000. Using Bioindicators to Develop a
Calibrated Index of Regional Ecological Integrity for Forested Headwater Ecosystems.
(http://es.epa.gov/ncer/progress/grants/97/ecoind/brooksOO.html)
Bryce, Sandra A., R. M. Hughes, and P. R. Kaufmann. 2002. Development of a Bird Integrity Index:
Using Bird Assemblages as Indicators of Riparian Condition. Environmental Management Vol. 30, No. 2,
pp. 294-310.
Canterbury, Grant E., T.I. Martin, D.R. Petit, L.J. Petit, and D.F. Bradford. 2000. Bird communities and
habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conservation Biology, Vol 14
No. 2: 544-558.
Caughlan, Lynne and K.L. Oakley. 2001. Cost considerations for long-term ecological monitoring.
Ecological Indicators 1 (2001) 123-134.
Conway, Courtney J. and Thomas E. Martin. The value of monitoring demographic parameters and
associated habirtat: The BBIRD Program. In Bonney, Rick, David N. Pashley, Robert J. Cooper, and Larry
Niles, eds. 1999. Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, http://birds.Cornell.edu/pifcapemav
Dale, Virginia H. and Suzanne C. Beyeler. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological
indicators. Ecological Indicators 1 (2001) 3-10.
DeSante, D.F., Burton, K.M., Velez, P., and Froehlich, D. 2001. MAPS Manual: 2001 Protocol. The
Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 67 p.
(DeSante and Nott 2000. An Overview of the North American Monitoring Avian Productivity and
Survivorship Program—downloaded fr IBP.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 76
-------
Bias, Paula C. 1996. Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol. 11,
No. 8: 326-330.
Donovan, Therese M, K.E. Freemark, B.A. Maurer, L. Petit, S.K. Robinson, and V. Saab. Setting local
and regional objectives for the persistence of bird populations. In Bonney, Rick, David N. Pashley, Robert
J. Cooper, and Larry Niles, eds. 1999. Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning
Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, http ://birds. Cornell,edu/pifcapemav
Fancy, Steven G. and J.R. Sauer. 2000. Recommended Methods for Inventorying and Monitoring
Landbirds in National Parks, May 5, 2000 Version. National Park Service.
http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/protocols/birds.htm
Gardali, Thomas, C. Shoulders, D. Hatch, A.L. Holmes, S.E. Scoggin, and G.R. Geupel. 2001. Songbird
monitoring in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area: A multifaceted tool for guiding the restoration of
Redwood Creek. Park Science Vol 21 No 1: 28-32.
Geissler, P. 1996. Review of the Monitoring Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program. The Institute
for Bird Populations, Pt. Reyes, Calif.
Geupel, Geoffrey R. and G. Elliott. Wet and Wild - Using birds to conserve western riparian habitat. Bird
Conservation 14: 12-13). www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/birdcons/14pgl2-13.pdf
Heath, SachaK., C. McCreedy, H.R. Gates, and Q.S. Latif. 2002. Eastern Sierra Riparian Songbird
Conservation: Results of the 2002 Field Season. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conservation Science,
PRBO Contribution #1066. www.prbo.org.
Hejl, Sallie J. and Jennifer A. Holmes. Using BBIRD Methodology in a Logistically Constrained Study. In
Bonney, Rick, David N. Pashley, Robert J. Cooper, and Larry Niles, eds. 1999. Strategies for Bird
Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemav
Hilty, Jodi and A. Merenlender. Fauna! indiator taxa selection for monitoring ecosystem health. 2000.
Biological Conservation 92 (2000) 185-197.
Howe, R.W., G.J. Niemi, SJ. Lewis, and D.A. Welsh. 1998. A standard method for monitoring bird
populations in the Great Lakes Region, http://www.nrri.umn.edu/cwe/greatlakes/glpf/pub.htm
Howell, Christine A., S.C. Latta, T.M. Donovan, P.A. Porneluzi, G.R. Parks, and J. Faaborg. 2000.
Landscape effets mediate breeding bird abundance in Midwestern forests. Landscape Ecology 15: 547-
562.
International Joint Commission, Indicators for Evaluation Task Force. Indicators to evaluate progress
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. April 1996. http://www.ijc.org/ietf/ietf.html
Jenkins, Kurt, Woodward, Andrea, and Schreiner, Ed. 2003. A Framework for Long-term Ecological
Monitoring in Olympic National Park: Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome. U.S. Geological Survey,
Biological Resources Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-0006, 150 p.
Knadle, Gregory E., D.L. Brubaker, and K.S. Brubaker. 2001. Nest success is not an adequate
comparative estimate of avian reproduction. J. Field Ornithol. Autumn 2001.
Knutson, Melinda G., G.J. Niemi, W.E. Newton, and M.A. Friberg. 2004. Avian nest success in
midwestern forests fragmented by agriculture. The Condor 106: 116-130.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 77
-------
Kurtz, Janis C., L.E. Jackson, and W.S. Fisher. 2001. Strategies for evaluating indicators based on
guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development. Ecological
Indicators 1:49-60.
Lind, Jim, N. Danz, J.M. Hanowski, and G.J. Niemi. 2003 Annual Update Report: Breeding Bird
Monitoring in Great Lakes National Forests: 1991-2003. Natural Resources Research Institute Technical
Report: NRRI/TR-2003/46. http://www.nrri.umn.edu/mnbirds/reports.htm.
Martin, Thomas E. 1992. Breeding productivity considerations: what are the appropriate habitat features
for management? Pages 455-473 in J.M. Hagan and D.W. Johnston, eds. Ecology and conservation of
Neotropical migrants. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Martin, Thomas E., D.F. DeSante, C.R. Paine, T. Donovan, R. Dettmers, J. Manolis, and K. Burton.
Breeding Productivity and Adult Survival in Nongame Birds. In Edward T LaRoe ed. 1995. Our living
resources : a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and
ecosystems. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Service.
http ://biologv .uses. gov/s+t/noframe/bO 14 .htm.
Martin, Thomas E., C. Paine, C.J. Conway, W.M. Hochachka, P. Wallen, and W. Jenkins. 1997. BBIRD
Field Protocol. Biological Research Division, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of
Montana.
Mikusinski, Grzegorz, M. Gromadzki, and P. Chylarecki. 2000. Woodpeckers as indicators of forest bird
diversity. Conservation Biology Vol 15 no. 1: 208-217.
Muehter, Vincent. Audubon: Cowbirds and Conservation, http://www.audubon.org/bird/research/. (date of
access September 2004).
Nott, M.P. 2000. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Habitat Structure Assessment
(HSA) Protocol. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA 42 p.
Nur, Nadav, G.R. Geupel, and G. Ballard. The use of constant-effort mist-netting to monitor demographic
processes in passerine birds: annual variation in survival, productivity, and floaters. In Bonney, Rick, David
N. Pashley, Robert J. Cooper, and Larry Niles, eds. 1999a. Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners
in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemav
Nur, Nadav, S.L. Jones, and G. Geupel. 1999b. A statistical guide to data analysis of avian monitoring
programs. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, BTP-R6001-1999, Washington, D.C.
O'Connell, Timothy J., L.E. Jackson and R.P. Brooks. 1998. A Bird Community Index of Biotic Integrity
for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. (http://www.wetlands.cas.psu.edu/Research/oconnell98.htm)
Pease, Craig M., and Joseph A. Grzybowski. 1995. Assessing the consequences of brood parasitism and
nest predation on seasonal fecundity in passerine birds. The Auk 112(2): 343-363.
Poiani, K.P., B.D. Richter, M.G. Anderson, and H.E. Richter. 2000. Biodiversity conservation at multiple
scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133-146.
Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652-661.
Purcell, Kathryn L. and Jared Verner. 1998. Density and reproductive success of California Towhees.
Conservation Biology Conservation Biology 12 (2), 442-450.
Pyle, P. 1997. Identification Guide to North American Birds, Part I. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, Calif.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 78
-------
Reme, Vladimir. 2003. Effects of exotic habitat on nesting success, territory density, and settlement
patterns in the Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla). Conservation Biology 17 (4), 1127-1133.
Robinson, Scott K. and Solon F. Morse. Conservation Insights from Demographic Studies of Migratory
Songbirds in the American Midwest. In Bonney, Rick, David N. Pashley, Robert J. Cooper, and Larry
Niles, eds. 1999. Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, http ://birds .Cornell,edu/pifcapemav
Rodewald, Amanda D. and R.H. Yahner. 2001. Avian nesting success in forested landscapes: influence of
landscape composition, stand and nest-patch microhabitat, and biotic interactions. The Auk 118(4): 1018-
1028.
Smallwood, K. Shawn. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.
Restoration Ecology Vol. 9 No. 3: 253-261.
Stribley, John M. and J. B. Haufler. Landscape effects on cowbird occurrences in Michigan: implications
to research needs in forests of the inland west. In Morrison, Michael L., Linnea S. Hall, Scott K. Robinson,
Stephen I. Rothstein, D. Caldwell Hahn, and Terrell D. Rich, eds. 1997. Research and Management of the
Brown-headed Cowbird in Western Landscapes. Cooper Ornithological Society.; Studies in Avian Biology
No. 18. http://elibrary.unm.edu/condor/
The Institute for Bird Populations. 2003. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS)
Program Annual Reports, 1989-2000. NBII/MAPS Avian Demographics Query Interface.
http://www.birdpop.org/nbii/Default.asp
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office. 2004. DRAFT Pathway for Delisting Three Beneficial Use
Impairments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Biological Assessment Methods
for Birds. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-
02-023. www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wetlands/13Birds.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2002b. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing Metrics and Indexes
of Biological Integrity. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA-822-R-02-016.
Van Home, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management
47:893-901.
von Euler, Fredrik. 1999. An objective indicator of functional integrity in avian communities. Forest
Ecology and Management 115: 221-229.
Vora, R.S. 1997. Developing programs to monitor ecosystem health and effectiveness of management
practices on Lakes States National Forests, USA. Biological Conservation 80 (1997) 289-302.
Wang, Yong and D.M. Finch. 2002. Consistency of mist netting and point counts in assessing landbird
species richness and relative abundance during migration. The Condor 104:59-72.
Indicator Changes and Progress - Draft for Comment and Discussion at SOLEC 2004 79
-------
Appendix 1
This section contains the descriptions for all indicators in the Great Lakes Suite. They are
listed in numerical order.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
1
-------
Indicator Descriptions
Fish Habitat (Indicator #6) 4
Salmon and Trout (Indicator #8) 6
Walleye (Indicator #9) 8
Preyfish Populations and Communities (Indicator #17) 10
Sea Lamprey (Indicator ID: 18) 12
Native Freshwater Mussels (Indicator ID: 68) 14
Lake Trout (Indicator #68) 16
Benthos Diversity and Abundance (Indicator ID: 104) 17
Phytoplankton Populations (Indicator ID: 109) 18
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (Indicator ID: 111) 20
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners (Indicator ID: 114) 22
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (Indicator ID: 115) 23
Zooplankton Populations (Indicator ID: 116) 25
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals (Indicator ID: 117) 27
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters (Indicator ID: 118) 30
Concentration of Contaminants in Sediment Cores (Indicator ID: 119) 31
Contaminants in Whole Fish (Indicator ID: 121) 33
Hexagenia (Indicator ID: 122) 35
Benthic Amphipod (Diporeia spp.) (Indicator ID: 123) 37
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish (Indicator ID: 124) 38
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes (Indicator ID: 125) 40
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures (Indicator ID: 3514) 41
Household Stormwater Recycling (Indicator ID: 3516) 43
Drinking Water Quality (Indicator ID: 4175) 44
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals (Indicator ID: 4177) 45
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence (Indicator ID: 4179) 46
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures (Indicator ID: 4200) 47
Contaminants in Sport Fish (Indicator ID: 4201) 49
Air Quality (Indicator ID: 4202) 50
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health (Indicator ID: 4501) 52
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (Indicator ID: 4502) 53
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance (Indicator ID: 4504) 54
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (Indicator ID: 4506) 56
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator ID: 4507) 58
Coastal Wetland Area Extent by Type (Indicator ID: 4510) 60
Coastal Wetland Restored Area by Type (Indicator ID: 4511) 62
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator ID: 4516) 64
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes (Indicator ID: 4858) 65
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels (Indicator ID: 4860) 67
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator ID:4861) 69
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health (Indicator ID: 4862) 71
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (Indicator ID: 4863) 73
Human Impact Measures (Indicator ID: 4864) 75
Urban Density (Indicator ID: 7000) 77
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
2
-------
Land Cover-Land Conversion (Indicator ID: 7002) 78
Brownfield Redevelopment (Indicator ID: 7006) 79
Sustainable Agricultural Practices (Indicator ID: 7028) 80
Economic Prosperity (Indicator ID: 7043) 81
Ground Surface Hardening (Indicator ID: 7054) 82
Water Withdrawal (Indicator ID: 7056) 83
Energy Consumption (Indicator ID: 7057) 84
Solid Waste Generation (Indicator ID: 7060) 85
Nutrient Management Plans (Indicator ID: 7061) 86
Integrated Pest Management (Indicator ID: 7062) 88
Vehicle Use (Indicator ID: 7064) 89
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes (Indicator ID: 7100) 90
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity (Indicator ID: 7101) 91
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge New Indicator (Indicator ID: 7102) 93
Groundwater Dependent Animal and Plant Communities (Indicator ID: 7103) 94
Habitat Fragmentation (Indicator ID: 8114) 97
Area, Quality, and Protect!on of Lakeshore Communities (Indicator ID: 8129) 98
Extent of Hardened Shoreline (Indicator ID: 8131) 100
Nearshore Land Use (Indicator ID: 8132) 101
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles (Indicator ID: 8135) 103
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover (Indicator ID: 8136) 104
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability (Indicator ID: 8137) 106
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment (Indicator ID: 8142) 107
Artificial Coastal Structures (Indicator ID: 8146) 108
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter (Indicator ID: 8147) 109
Protected Nearshore Areas (Indicator ID: 8149) Ill
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator ID: 8150) 113
Threatened Species (Indicator ID: 8161) 115
Health of Terrestrial Plant Communities (Indicator ID: 8162) 117
Status and Protection of Special Places and Species (Indicator ID: 8163) 118
Forest Health Criterion #1: Conservation of Biological Diversity (Indicator ID: 8500) 119
Forest Health Criterion #2: Maintenance and Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems (Indicator ID:
8501) 121
Forest Health Criterion #3: Maintenance of Forest Ecosystem Health and Vitality (Indicator ID: 8502)
121 121
Forest Health Criterion #4: Conservation & Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources (Indicator ID:
8503) 121
Acid Rain (Indicator ID: 9000) 122
Exotic Species (Indicator ID: 9002) 123
Climate Change: Effect on Crop Heat Units (Indicator ID: 9003) 124
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
3
-------
Fish Habitat (Indicator ID; 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.
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 offish passage facilities
(up- and downstream) that could be used successfully by species or communities of concern (for example, lake sturgeon, or other
anadromous fishes listed in FCGO) could also serve as measures.
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.
End point
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 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
offish [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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
4
-------
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.
Unfinished Business
DNeed to develop a list of sentinel fish species.
DQuantifiable endpoints and/or reference values need further development work.
DThe 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?
DThere 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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
5
-------
Salmon and Trout (Indicator ID; 8)
/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.
End point
The current Fish Community Goals and Objectives (FCGO) for introduced trout and salmon species establish harvest or yield targets
consistent with FCGO for lake trout restoration, and in Lake Ontario, for Atlantic salmon restoration. The following index targets for
introduced trout and salmon species were provided in the FCGO for the listed lake.
Lake Ontario (1999): Salmon and trout catch rates in recreational fisheries continuing at early-1990s levels.
Lake Erie (1999 draft - 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 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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
6
-------
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
To be developed
Relevancies
To be developed
Sources
GLFC SGLFMP; FCGO;
1 Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes
Fisheries, Ann Arbor, Mi.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
7
-------
Walleye (Indicator ID: 9)
/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.
End point
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.
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 over time?
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
-------
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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
9
-------
Preyfish Populations and Communities (indicator ID: 17)
/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.
End point
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 GIS-based reporting system is under development that will
show annual trends at multiple sampling locations within each lake.
Limitations
Index target abundances, the quantitative reference values for this indicator, have not been established for all preyfish species in each
lake.
Is it possible to have an endpoint for stock diversity?
Interpretation
To be developed
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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
10
-------
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.
Last Revised
April 7, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
11
-------
Sea Lamprey (indicator ID: 18)
/Measure
Number of spawning run adult sea lampreys; wounding rates on large salmonids.
Purpose
This indicator will estimate sea lamprey abundance and assess their impact on other fish populations in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator relates to the 1997 Strategic Great Lakes Fisheries Management Plan Common Goal Statement for Great Lakes
Fisheries Agencies: To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by judicious
plantings of hatchery-reared fish, and provide from these communities an optimum contribution offish, fishing opportunities and
associated benefits to meet needs identified by society for: wholesome food, recreation, cultural heritage, employment and income,
and a healthy aquatic ecosystem.
The 1955 Convention of Great Lakes Fisheries created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission "to formulate and implement a
comprehensive program for the purpose of eradicating or minimizing the sea lamprey populations in the Convention area."
In addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
End point
This indicator will refer to the index target abundances for sea lamprey populations provided in the most current Fish Community
Goals and Objectives (FCGO) for each lake. The following objectives are listed in the FCGO with the date of issue for each lake.
Lake Huron (1995): 75 % reduction by 2000; 90 % reduction by 2010.
Lake Ontario (1999): Suppression of sea lamprey populations to early-1990s levels, and maintaining sea lamprey marking rates <0.02
marks per fish for lake trout.
Lake Michigan (1995): Suppress the sea lamprey to allow the achievement of other fish-community objectives.
Lake Erie (1999 draft): Unspecified Objective.
Lake Superior (1990): 50 % reduction in parasitic-phase sea lamprey abundance by 2000; 90 % reduction in parasitic-phase sea
lamprey abundance by 2010.
Features
Control of sea lamprey populations is necessary to achieve other fish-community objectives because of the high mortality rates
inflicted by lampreys on other fish. Spawning-run data are collected annually in selected streams; wounding data are collected
annually in each lake. Long-term status and trend data are available.
Illustration
Annual status and trend data on sea lamprey abundance and wounding rates are displayed in bar charts and tables by geographic
area of interest.
Limitations
Spawning-run estimates of parasitic populations must be based on a representative sampling of streams and must include large
rivers. Reliable trapping and run estimates are often difficult or impossible to make for large rivers. Direct mark and recapture data for
parasitic or larval phase sea lampreys is needed to provide better estimates and error terms, but these reliable, direct estimates may
only be obtained in areas of high population abundance where large numbers of individuals can be marked and recaptured. Explicit
estimates of variance is critical. Relating estimates of the spawning population to the resulting parasitic population assumes
insignificant or at least constant mortality between the parasitic and spawning phases.
Wounding rates may be influenced by the abundance of prey in the suitable size range and may vary among major prey species
depending on the mix of these fishes in an area. The season of data collection (e.g., spring or fall) affects the interpretation of the
measure and must be kept constant. Classification of sea lamprey wounds (i.e., wounds or scars, Type A or Type B) is subjective and
may vary among individuals and agencies making the observation. The GLFC and cooperating biologists attempt to standardize
evaluations as much as possible through workshops and other opportunities to share information.
Interpretation
Increasing trap catches of spawning-run sea lampreys, numbers of streams with larval populations, and overall abundance of larvae
in streams may indicate an expanding sea lamprey population. Increasing wounding rates in the presence of stable prey populations
indicates an increase in sea lamprey abundance and in the amount of damage to prey populations. Data regarding total mortality in
trout and salmon is also needed to properly interpret this indicator, since increasing total mortality in trout and salmon populations
reduces the number of older fishes and the reproductive potential of these populations.
Comments
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
12
-------
Efforts are underway to improve the precision and accuracy of the measures of sea lamprey abundance and of the damage they inflict
on trout and salmon populations in the Great Lakes. Improved measures will allow more precise interpretation of status and trend data
and will help determine appropriate control measure responses.
Unfinished Business
Need a more quantifiable endpoint for Lake Michigan.
Can an endpoint for wounding rates be developed?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): exotics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
Last Revised
March 7, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
13
-------
Native Freshwater Mussels (indicator ID: 68)
/Measure
Distribution and abundance, reported as number of individuals per unit of sampling effort; soft tissue weight; and reproductive output
of the Native Unionid mussel.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the population status of native Unionid populations, and it will be used to infer the impact of the invading
Dreissenid mussel on the Unionid mussel.
Ecosystem Objective
The diversity of native invertebrate fauna should be maintained in order to stabilize ecosystem habitats throughout the Great Lakes
and their tributaries and connecting channels. In addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Reestablish diverse, self-sustaining populations of native mussels in all historical habitats in the Great Lakes where they have been
extirpated by the zebra mussel. Population characteristics should be equivalent to those in reference populations in these or similar
habitats prior to the establishment of zebra mussels or where zebra mussels do not occur.
Features
Native Unionids are the largest and longest-lived invertebrates in the Great Lakes basin and are key players in the movement of
organic and inorganic particulate matter between the sediment layer and overlying water column. Native Unionid populations are
generally highly vulnerable to extinction by invading Dreissenids. Unionid mortality results both from attachment of Dreissenids to
Unionid shells (biofouling) and from food competition with Dreissenids. Mortality can occur within two years of the initial Dreissenid
invasion and extinction rate generally varies directly with Dreissenid population density. The type of habitat occupied by the Unionids
also strongly influences their risk of extinction. For example, Unionids may be able to escape extinction in soft-bottomed habitats
where they can burrow deeply and suffocate Dreissenids that attach to their shells. Unionids may also survive better in free-flowing
streams than in streams with dams. In streams with dams, Dreissenids are most abundant in impoundments and tailrace areas. In
free-flowing stream reaches and in streams without dams, Dreissenid populations rarely reach densities high enough to adversely
affect Unionid populations.
Illustration
This indicator will be presented as a map showing population locations and population metrics throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Limitations
There is very little historical data on the distribution and abundance of Unionids in the Great Lakes basin and the available information
(mainly from inland surveys conducted in the 1930s-1950s) is not quantitative. The highly clumped distributions typical of most
Unionid populations makes sampling and population estimates problematic, and the difficulty in locating young animals impedes
assessment of reproductive output.
Interpretation
Distribution and abundance of each Unionid species, reported as number of individuals per unit of sampling effort, provide a simple
and direct measure of population status. Because Unionids tend to have clustered distributions, stratified, quadrat-timed searches or
extinction search patterns performed by SCUBA divers offer the most promise for developing good population estimates. Soft tissue
weight of individuals can be used as a measure of individual and population health. Tissue dry weight varies with season and
reproductive status, but simple regressions comparing body weight to shell length can reliably reflect population health under each of
these conditions. Individuals are considered at risk when tissue weight is less than 10% of the total (shell plus tissue) weight.
Reproductive output can also be used as a measure of population health. Quantitative estimates of reproductive output are difficult to
develop because young Unionids are traditionally very difficult to locate even in good habitat. However, the simple presence of young
Unionids seems to be a reliable indicator of a healthy, reproducing population.
Additional data including total organic particulate matter in the water column and data about Dreissenid mussel populations are
needed to interpret this indicator. Sites without Dreissenid mussels, with >12 species of Unionids, and with young Unionids present
would be considered healthy sites where Dreissenids were having negligible impact. Sites where the Unionids are biofouled and the
weight of attached zebra mussels is equal to or greater than the weight of the Unionid are sites where the Unionids can be expected
to become extirpated shortly. Sites where total organic particulate matter in the water column averages less than 2 mg/L are sites
where food resources are too limited to support remaining Unionid populations.
Comments
The first step is to document where Unionids are located and what species are present. The second step is to determine if young
Unionids of any species are present at a site. Secondary sampling efforts can focus on species of concern. The number of Unionid
species at a given site in the Great Lakes basin varied widely. Most Unionid communities historically supported >12 species,
depending on locality. Lake Huron probably never had more than 6-7 species, but Lake Erie and the connecting channels had 16-18,
and the Unionid communities in inland waters in Michigan typically had about 16 species.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
14
-------
The northern riffleshell mussel, which occurred in Great Lakes connecting channels and perhaps in western Lake Erie, is listed by the
U.S. government as "threatened" and action is being taken to change that listing to "endangered". That species is state-listed as
"endangered". The Dreissenid mussel has probably exterminated northern riffleshell mussel populations in the connecting channels.
The species diversity and density of Unionids has severely declined in Lake Erie, the Detroit River, and Lake St. Clair since the arrival
of Dreissenid mussels there in the mid-1980s. Species diversity of Unionids there has dropped from an average of 16 to less than 1.
Many sites that historically supported Unionids now contain no live Unionids and no young (<5 years of age) have been found at these
sites since about 1989.
Unfinished Business
Although there may not be an endpoint for population, as well as reproductive output, can an endpoint be provided for soft
tissue weight? Can any goal for population and reproductive output be stated?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): exotics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 6: Degradation of benthos
Last Revised
March 8 , 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
15
-------
Lake TrOUt (Indicator ID; 93)
/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.
End point
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.
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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
16
-------
Benthos Diversity and Abundance (indicator ID: 104)
/Measure
Species diversity and abundance over time and space in the aquatic benthic community.
Purpose
This indicator will assess trends in time and spatial distribution of species diversity and abundance 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 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.
Unfinished Business
pMay want to consider identifying specific species of interest to measure.
DNeed to quantify "abundance", and "diversity".
DWhat 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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
17
-------
PHytOplankton Populations (Indicator ID: 109)
/Measure
Phytoplankton biomass (species and size composition) and size-fractionated primary productivity (Carbon-14 uptake or
photosynthesis) as indicator of microbial food-web structure and function.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the species and size composition of phytoplankton populations in the Great Lakes, and it will be used to infer
the impact of nutrient enrichment, contamination and invasive exotic predators on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Mesotrophic to oligotrophic conditions are needed to maintain healthy food-web dynamics and habitat integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Goals of phosphorus control are to maintain an oligotrophic state and relative algal biomass of Lakes Superior, Huron
and Michigan, and to maintain algal biomass below that of a nuisance condition in Lakes Erie and Ontario (GLWQA Annex 3). This
indicator also supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
End point
An endpoint needs to be established, based on an international literature search of current and historical data of temperate
ecosystems to determine a range of biomass concentrations, species and size structure, as well as fractionated primary productivity
(Carbon-14 uptake) for various size fractions as being indicative of healthy and mesotrophic to oligotrophic trophic status.
Features
It is well known that the phytoplankton population and its productivity changes with anthropogenic pollution, both nutrients and
contaminants. The ecosystem changes are reflected by the change of phytoplankton composition and productivity. For example,
Lake Superior represents a pristine, healthy and ultra-oligotrophic ecosystem harboring a unique collection of phytoplankton species.
Similarly, it is common knowledge that Lake Erie's phytoplankton composition, which was once eutrophic, has dramatically changed
to meso-oligotrophic status due to phosphorous abatement and the invasion of zebra mussels. A great deal of data are available
globally (temperate region) and in the Great Lakes about phytoplankton biomass, composition and primary productivity which will
reflect the overall ecosystem health including grazing pressures of the exotic predators.
Illustration
A table with list of species or a diagram can be given as an illustration.
Limitations
Phytoplankton taxonomy (microscopic identification and enumeration) is a highly specialized and time consuming activity that requires
intensive training and experience which is generally lacking in the Great Lakes. However, if properly done the phytoplankton analysis
generates scientific, precise, and reliable species data that reflects the sensitivity of phytoplankton to anthropogenic stressors.
Interpretation
Comments
The study of lower trophic levels and their use as indicators have been largely ignored in the Great Lakes. There is an immediate
need to evaluate the microbial loop - the base of the food chain ranging from bacteria, heterotrophic nanoflagellates, autotrophic
picoplankton, ciliatesto phytoplankton (nanoplankton and microplankton-netplankton).
This indicator was prepared using information from:
M. Munawar, I.F. Munawar, P. Ross & R. Dermott. 1992. Exploring aquatic ecosystem health: A multi-trophic and an ecosystemic
approach. J. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health. 1:237-252
M. Munawar, I.F. Munawar, L.R. Gulp and G. Dupuis. 1978. Relative importance of nannoplankton in Lake Superior phytoplankton
biomass and community metabolism. J. Great Lakes Research. 4:462-480
Unfinished Business
An endpoint needs to be established.
The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined.
Additional information is needed to interpret the data as well as a range of "good" or "poor" (e.g., an oligotrophic ecosystem
that harbors phytoplankton populations that are diverse in species and size would indicate a healthy ecosystem.)
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control of Phosphorus, 11: Surveillance and
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
18
-------
monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 8: Absence of excess phosphorus
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 13: Degradation of phyto/zooplankton populations
Last Revised
March 8, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
19
-------
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (indicator ID; 111)
/Measure
Total phosphorus levels (ug/L) in the springtime open waters, and annual total phosphorus loads to each lake.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the total phosphorus levels and loadings in the Great Lakes and it will be used to support the evaluation of
trophic status and food web dynamics in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Goals of phosphorus control are to maintain an oligotrophic state and relative algal biomass of Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan,
to maintain algal biomass below that of a nuisance condition in Lakes Erie and Ontario, and to eliminate algal nuisance in bays and in
other areas wherever they occur (GLWQA Annex 3). The IJC developed the following delisting guideline for eutrophication or
undesirable algae: 'no persistent water quality problems (e.g., dissolved oxygen, depletion of bottom waters, nuisance algal blooms or
accumulations, and decreased water clarity) attributed to cultural eutrophication.'
The indicator also supports Annexes 1, 2 and 13 of the GLWQA.
End point
Maximum annual phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes that would allow achievement of the stated goals (above) are: Lake
Superior - 3400 tonnes, Lake Huron (main lake) - 2800 tonnes, Lake Michigan - 5600 tonnes, Lake Erie -11,000 tonnes, Lake Ontario
- 7000 tonnes (GLWQA, Annex 3). If these loading rates are maintained, the expected concentration of total phosphorus in the open
waters of each lake are: Lake Superior- 5 ug/l, Lake Huron - 5 ug/l, Lake Michigan -7 ug/l, Lake Erie Western Basin -15 ug/l, Lake
Erie Central Basin -10 ug/l, Lake Erie Eastern Basin -10 ug/l, Lake Ontario -10 ug/l (IJC 1980).
Features
Analysis of phosphorus concentrations to the Great Lakes is ongoing and reliable, but insufficient monitoring of tributaries has been
undertaken since 1993 to calculate reliable loading estimates. Current methodology used for analysis is adequate. This indicator
provides information to infer the baseline potential productivity of each lake and linkages to future biological problems related to a
potential return to excess nutrient loads. Also, the filtering effects of new colonizing species -- zebra and quagga mussels -- appear to
exacerbate the effects of declining phosphorus loading (hence declining lake productivity). Measurements and reporting must reliably
reflect spatio-temporal differences on scales needed to effectively address the ecosystem objective. Particular emphasis should be
placed on open-lake data collected in the spring of the year, and comparison should be made with the GLWQA objectives. Biannual
survey data are available for 1982 to present.
Illustration
For each lake, a graph will be presented showing total phosphorus concentrations and loadings on the y-axis and years on the x-axis.
A map will be presented showing major, within-lake, spatio-temporal distributions of phosphorus concentrations.
Limitations
Tributary monitoring is currently (2000) insufficient to evaluate loadings of phosphorus.
A research effort should be undertaken to understand the effects of zebra mussels on phosphorus dynamics in the Great Lakes, and
to then incorporate those effects into existing water quality models. The revised models should then be used to reanalyze the
relationships between annual phosphorus loadings, the expected resultant phosphorus concentrations in the open waters, and the
potential for nuisance growths of algae.
Interpretation
Desirable outcomes are the absence of blooms of undesirable algae and total phosphorus concentrations and loadings that do not
exceed the target levels specified in the GLWQA. Remote sensing and satellite imagery can be used to identify algae blooms, which
may then be correlated to phosphorus concentrations or increased loadings.
Comments
This indicator was prepared using information in:
Edsall, T., and M. Charleton. 1997. Nearshore waters of the Great Lakes. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference '96
Background Paper. ISBN 0-662-26031-7.
Charleton, M., and R. LeSage. 1999. Lake Erie in Transition: the 1990s. In State of Lake Erie (SOLE). M. Munawar, T. Edsall, and I.
F. Munawar (eds.) Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands (In Press).
IJC. 1980. Phosphorus Management for the Great Lakes. Final report of the Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force to the
IJC Great Lakes Water Quality Board and Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
20
-------
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control of phosphorus, 11:
Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 8: Absence of excess phosphorus
GLFC Objective(s): Erie
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae, 9: Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and
odour problems, 11: Degradation of aesthetics, 13: Degradation of phyto/zooplankton populations
Last Revised
March 8, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
21
-------
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
(Indicator ID; 114)
/Measure
Concentration of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the levels of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners, and it will be used to infer local areas of
elevated contaminant levels and potential harm to fish-eating wildlife.
Ecosystem Objective
Forage fish concentrations of PBT chemicals should not pose risk to fish-eating wildlife. This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and 12
oftheGLWQA.
Endpoint
Features
This indicator will be used to monitor long-term fluctuations in the concentration of measured contaminants and the risk they pose to
fish-eating wildlife. Shiner collections have been ongoing for almost two decades and represent one of the best long-term data bases
on chemicals in the Great Lakes. Because young-of-the-year spottail shiners are small and stay close to their natal area, their
chemical concentrations provide information on local chemical inventories as well as the variability and distribution of the chemicals
throughout the lakes. The shiners are captured from several spots on each Lake; therefore, the data can be used to illustrate both
variability and average levels of PBT chemical exposure to fish-eating wildlife throughout the lakes
Illustration
Results of raw data will be used to construct simple bar graphs showing the fluctuation of contaminants over time and space. As
decline of chemicals is an exponential decline, these graphs will be depicted on an logarithmic Y axis versus time.
Limitations
Trends of chemical contaminants in spottail shiners are confounded by other factors including: food chain effects, potential weather
effects, analytical and sampling variability. These factors limit the usefulness of the shiner data as an indicator of short-term trends of
PBTs in the Great Lakes. Larger, older forage fish may have higher PBT concentrations than young-of-the year spottail shiners, and
therefore, shiner data may underestimate risk to fish-eating wildlife.
Interpretation
Comments
Concentrations of contaminants in young-of-the-year spottail shiners represent a good indicator of local concentrations of chemicals
and potential risk to fish-eating wildlife.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide the names of the PBT chemicals will be measured by this indicator.
Need to provide a reference for the ecosystem objective.
An endpoint, or frame of reference in which to interpret the data, needs to be defined.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
22
-------
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (indicator ID: 115)
/Measure
1) Annual concentrations of DDT complex, PCBs/PCDFs/PCDDs and other organic contaminants and Hg and other metals in Herring
Gull eggs from 15 sites from throughout the Great Lakes (U.S. and Canada).
2) Periodic measurement of biological features of gulls and other colonial waterbirds known to be directly or indirectly impacted by
contaminants and other stressors. These include (but are not limited to): clutch size, eggshell thickness, hatching and fledging
success, size and trends in breeding population, various physiological biomarkers including vitamin A, immune and thyroid function,
stress hormone levels, liver enzyme induction, PAH levels in bile and porphyrins and genetic and chromsomal abnormalities.
Purpose
This indicator will assess chemical concentration levels in a representative colonial waterbird, and it will be used to infer the impact of
these contaminants on colonial waterbird physiology and population characteristics.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and 12 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Chemical levels and biological measures in colonial nesting waterbirds are not different from those from reference sites in Atlantic
Canada or from the Prairies.
Features
Although there are Great Lakes wildlife species that are more sensitive to contaminants than Herring Gulls, and colonial nesting
waterbird species in general, there is no other species which has the historical dataset that the Herring Gull does. As contaminant
levels continue to decline (if they do), the usefulness of the Herring Gull as a biological indicator species may lessen (due to its
reduced sensitivity to low levels of contamination) but its value as a chemical indicator will remain and probably increase - as levels
become harder and harder to measure in other media. As well, it is an excellent accumulator. Adult Herring Gulls nest on all the Great
Lakes and the connecting channels and remain on the Great Lakes year-round. Because their diet is usually made up primarily offish,
they are an excellent terrestrially nesting indicator of the aquatic community. Historical data on levels of chemical contamination in
gull eggs are available, on an annual basis, for most sites in both the Canadian and U.S. Great Lakes dating back to the early 1970s.
An immense database of chemical levels and biological measures from the Great Lakes, as well as many off-Lakes sites, is available
from CWS. For Herring Gulls, many of the above biological measures are correlated with contaminant levels in their eggs. In other
colonial waterbirds there are similar correlations between contaminant levels in eggs and various biological measures. Contaminant
levels in eggs of other colonial waterbirds are usually correlated with those in Herring Gulls.
Illustration
1) Temporal trends, portrayed as annual contaminant levels over time, for 1974-present in most instances, are available for each site
and each compound, for example, DDE, 1974-1997, for Toronto Harbour and could be displayed graphically. 2) Geographical
patterns in contaminant levels, showing all sites relative to one another, are available for most years 1974-present and for most
compounds, for example, PCBs, 1997, at 15 Great Lakes sites from Lake Superior to the St. Lawrence River (including U.S. sites)
and could be displayed on both maps and graphs.
Limitations
Herring Gulls are highly tolerant of persistent contamination and may underestimate biological effects occurring in other less
monitored, more sensitive species. Also, some adult Herring Gulls from the upper Lakes, especially Lake Superior, move to the lower
Lakes, especially Lake Michigan, during harsh winters. This has the potential to confound the contaminant profile of a bird from the
upper Lakes. Most of the gull's time is still spent on its home lake and this has not been noted as a serious limitation up to this point.
Using contaminant accumulation by young, flightless gulls would eliminate this problem but their contaminant levels and effects would
be less due to the much reduced contaminant exposure/intake.
Interpretation
Other tissues and species analyzed as necessary to confirm findings in Herring Gulls.
Comments
Contaminant concentrations in most colonial-nesting, fish-eating birds are at levels where gross ecological effects, such as eggshell
thinning, reduced hatching and fledging success, and population declines, are no longer apparent. Greater reliance for detecting
biological effects of contaminants is being put upon physiological and genetic biomarkers. These are not as well characterized, nor
are they understood as easily by the public. Other complementary species include: Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax
auritus), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) and Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). The
Herring Gull egg contaminants dataset is the longest running continuous contaminants dataset for wildlife in the world.
1) Chemical levels and trends: Contaminant levels in almost all Great Lakes colonial waterbirds are significantly and substantially
reduced from what they were 25 years ago. However, now, in the 1990s, year to year differences in contaminant levels are quite small
and without statistical analysis it is often difficult to tell if a compound has stabilized" and is undergoing only year to year, non-
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
23
-------
significant, fluctuations or if it is still declining. Our analyses show that most contaminants at most sites are continuing to decline at a
rate similar to what they have over the last decade or two. However, some compounds, at some sites, have stabilized. Geographical
differences for a given compound among sites on the Great Lakes are not as dramatic as they once were. There is greater similarity
in contaminant concentration among Great Lakes sites now than there was in the past. However, differences in contaminant levels
between sites on and off the Great Lakes are still fairly evident.
2) It is difficult to show consistent differences in biological effects among colony sites within the Great Lakes. This is probably due to
the great overall reduction in contaminant levels as well as the lessening in differences among Great Lakes sites. The comparisons
which show the greatest differences for biological effects of contaminants are between sites on and off the Great Lakes.
Unfinished Business
Need to an ecosystem objective that this indicator addresses and provide a reference.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s): Erie
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 5: Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
24
-------
Zoopldnkton Populations (Indicator ID: 116)
/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 over time 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-Dm
mesh net. Endpoints for community composition and biomass and productivity depend on the desired trophic state and type offish
community. Zooplankton as indicators of plankton and ecosystem community health are still in the early stages of development. Some
information on the variability in zooplankton mean length is presented in Mills et al. (1987), and Johannsson et al. (1999b,c). Empirical
relationships can be found in the literature relating zooplankton biomass and production to other state variables, such as total
phosphorus, chlorophyll a concentration, primary production and zooplankton mean length (Makarewicz and Likens 1979 (if rotifers
are measured), (McCauley et al. 1980), Hanson and Peters 1984, Van 1985, McQueen et al. 1986, Johannsson et al. 1999a). End
points for community structure are not clear now that new 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, overtime 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
are available. Shifts in composition might be better tracked using factor analysis followed by multi-dimensional scaling to show how
the community structure moves in a two-dimensional space.
Limitations
At this point, it is not possible to rate mean individual size of zooplankton if they do not equal 0.8 mm. It is unclear how different
energy flow is if the mean size is 0.6 mm or 1.0 mm, and if 0.6 mm is equivalent to 1.0 mm.
Interpretation
Some of the other measures which would help with the interpretation of the zooplankton data would include, total phosphorus,
chlorophyll a, temperature, oxygen (in some regions), and, if possible, primary production and phytoplankton composition and
biomass.
Comments
Composition: Changes in composition indicate changes in food-web dynamics due to changes in vertebrate or invertebrate predation,
and changes in system productivity. Ratios such as calanoids to cladocerans + cyclopoids have been used to track changes in trophy.
This particular ratio may NOT work in dreissenid systems (Johannsson et al. 1999c).
Mean Individual Size: The mean individual size of the zooplankton indicates the type and intensity of predation. When the ratio of
piscivores to planktivores is approximately 0.2, the mean size of the zooplankton is near 0.8 mm. These conditions are characteristic
of a balanced fish community (Mills et al. 1987). There is a high degree of variability about this relationship and further work needs to
be done to strengthen this indicator. Total biomass and possibly production decrease with decreases in the mean size of the
zooplankton (Johannsson et al. 1999b).
Biomass and Productivity: Biomass can be used to calculate production using size and temperature dependent P/B ratios for each of
the major zooplankton groups. Production is a much better indicator of energy transfer within a system than abundance or biomass.
Of these measures, composition and mean size are the most important. However, these factors provide the information needed to
calculate biomass and production.
Relevancies
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
25
-------
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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
26
-------
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals (indicator ID: 117)
/Measure
Annual average loadings of toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to the Great Lakes, based on measured atmospheric concentrations
of the chemicals, as well as wet and dry deposition rates.
Purpose
This indicator will estimate the annual average loadings of priority toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to the Great Lakes, and it will
be used to infer potential impacts of toxic chemicals from atmospheric deposition on the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as well as to
infer the progress of various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The GLWQA and the Binational Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic substances to Great Lakes as an objective.
Additionally, GLWQA General Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a result of
human activity that will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life. This indicator supports Annexes
2, 12, 15 and 17 of the GLWQA.
End point
When atmospheric concentrations of toxic chemicals associated with existing water quality criteria are no longer measurable above
naturally-occurring levels by current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentrations of priority toxic chemicals are, as a group, decreasing, staying the same, or increasing
in open waters over time. The chemicals of interest include, but are not limited to, PCBs, deildrin, chlordane, DDT and metabolites,
hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene and mercury. Loadings will be calculated based on 1) measured atmospheric concentrations of the
chemicals and 2) wet and dry deposition rates using techniques described in the "Chemicals of Concern" chapter of the Lake Superior
Stage II LaMP. The indicator data will also demonstrate the magnitudes of the trends in the loadings of toxic chemicals from the air to
the water. The magnitudes of the trends are expressed as a "half-fold time," or time to which the concentration of the chemical is
decreased by a factor of two. The time which is most relevant to virtual elimination is the longest half-fold time of the measured
chemicals.
Illustration
Limitations
There is concern that some of the features of the loadings calculations (see Comments field) are poorly known at present. The trends
in the atmospheric concentrations of toxic chemicals, however, are much better known and a much better indicator of progress
towards virtual elimination. Errors in these trends should be clearly stated and tested against the null hypothesis (things are not
changing).
Interpretation
Progress will be determined based on whether trends of the toxic chemicals are positive (i.e., increasing pollutant concentrations) or
negative (decreasing pollutant concentrations)and by the number of chemicals which reach the virtual elimination goal.
To understand the pollutant concentration trends related to atmospheric deposition, additional information is needed in interpreting
pollutant load estimates derived using the suggested calculation (see Comments field). For example, information on the yearly
variations in the rain rate (dry years versus wet years) is needed to understand the pollutant concentrations associated with wet
deposition. Also, since it is known that the pollutant loads associated with atmospheric deposition have seasonality for some
components, the data should be statistically deseasonalized to properly determine the trend.
Comments
Estimates of atmospheric deposition have been made since 1988 (Strachan and Eisenreich, 1988; Eisenreich and Strachan, 1992).
More recently atmospheric deposition fluxes and loads have been measured by the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
(IADN) (Hoff et al., 1996; IADN Steering Committee, 1997). The indicator follows procedures set out in the IADN Quality Assurance
Program Plan (1994). Several primary indicators of progress towards virtual elimination are found in the estimation of loading to the
lakes, L, where L = W + D + G, below.
Wet deposition (W) is calculated as:
where Cp (ng/l) is the volume-weighted mean precipitation concentration averaged over a year period, Rp is the precipitation rate in m
y"1 (water equivalent for snow), and the factor of 1000 converts litres to cubic metres.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
27
-------
The magnitude of W and its change with time is an indicator of progress towards virtual elimination. It should be noted, however, that
yearly variations in the rain rate (dry years versus wet years) will complicate the interpretation of the indicator. Therefore, the
concentration of the chemical in precipitation should also be evaluated as an indicator.
Dry deposition of particles is calculated from:
where Vd (m y"1) is the dry deposition velocity of the species in question (a function of particle size and hygroscopic nature of the
particles) and Ca,part (ng m"3) is the particulate phase concentration of the chemical in air. Since the dry deposition velocity of particles
is not well known, it has been specified as 0.2 cm s"1 in previous work (Strachan and Eisenreich, 1988; Hoff et al. 1996). Since the
deposition velocity is not expected to be a determining factor in the long-term trend of dry deposition (particle sizes will not change
much with time), the air concentration of chemicals on the particles will be a primary indicator which can be tracked for trends.
Gas exchange is computed from the knowledge of both the gas phase species concentration in air (Ca,gas, ng m"3) and the
concentration of the chemical in water (Cw, ng/l) through the formula:
where koL (m y"1) is the air-water mass transfer coefficient, H is the temperature dependent Henry's Law constant, R is the gas
constant and T is the surface water skin temperature (Schwarzenbach et al., 1993). As expressed above if G>0 then the lakes are
being loaded from the atmosphere and if G<0 then the lakes are a source of the chemical to the atmosphere. There is uncertainty
(see below) in some of the chemical and physical properties which are part of the gas phase flux. A more precise indicator of trends
in this flux are the air and water concentrations of the chemical themselves.
The rate of change of the loading, L = W + D + G, is dL/dt. Since it is known that the loads have seasonality for some components, in
order to properly determine the trend, the data should be statistically deseasonalized (i.e, using a Rank-Kendall statistic, standard
temperature correction, or equivalent).
Even after deasonalizing the trend data, there may be considerable error in the magnitude of the gas phase exchange. In order not to
overstate the loading indicator precision, a secondary measure of the indicator will be the sign of the change in L, in the above
equation. If the indicator is positive, the trends in the loadings are increasing and the objective is not being approached. If the
indicator is negative, the loadings are decreasing and the objective is being approached. It is likely that if the sign of dL/dt is negative,
the change in the atmospheric contributions to the tributary loadings is likely to be of the same sign.
A third component of the indicator is the relative rate of change of the loading with time. The more negative this indicator becomes
the faster the goal of virtual elimination will be reached.
Hoff, R.M., W.M.J. Strachan, C.W. Sweet, C.H. Chan, M. Shackleton, T.F. Bidleman, K.A. Brice, D.A. Burniston, S. Cussion, D.F.
Gatz, K. Harlin, and W.H. Schroeder. 1996. Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals to the Great Lakes: A Review of Data
Through 1994, Atmos. Environ. 30, 3505-3527.
IADN Quality Assurance Program Plan. 1994. Environment Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4.
IADN Steering Committee. 1997. Technical Summary of Progress Under the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program 1990-1996.
R.M. Hoff, ed., Environment Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T4, 101 p.
(URL: http://airquality.tor.ec.gc.ca/IADN/IP2.htm)
Eisenreich, S.J. and W.M.J. Strachan. 1992. Estimating Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances to the Great Lakes -An Update.
Report 6-1992. Gray Freshwater Biological Institute, University of Minnesota, P. O. Box 100, Navarre, MN 55392
Strachan, W.M.J. and S.J. Eisenreich. 1988. Mass Balancing of Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes: The Role of Atmospheric
Deposition. Publ. International Joint Commission, Wndsor, Canada, July, 113 p.
Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and D.M. Imboden. 1993. Environmental Organic Chemistry, Wley Interscience Publishers,
New York.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide a detailed description of how data will be displayed graphically. For example, will the illustration consist of
various colored plottings on a map or a bar chart to convey the relative abundance?
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
28
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, water
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic
substances, 15: Airborne toxic substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
March 8, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
29
-------
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters (indicator ID: 118)
/Measure
The concentration of toxic chemicals in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the concentration of priority toxic chemicals in offshore waters, and it will be used to infer the potential
impacts of toxic chemicals on the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as well as to infer the progress of various Great Lakes programs
toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The GLWQA and the Binational Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic substances to Great Lakes as an objective.
Additionally, GLWQA General Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a result of
human activity that will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life. This indicator supports Annexes
1 and 12 of the GLWQA.
End point
When concentrations of toxic chemicals associated with existing water quality criteria in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes are no
longer measurable above naturally-occurring levels by current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentrations of the IJC priority toxic chemicals are, as a group, decreasing, staying the same, or
increasing in open waters over time. The chemicals of interest include, but are not limited to, PCBs, deildrin, chlordane, DDT and
metabolites, hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene and mercury. The indicator data will also demonstrate the magnitudes of the trends of
the various chemicals. The magnitudes of the trends are expressed as a "half-fold time," or time to which the concentration of the
chemical is decreased by a factor of two. The time which is most relevant to virtual elimination is the longest half-fold time of the
measured chemicals. Monitoring for this indicator will occur during the two year periods between SOLEC. Every two years, water
concentrations of zero discharge and lakewide remediation chemicals should be monitored throughout the offshore waters of Lake
Superior, for comparison with an appropriate baseline. Sampling should be conducted during spring, isothermal conditions, as
maximum concentrations have been reported during this time.
Illustration
Water concentrations of the zero discharge and lakewide remediation chemicals should be presented in a table which provides both
the 95th percentile (see Interpretation field) and the appropriate baseline, for comparison. Spatial distribution maps, showing raw
concentration data, should also be provided to indicate spatial gradients and to discern any problem areas.
Limitations
Although measurements exist for many priority chemicals in the Great Lakes system, these measurements are not all obtained on a
time scale that would allow for significant re interpretation every two years. As new information is available, and the indicator is
updated, trends will become more discernable and progress toward virtual elimination can be assessed. Errors in these trends should
be clearly stated and tested against the null hypothesis (i.e., things are not changing).
Interpretation
Pollutant concentrations will be considered positive only if 95-100% of the available data indicate concentration levels below the lake-
specific baseline. Progress will be determined based on whether trends of the IJC priority toxic chemicals are positive (i.e., increasing
pollutant concentrations) or negative (decreasing pollutant concentrations)and by the number of chemicals which reach the virtual
elimination goal.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Need to provide a detailed description of how data will be displayed graphically. For example, will the illustration consist of
various colored plottings on a map or a bar chart to convey the relative abundance?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
March 8, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
30
-------
Concentration of Contaminants in Sediment Cores (indicator ID: 119)
/Measure
The concentrations of toxic chemicals in sediment cores at selected sites within the Great Lakes at ten year intervals.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the concentrations of toxic chemicals in sediments, and it will be used to infer potential harm to aquatic
ecosystems by contaminated sediments, as well as to infer the progress of various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of
toxics from the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The GLWQA and the Binational Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic substances to Great Lakes as an objective.
Additionally, GLWQA General Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a result of
human activity that will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life. And, GLWQA Annex 14
Objective asks to identify the nature and extent of sediment pollution of the Great Lakes System. This indicator also supports Annexes
2, 7 and 12 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
When sediment concentrations of toxic chemicals associated with existing water quality criteria are no longer measurable above
naturally-occurring levels by current technology.
Features
This indicator will track whether concentrations of the toxic chemicals are, as a group, decreasing, staying the same, or increasing in
open waters over time. The chemicals of interest include, but are not limited to, PCBs, deildrin, chlordane, DDT and metabolites,
hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene and mercury. The indicator data will also demonstrate the magnitudes of the trends of the various
chemicals. The magnitudes of the trends are expressed as a "half-fold time," or time to which the concentration of the chemical is
decreased by a factor of two. The time which is most relevant to virtual elimination is the longest half-fold time of the measured
chemicals.
In the nearshore areas and harbours and bays, cores would be collected every 10 years from sites selected for index monitoring.
Index sites should include areas where sediment sampling would provide added value to contaminant investigations, for example,
sites previously monitored for contaminants in fish. Sites would also be chosen based on sediment type, expected sedimentation
rates, and proximity to potential sources. Cores would be sectioned, dated and analyzed for the toxic chemicals.
Certain estuaries, bays, and harbours on the lakes, are designated as Areas of Concern because of past or on-going pollution
problems. Sediment contamination in these areas, taken together, represent cumulative impacts to productive habitat areas. In
addition, Areas of Concern can serve as contaminant source areas to the rest of the Lakes. Application of the sediment indicator at
Areas of Concern is intended to integrate the information gathered by RAP monitoring efforts to give a lakewide picture for these
important habitat areas.
Illustration
The sediment concentrations would be depicted using the standard tables and figures showing the change in concentration at
different depths. Only the upper segment of the core would be compared to the yardstick or local standard. In addition, a set of maps
showing locations and concentrations of sediments in the nearshore areas and a set of maps showing sediment chemical
concentrations in the Areas of Concern would serve to illustrate the indicator.
Limitations
An update of this indicator with new data every two years for SOLEC may not be feasible because sediment cores may only be
obtained every decade or so. However, the updates of the indicator when new information arise is applicable to past years (i.e.,
sediment cores will fill in the history for the previous decade). Errors in these trends should be clearly stated and tested against the
null hypothesis (i.e., things are not changing).
Interpretation
Progress will be determined based on whether trends of the toxic chemicals are positive (i.e., increasing pollutant concentrations) or
negative (decreasing pollutant concentrations) and by the number of chemicals which reach the virtual elimination goal.
Comments
Measurements exist for many priority chemicals in the sediments of the Great Lakes system.
The desired outcome of the indicator is that the trends are negative in sign and that the concentrations reach levels which are no
longer measurable by current technology.
Unfinished Business
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
31
-------
For the presentation of the indicator "standard tables and figures" should be defined or the text modified to be more
descriptive (e.g., Sediment concentrations at each site, by depth, will be displayed on a bar graph. Current detection limits
will be clearly marked).
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): sediments
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 7: Dredging, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12:
Persistent toxic substances, 14: Contaminated sediment
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 6: Degradation of benthos, 7: Restrictions on dredging activities
Last Revised
March 8, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
32
-------
Contaminants in Whole Fish (indicator ID: 121)
/Measure
Concentration of persistent, bioaccumulating, toxic (PBT) chemicals in Great Lakes whole lake trout and walleye (and major prey
species).
Purpose
To assess trends in the concentration of PBT chemicals in the open waters of the Great Lakes using fish as biomonitors, as a
measure of the success of remedial actions and to infer real or potential effects of contaminants on fish and fish-consuming wildlife.
Ecosystem Objective
Great Lakes waters should be free from materials will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to animal or aquatic life (GLWQA
General Objective). This indicator supports Annexes 1,2, 11 and 12 of the GLWQA.
End point
Reduction in concentration of PBT chemicals in whole fish to levels that do not pose a risk to the health of Great Lakes fish
populations or to fish-eating wildlife populations.
Features
The temporal and geographic trends in the chemical contaminant levels in lake trout from Lakes Ontario, Huron, Michigan and
Superior, and walleye from Lake Erie will be used as an indicator of exposure to PBT chemicals in the water and food web. Fish will
be collected in the fall of the year, not less frequent than every other year. Using fish of similar size reduces the impact of size
variation on contaminant trend data. Individual whole fish are analyzed to provide data on the spectrum of bioavailable contaminants
present in Great Lakes aquatic ecosystems. Organochlorine contaminants to be measured include PCBs, DDT and metabolites,
dieldrin, toxaphene, chlordanes, nonachlors, and other recently detected compounds that may be of concern. Trace metals chosen for
monitoring will include Hg, Pb, Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd, Cr, As, and Se. Selection will depend on local environmental conditions. Data will be
statistically analysed (by age or size cohort) to determine mean and variance for each species, chemical, lake and year.
Illustration
Bar graphs, line graphs and/or scatter plots may be used to show trends over time for each species (by age or size cohort), chemical
and lake.
Limitations
Consistency is very important to conduct trend analyses. Overtime, fish of similar size/age should be collected, contaminants
monitored should be consistent, and specific analytical techniques used must be comparable to those used in the past. Caution is
warranted if data from more than one jurisdiction or monitoring program are used to evaluate temporal or spatial trends. Data
collected under different sample treatment or chemical analyses protocols may be incompatible in some cases. Contaminant
concentrations in whole fish are routinely higher than in the edible portions. Therefore, the data may not be directly appropriate for
assessing the need for fish consumption advisories to protect human health. The utility of these whole fish data are that they provide a
more sensitive indicator of emerging contaminant issues such as the detection of recently identified contaminants or the increase in
concentrations of a previously regulated contaminant.
Interpretation
Reductions in contaminant levels in whole fish will reflect environmental change, i.e. reductions in contaminant loading with
subsequent reductions in the concentration of contaminants in the water or changes in the food web composition, and will pose less
risk of harm to fish communities and fish-eating wildlife.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Should identify quantitative endpoints for each contaminant to be protective of aquatic life and fish-consuming wildlife.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management
Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination
of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3.Degradation offish and wildlife populations
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
33
-------
Last Revised
March 22, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
34
-------
Hexagenid (Indicator ID: 122)
/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.
End point
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 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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
35
-------
Has a quantitative endpoint for Hexagenia populations been developed? If not, then further development work is necessary for this
indicator.
The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined. For example, will bar graphs or maps be used to depict
trends in walleye and Hexagenia populations over time?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of benthos
Last Revised
March 2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
36
-------
Benthic Amphipod (D/pore/cr spp.) (indicator ID: 123)
/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.
End point
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 over all 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.
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 offish.
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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
37
-------
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish
(Indicator IP: 124)
/Measure
An index of external anomalies in nearshore fish that will include the prevalence of external raised lesions and the prevalence of
barbel abnormalities for brown bullhead.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the combination of external anomalies in nearshore fish that will be used as an estimate of ecosystem health
within the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
To restore and protect beneficial uses in Areas of Concern or in open lake waters, including beneficial use (iv) Fish tumors or other
deformities (GLWQA, Annex 2). This indicator also supports Annex 12 of the GLWQA
End point
When the incidence rate of external anomalies does not exceed rates at unimpacted reference sites (IJC Delisting criteria, see IJC
1996)
Features
Epizootics outbreaks or elevated frequencies of internal tumors (neoplasms, including cancer) have become more frequent in the past
three decades. The neoplasms and have gained profile as indicators of beneficial use impairment of Great Lakes aquatic habitat and
also as "early warnings" of potential impact on humans. While some tumors are genetically induced and others are virally induced,
there is a substantial body of evidence from field and laboratory studies showing that chemical carcinogens cause neoplasia of the
types seen in Great Lakes fishes. Recent research demonstrates that external anomalies might also be useful in assessing beneficial
use impairment. The External Anomaly Prevalence index (EAPI) provides useful method of quantitatively comparing external
anomalies. Historically, a decline in PAHs in river sediment in a Great Lakes tributary was accompanied with a decline in liver tumors
in brown bullhead. Evidence also shows that external anomaly prevalence in fish from Great Lakes tributaries is positively associated
with both chemical contaminants in sediment and with genetic damage. Restoration of Great Lakes aquatic habitats polluted with
chemical carcinogens is now underway. The success of this restoration may be best demonstrated by using the EAP index for
nearshore fish such as brown bullhead or white suckers. This indicator is similar to 4503, but applied to nearshore fish species rather
than to coastal wetland species.
Illustration
For selected Areas of Concern, a graph will be presented showing the EAPI in brown bullhead over time.
Limitations
The indicator is most useful in defining habitats that are heavily polluted and largely occupied by pollution tolerant fishes. Joint U.S.-
Canada studies of benthic fishes in a gradient of polluted to pristine Great Lakes habitats using standardized methodology would
greatly enhance our knowledge of relation of contaminated harbor sediments and external anomalies and their usefulness as
indicators of ecosystem health.
Interpretation
Internal tumors are generally believed to be a response to a degraded habitat and toxic exposure to carcinogens, but may also be due
to immune suppression and exposure to viral agents. Prevalence of internal tumors should be cross-correlated with location to
determine trends. Impairment determinations will be based on a comparison of rates of occurrence of internal tumors or related
external anomalies at sites of interest with rates at unimpacted or least-impacted (reference) sites. Impairment is defined by:
1. An internal tumor prevalence of >5% occurs in mature native near-shore species of benthic fishes (e.g., brown bullhead, black
bullhead, white sucker, and several species of redhorse).
Tumors are histopathologically verified neoplasms of intestinal, bile duct, or liver cells only.
2. A prevalence of raised growth on lips >10%, or of overall external raised growth on body and lips >15% in any of the mature
benthic species listed in 1 above.
3. A prevalence of barbel abnormalities (missing or deformed barbels) of >20% occurs in mature brown or black bullhead.
Comments
This indicator was prepared using information from: IJC. 1996. Indicators to evaluate progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Indicators for Evaluation Task Force. ISBN 1-895058-85-3.
Unfinished Business
Canadian and US investigators need to combine available pathology data on Great Lakes near-shore benthic species into a single
data base. A collaborative study using standardized methodology over a series of locations representing a contamination gradient
would further allow the index to be fine tuned and correlated with other aspects of environmental health at Great Lakes Areas of
Concern.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
38
-------
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic
substances IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic
substances
GLFC Objective(s): Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 4: Fish tumors and other deformities
Last Revised
August 5, 2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
39
-------
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes (indicator ID; 125)
Measure
Population numbers of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways and Tributaries.
Purpose
Presence of lake sturgeon in abundance in the Great Lakes will indicate a healthy ecosystem. When the Great Lakes were still in
pristine conditions (prior to European settlement) lake sturgeon were extremely abundant in the lakes. If the condition of the lakes
were improved to the point where lake sturgeon numbers were able to increase, it would indicate a healthy improving ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Lake sturgeon is identified by all the Great Lakes in their Fish Community Objectives. Lake Superior has a lake sturgeon management
plan, many of the Great Lakes States have lake sturgeon recovery/rehabilitation plans which call for increasing numbers of lake
sturgeon beyond current levels. Because lake sturgeon are a native species to the Great Lakes efforts should be put forth to restore
their numbers.
End point
Lake sturgeon populations increase to the point that they can be removed from state threatened or endangered lists.
Features of the Indicator
Efforts are underway to determine the number of active spawning sites for lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes. In addition, work is
currently being carried out to genetically determine the status of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes.
Illustration
Graphs for each lake will be displayed depicting the spawning locations and the genetic variability of lake sturgeon collected from that
lake.
Limitations
This is a relatively costly indicator that requires coordination between federal, state, tribal and provincial agencies. The indicator is
linked to the overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Interpretation
Variations in spawning periodicity of lake sturgeon and the effect that river flow rates have on spawning could affect annual results
and complicate interpretation of long-term trends.
Comments
Increasing passage for lake sturgeon at hydroelectric facilities is needed to allow fish access to historic spawning sites. In addition to
this, creation of artificial spawning sites might aid the recovery process.
Unfinished Business
More information is needed on the current status of lake sturgeon populations. Standardized protocols and continued sampling of
existing populations. The largest source of unknown information is related to juvenile lake sturgeon (age 0-2). Considerable research
needs to be conducted to determine the habitat preferences and location of this age group of lake sturgeon.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s):
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
July 16, 2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
40
-------
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures
(Indicator ID; 3514)
/Measure
Proportion of the 25 largest employers in the Great Lakes basin that track and report on eco-efficiency measures (net sales, quantity
of goods produced, energy consumption, material consumption, water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depleting
substances). Data will also be collected on eco-efficiency strategies implemented related to each of the following success factors of
eco-efficiency (as developed by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development): material intensity of goods and services,
energy intensity of goods and services, toxic dispersion, material recyclability, and sustainable use of renewable resources (material
durability).
Purpose
To assess the commercial/industrial sector response to pressures imposed on the ecosystem as a result of production processes and
service delivery.
Ecosystem Objective
To foster healthy, sustainable economic productivity, without compromising environmental and societal health. The first Antwerp
Workshop on Eco-efficiency (November, 1993) stated that eco-efficiency is 'reached by the delivery of competitively priced goods and
services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity
throughout the life cycle to a level at least in line with the earth's estimated carrying capacity'. Reaching this target is consistent with
economic, social and environmental sustainability objectives within the Great Lakes basin.
Endpoint
100% of the 25 largest employers report publicly on eco-efficiency measures and 100% of the 25 largest employers in the basin have
implemented specific eco-efficiency strategies to:
1) reduce the material intensity of goods and services,
2) reduce the energy intensity of goods and services,
3) reduce toxic dispersion,
4) enhance material recycl ability; and,
5) maximize sustainable use of renewable resources.
Features
Eco-efficiency is founded in the sustainable development principle of integration of economic growth and environmental improvement.
Activities associated with eco-efficiency not only reduce stress on the ecosystem, but also emphasize value creation for a stronger
economy; the vision of eco-efficiency is to 'produce more from less'. This indicator has the benefit of capturing a wide range of
activities that make goods and services production more sustainable. It has the additional feature of being applicable to all economic
sectors. By tracking commercial and industrial eco-efficiency activities, it is possible to assess the level to which corporate behavior
supports a sustainable Great Lakes ecosystem.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed as a table of the proportion of the 25 largest employers in the basin that measure eco-efficiency and
have adopted eco-efficiency strategies.
Limitations
There is no single data source for eco-efficiency activities within the basin and, therefore, it is necessary to limit the number of
organizations surveyed. The 25 largest employers were selected as industry leaders and proxy for assessing commercial/industrial
eco-efficiency measures. This indicator should not be considered a comprehensive evaluation of all the activities of the
commercial/industrial sector, particularly small-scale organizations. Typically, eco-efficiency activities are more widely applied by
larger organizations and require longer time scales before they are widely adopted by smaller-scale operations.
Interpretation
This indicator can be used to monitor progress toward more responsible goods and services production and a stronger, more
sustainable Great Lakes economy.
Comments
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute produce extensive resources related to
eco-efficiency. Trade organizations are also a good data source. Employer lists are available from local chambers of commerce and
InfoUSA, Omaha, Nebraska.
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: cross-cutting
Related issues: waste generation, energy use, water use, vehicle use
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility - commercial industrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 3: Phosphorus, 6: Shipping/Pollution, 8: Facilities Discharges, 10:
Hazardous Polluting Substances, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 14: Contaminated
sediments, 15: Airborne toxic substances, 11: Monitoring
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
41
-------
IJC Desired Outcome(s): All
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): All
Last Revised
July 15, 2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
42
-------
Household Stormwater Recycling (indicator ID: 3516)
/Measure
Number of households participating in municipal stormwater recycling programs such as rain barrel, green roof and downspout
disconnect programs. A complementary measure is the number of household stormwater recycling programs provided by local
government.
Purpose
To assess the level of public awareness and concern for the environmental consequences of stormwater runoff.
Ecosystem Objective
To reduce the pressures induced on the ecosystem as a result of stormwater surges and urban runoff to rivers and lakes within the
ecosystem.
Endpoint
Thirty percent (or greater) of households participating in stormwater recycling programs in all municipalities within the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Features
Stormwater runoff has a significant impact on the water quality of streams, rivers and lakes in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Ecosystem
consequences of stormwater run off include increased erosion and flooding, and higher concentrations of contaminants and bacteria.
The impact of stormwater in urban areas served by combined sewers is especially significant, due to the effects of combined sewer
overflows. This indicator presents trends in community participation in municipal stormwater recycling programs, which reduce the
pressure that stormwater runoff has on the ecosystem. Households alone cannot resolve the issues that arise from stormwater runoff;
however, this indictor recognizes the significant role that the community plays in stormwater management. By monitoring municipal
programs, information is also obtained about the extent of municipal stormwater recycling programs in the basin.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed as a graphic of base-year participation in household stormwater recycling programs to current
participation rates. Comparison tables of participation rates and number of municipal stormwater recycling programs amongst urban
centers in the Great Lakes region may also be included.
Limitations
By focusing on municipal programs, this indicator will not measure stormwater recycling efforts conducted outside municipal
programs. While information is widely available, there is no aggregated data source for household stormwater recycling. This indicator
is most relevant to households of single-family homes, since many households in multi-family buildings would have limited ability to
recycle stormwater.
Interpretation
As the number of stormwater recycling programs increase and more households participate, the ecosystem stress caused by
stormwater will decrease. Increasing participation rates indicate a wider public awareness and support for reducing stormwater
impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Comments
Descriptions of municipal stormwater management programs are widely available on municipal websites. Expansion of this indicator
could also examine greywater recycling efforts, though data in this area are very limited.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: water
Related issues: water quality, human health, contaminants, water use, land use
SOLEC Groupings: societal response - household/community
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: LaMPs/RAPs/BUIs, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Non-point
sources, 17: Res. & Devel.
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 1: Fishability, 2: Swimmability, 3: Drinkability, 4: Healthy Humans,
6: Biological Integrity and Diversity, 7: Virt. Elim. PTS
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 1: F&W Consumption, 9: Drinking Water, 10: Beach Closings,
11: Aesthetics
Last Revised
July 17, 2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
43
-------
Drinking Water Quality (indicator ID: 4175)
/Measure
The number and proportion of drinking water systems that fail to meet water quality regulations and take measurements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, Maximum Contaminant Levels, Contaminant Candidate List, and contaminants monitored understate regulations
and guidelines by type of water supply.
Purpose
To assess the chemical and microbial contaminant levels in drinking water, and to evaluate the potential for human exposure to
drinking water contaminants and the efficacy of policies and technologies to ensure safe drinking water.
Ecosystem Objective
Treated drinking water supplies should be safe to drink. This indicator supports Annexes 1,2, 12 and 16 of the GLWQA.
End point
Densities of disease-causing organisms or concentrations of hazardous or toxic chemicals or radioactive substances should not
exceed human health objectives, standards, or guidelines.
Features
This indicator would reveal trends in contaminant levels in raw, treated and distributed water in various locations throughout the basin.
Through existing water monitoring programs, which analyse raw, treated and distributed waters, results can be compared against
established water quality objectives. This evaluation applies to water supply systems that draw water from either surface water or
groundwater sources. Data on temporal trends, such as seasonal differences or changes over time, in chemical or microbial
contaminant concentrations for specific locations could be identified.
Illustration
For selected locations in the Great Lakes basin, simple bar or line graphs would display the average concentration of contaminants in
raw, treated and distributed water. The data could also be displayed in a GIS format that would allow for a variety of endpoint
analyses to be displayed as an overlay on maps of the entire Great Lakes basin or more local areas.
Limitations
Most contaminants in drinking water rarely exceed guidelines and many are below their analytical detection limit. Since the absolute
concentration of some contaminants may not be determinable, it is difficult to show fluctuations in their concentration levels.
Interpretation
Existing monitoring programs at drinking water treatment plants analyze for chemical and microbial contaminants in raw, treated and
distributed waters. Results can be compared against established water quality guidelines and objectives. The data could be
supplemented with additional information showing relationships between contaminant levels and human health risks; for example, the
association between long-term exposure to chlorination disinfection by-products in drinking water and the increased risk of bladder
and colon cancers.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 16: Pollution from contaminated groundwater
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 3: Drinkability, 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 9: Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problems
Last Revised
Apr. 14, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
44
-------
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
" (Indicator ID; 4177)
/Measure
Serum concentration level (95th percentile) for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dioxins, and furans.
Purpose
To assess
infer the efficacy of policies and technology to reduce these persistent bioaccumulating toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
To assess the serum concentration level (95th percentile) for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dioxins, furans in human tissues, and to
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 1, 12 and 17 of the GLWQA.
End point
Continued reduction of PBT chemical concentrations in human tissue. Where serum concentrations of PBT chemicals are detected,
they should be maintained below health guidance levels.
Features
This indicator will monitor the serum concentration of PCBs, dioxins, and furans in human tissues (both general and at-risk
populations) to establish geographic patterns and trends overtime, providing an estimate of both past and current chemical
exposures.
Illustration
Data will be displayed as bar graphs showing PBT chemical serum concentrations over time to highlight trends and in GIS format to
illustrate geographic patterns in body burden levels.
Limitations
This indicator requires extensive sampling of human populations, as well as standardized tissue collection and chemical analysis
methods for use by participating laboratories. A detailed history of the sample population, including diet, lifestyle, and occupation, is
necessary to characterize the history of exposure.
Interpretation
The long persistence of PBT chemicals in the body would indicate that there is a relatively long time period between reductions in
exposure and subsequent reductions in tissue levels. However, trends that demonstrate a decrease in the concentration of PBT
chemicals in human tissue, to levels below health guidance levels, would be a positive indication that the human health risks posed by
exposure to environmental contaminants are being reduced. Tissue levels above health guidance values are a concern for human
health.
Comments
The body burdens of some PBT chemicals in at-risk populations around the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basins can be 2 to 4 times
greater than the general population.
Ref. Johnson et al., 1998. Public Health Implications of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Basins. J. Great Lakes Res. 24(2):698-722.
Health Canada, 1998. Health-Related Indicators for the Great Lakes Basin Population: Numbers 1 to 20. Minister of Public
Works and Government Services Canada.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 17: Research and
development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
February 27, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
45
-------
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
(Indicator ID; 4179)
/Measure
Disease incidence rate (rate = number of new cases of specific disease/ size of population) for those diseases that have a
demonstrated environmental link, such as cancers and birth defects, in the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To assess geographic and temporal patterns in disease incidences in the Great Lakes basin population, and to identify areas where
further investigation of the exposure and effects of environmental pollutants on human health is needed.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator relates to Annex 17 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Disease incidence rates should decrease overtime. Environmental pollutants should be minimized as health risk factors.
Features
This indicator provides geographical and temporal patterns of disease incidence, such as cancer and birth defects, throughout the
Great Lakes basin. Although cause and effect relationships cannot be established from this indicator, it is useful for identifying areas
that may require investigation.
Illustration
This indicator is represented by maps of the Great Lakes basin illustrating the distribution of disease incidences, such as cancers and
birth defects, in Ontario. In addition, a graph will show trends in the incidences of diseases over time.
Limitations
The accuracy of this indicator depends on the availability and quality of hospital records and continuing improvements of registry
databases. Cause and effect relationships between environmental conditions and disease incidence rates cannot be established from
this indicator. The explanation of disease incidence rates, such as cancer and birth defects, in any area requires more extensive
epidemiological research to assess the relative importance of various factors, including diet, lifestyle, occupation, and exposure to
environmental contaminants.
Interpretation
Although cause and effect relationships between environmental contaminants and disease cannot be established from this indicator, it
is useful for identifying areas which require investigation. Additional evaluation will be required to refine the analysis to specific
cancers and birth defects that are most likely to be related to environmentally related. This indicator may also allow for the
development of new hypotheses regarding the role of environmental exposure in the etiology of human disease.
Comments
This indicator could be expanded in the future to include biomonitors of exposure, biomarkers of pre-disease conditions, endocrine
disruption, and low birth weight.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): humans
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
46
-------
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures (indicator ID: 4200)
/Measure
Assess the number of health-related swimming advisory and beach closure and posting days for freshwater recreational
areas (beaches) in the Great Lakes Basin. A health-related advisory, closure day or posting day is one that is based upon
elevated levels of E. coli, or other indicator organisms, as reported by county or municipal health departments in the Great
Lakes Basin.
Purpose
To infer potential harm from pathogens to human health through body contact with nearshore recreational waters.
Ecosystem Objective
Waters should be safe for recreational use. Waters used for recreational activities involving body contact should be
substantially free from pathogens, including bacteria, parasites, and viruses, that may harm human health. This indicator
supports Annexes 1, 2 and 13 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
90% of Great Lakes beaches of high priority (or high use) to the county or province should meet bacteria standards 95% of
the swimming season.
Features
In order to be considered safe for use, recreational water quality must be substantially free from microbial contamination.
Recreational waters may become contaminated with animal and human feces from sources and conditions such as combined sewer
overflows that occur in certain areas after heavy rains, storm water run-off, and malfunctioning septic systems. This indicator will
track the number of health-related swimming advisories and beach closure and posting days at freshwater recreational areas and
across geographic locations throughout the basin. Analysis of data may show seasonal and local trends in nearshore recreational
waters. The trends provided by this indicator may aid in beach management and in the prediction of episodes of poor water quality.
Illustration
For each site selected throughout the basin, a graph will be presented showing the proportion of Great Lakes beaches that have
closures based on contaminant counts above acceptable standards over several years. Statistical analysis will be used to examine
the temporal and spatial trends in water quality in recreational beach areas. Data will be presented as a graph or as a map showing
the number of beach closings over time.
Limitations
Variability in the data from year to year may result from the process of monitoring and variations in reporting, and may not be solely
attributable to actual increases or decreases in levels of microbial contaminants. In addition, variability of weather from year to year
may also affect the variability in bacterial counts. Viruses and parasites, although a concern in recreational waters, are difficult to
isolate and quantify at present, and feasible measurement techniques have yet to be developed. Although considered a reliable
indicator of potential harm to human health, the presence of E. coli and enterococci may not necessarily be related to fecal
contamination. Comparisons of the frequency of beach closings will be limited due to use of different water quality criteria and
standards, between different municipalities as well as between Canada and the United States. This difference in reporting structure
and criteria poses challenges when attempting to establish a basin wide trend.
Interpretation
This indicator will rely on national, state/provincial advisory, closure or posting data as a benchmark. Trends that demonstrate an
increase in advisory, closure or posting days related to health events over time, and above the appropriate standard, will be
considered negative, or bad, trends. Trends that demonstrate a decrease in closure and posting days related to health events over
time, and below the appropriate standard, will be considered positive, or good, trends.
Comments
Analysis of data shows seasonal and local trends in recreational water. Episodes of poor recreational water quality have been
associated with specific events (such as rainfall), and forecasting for episodes of poor water quality is being used.
This indicator was modified from #4081, E. coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore Recreational Waters.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 2: Swimmability, 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective(s):
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
47
-------
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 10: Recreational water impairment
Last Revised
June 17, 2004.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
48
-------
Contaminants in Sport Fish (indicator ID; 4201)
/Measure
Levels of mercury, dioxin, and PCBs targeted by the GLWQA in edible fish tissue.
Purpose
To assess the level of mercury, dioxin, and PCBs in Great Lakes sport and commercial fish, and to infer the potential harm to human
health through consumption of contaminated fish.
Ecosystem Objective
Fish in the Great Lakes ecosystem should be safe to eat; consumption should not be limited by contaminants of human origin. This
indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and 12 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Reduction in the levels of mercury, dioxin, and PCBs in sport and commercial fish tissue to levels that do not pose a risk to
populations consuming Great Lakes fish. The elimination of fish advisories in the Great Lakes may be considered to be an
appropriate endpoint.
Features
The temporal and geographic trends in the chemical contaminant levels in fish species consumed by human populations in the Great
Lakes basin will be used as an indicator of exposure to mercury, dioxin, and PCBs. Levels of contaminants in fish should be
determined from a 5 fish composite made up of boneless, skin-on fillets of dorsal muscle flesh removed from the fish. This would
provide not only the most consistent test results, but is also the most edible portion of the fish. Choosing appropriate indicator species
is crucial and should be based on fish consumption patterns and availability of data. Additional chemicals can be considered as new
information arises. The indicator will allow regulatory agencies to make suggestions regarding remedial planning as well as issuing
advisories to the public on safe consumption limits.
Illustration
Results of raw data will be used to construct simple bar graphs showing the fluctuation of contaminants over time and space.
Limitations
Data for use in developing indicators exist, however, there are differences in surveillance techniques for fish consumption and
differences in tissue sampling methods between jurisdictions.
Interpretation
Reductions in contaminant levels in fish tissue will reflect an improvement in environmental quality and the potential for reduced
exposure to contaminants from consumption of Great Lakes fish.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 1: Fishability, 4: Healthy human populations, 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual
elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 1: Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
Last Revised
Feb. 26, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
49
-------
Air Quality (Indicator ID; 4202)
/Measure
Tons of criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NC>2), ozone (Os), PMio, sulphur dioxide (802)
released into ambient air annually and annual high levels of criteria pollutants.
Purpose
To monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem, and to infer the potential impact of air quality on human health in the Great
Lakes basin.
Ecosystem Objective
Air should be safe to breathe. Air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem should be protected in areas where it is relatively good, and
improved in areas where it is degraded. This is consistent with ecosystem objectives statements being adopted by certain lakewide
management plans, including Lake Superior, (Ecosystem Principles and Objectives, Indicators and Targets for Lake Superior, Lake
Superior Binational Program, 1995), in fulfilment of Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. This indicator also
supports Annexes 1,13 and 15.
End point
Canadian and U.S. air quality standards.
Features
The Great Lakes basin experiences high levels of certain air pollutants due to both local sources and long range transport. Studies
conducted in the Great Lakes region have provided strong evidence linking ground-level ozone and sulphates to increased rates of
hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory disease and to increased death rates. Pollutants that can be used to assess overall air
quality include SO2, CO, Os, NO2, PMio and Pb. Other air pollutants and toxics such as benzene, formaldehyde, and ethylene
dichloride, can also be used to assess air quality and can be added as new information becomes available. This indicator can use
information from existing air monitoring databases.
Illustration
Using a GIS mapping display, trends in pollutant levels over several years for each pollutant in a particular region or over the entire
Great Lakes basin data could be presented. Data could also be displayed as the annual high levels of criteria pollutants and measure
the tons of those pollutants released into the ambient air.
Limitations
Although indoor air is a major contributor to exposure to air toxics, there is no practical way to consistently monitor indoor air quality.
Therefore, this component to the estimate of total exposure to airborne contaminants will not be included in this indicator.
Interpretation
Interpretation of the indicator would be made by identifying trends in the levels of air contaminants over time in comparison to
guideline levels.
Comments
A significant association is found between atmospheric ozone and sulphate levels and the number of daily hospital admissions for
respiratory conditions. Five percent of daily respiratory admissions in the months of May to August can be attributed to ozone, and an
additional 1% to sulphates. This finding is consistent among all age groups. The largest impact appears to be on children under 2
years of age, in whom 15% of respiratory hospital admissions are attributed to ozone and sulphate together, while the elderly are least
affected (4%). There does not appear to be a level of ozone below which no adverse respiratory health effects are observed.
For both respiratory and cardiac illnesses, the average daily hospitalization rates increase with increasing levels of sulphates. A 13
ug/m3 increase in sulphates recorded on the previous day is associated with a 3.7% increase in respiratory admissions and a 2.8%
increase in cardiac admissions. Admissions for cardiac diseases increases 2.5% for those under 65 years and 3.5% for those 65
years and older.
Some air pollution emissions can be prevented through better pollution prevention or by changing the demand for certain products
and services that contribute to air pollution. Therefore, this indicator can additionally measure progress on sustainable development
by determining the degree to which resources are wasted as pollution, thereby representing inefficiency in human economic activity.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): human health
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point
sources, 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
50
-------
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 27, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
51
-------
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
(Indicator ID; 4501)
/Measure
An Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was developed. The IBI utilizes relative abundance of sensitive taxa (e.g., mayflies, caddisflies,
dragon and damselflies), richness of specific taxa, and other measures that could distinguish between reference and impacted
systems.
Purpose
To directly measure specific components of invertebrate community composition and use these as a surrogate for the chemical,
physical and biological integrity and range of degradation of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
To measure and evaluate, both spatially and temporally, the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of Great Lakes coastal
wetlands (GLWQA Annexes 2, 11 and 13; IJC Desired Outcomes 6 and 9) to restore and maintain the functional and structural role
that these systems play in Great Lakes ecology.
End point
The endpoint for this indicator was established by using reference systems located by Lake, ecoregion, wetland type and vegetation
type. The protocols for the IBI were designed to remove natural variability due to water levels and fetch.
Features
To restore/maintain the overall biological integrity of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, various ecological components need to be
adequately represented. The invertebrate IBI not only provides information on overall wetland integrity, but also the invertebrate
community specifically . The IBI was developed from a composite of specific parameters, termed "metrics" These metrics describe
aspects of the invertebrate community directly.. The IBI provides a rigorous approach that quantifies the condition of the invertebrate
community of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands. These data are based on data from relatively undisturbed wetlands representative
of Great Lakes ecosystems. Metric scores are based on how similar they are to the reference condition, or the best case scenario for
this day and age. The IBI also provides a narrative characterization that provides a measure of the environmental condition and is
calibrated for regional use. The cost of monitoring for this indicator may be reduced because monitoring may be conducted in
conjunction with monitoring for other indicators.
Illustration
For representative coastal wetlands, the IBI would be displayed on a map of each Lake or the basin. In addition, the invertebrate IBI
score can be plotted based on a given shoreline distance to reflect patterns in Lake quality. Color-coded symbols could be used to
reflect site scores for each representative Great Lakes coastal wetland. As sufficient IBI data becomes available, graphs showing
trends over time would be included. A narrative explanation and analysis would also be critical to reporting on this indicator so that an
understanding of driving characteristics could be gained.
Limitations
The invertebrate IBI was developed for coastal wetlands that are directly connected to the Great Lakes. Another system is currently
being developed for those wetlands that are only connected hydrologically via groundwater. Until the IBI is developed and tested for
adequacy, the metrics to be used in for those that are connected via surface water will be monitored with the intent that the IBI can be
calculated in the future using previously collected monitoring data.
Interpretation
This indicator would be evaluated as part of an overall analysis of biological communities of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from
non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
Last Revised
May 25, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
52
-------
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (indicator ID: 4502)
/Measure
A preliminary Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was developed based on measures of richness and abundance, percent exotic species,
functional feeding groups, and other species-level parameters.
Purpose
To assess the fish community composition , and to infer suitability of habitat and water quality for Great Lakes coastal wetland fish
communities.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the diversity of the fish community of Great Lakes coastal wetlands while indicating overall ecosystem health.
(GLWQA Annexes 2 and 13)
End point
An endpoint for this indicator was established based on fish communities of reference systems. Data were evaluated for patterns
by lake, ecoregion, wetland type, and vegetation zone.
Features
The IBI provides a rigorous approach to quantify the biological condition offish communities within the Great Lakes. It is based on
reference conditions and is developed from a composite of specific measures used to describe fish community, structure, function,
individual health, and abundance. Specific parameters, termed "metrics," are scored based on how similar they are to the reference
condition. The IBI will also provide a narrative characterization that provides a measure of the environmental condition and will be
calibrated for regional use.
Illustration
For representative coastal wetlands, the IBI would be displayed on a map of each Lake or the basin. In addition, the IBI score can be
plotted based on a given shoreline distance to reflect patterns in Lake quality. Color-coded symbols could be used to reflect site
scores for each representative Great Lake coastal wetland. As sufficient IBI data becomes available, graphs showing trends over time
would be included. A narrative explanation and analysis would also be critical to reporting on this indicator.
Limitations
Until the IBI is thoroughly tested, the metrics used in developing the IBI will be monitored with the intent that the IBI can be calculated
in the future using previously collected monitoring data.
Interpretation
This indicator will be evaluated as part of an overall analysis of biological communities of Great Lakes coastal wetlands and
nearshore aquatic systems.
Last Revised
June 21, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
53
-------
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
(Indicator ID; 4504)
/Measure
Species composition and relative occurrence of calling frogs and toads, based on evening surveys using protocols developed for
the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) or modification of the MMP protocol.
Purpose
To directly measure species composition and occurrence of frogs and toads, and to infer condition of coastal and inland wetland
habitat as it relates to factors that influence the biological condition of this ecologically and culturally important component of wetland
biotic communities.
Ecosystem Objective
To restore and maintain diversity and self-sustaining populations of Great Lakes coastal and inland wetland amphibian
communities. Breeding populations of amphibian species across their historical range should be sufficient to ensure population
maintenance of each species and overall species diversity. (GLWQA Annex 13).
Endpoint
Endpoints should be established based on current data available from pristine or near pristine wetland habitats that occur in the Great
Lakes basin, and such endpoints should be supported by information gathered from a literature search of available current and
historical data. Data regarding amphibian diversity and occurrence would be evaluated for patterns by lake, wetland type, and
ecoregion, and then calibrated against ecosystem objectives, and against monitoring objectives based on professional judgement of
those with field monitoring expertise.
Features
To restore/maintain the overall biological integrity of Great Lakes coastal and inland wetlands, various ecological components need to
be addressed. This indicator tracks trends in Great Lakes coastal and inland wetland amphibian diversity and occurrence over time,
and efforts will be made to develop indices of biotic integrity (IBis) using data for this indicator to measure relative biotic condition of
coastal wetland habitats.
Illustration
For representative coastal and inland wetlands in each of the lake basins, species richness and measures of occurrence are
graphically displayed. As annual data accumulate, graphs showing trends in occurrence through time are presented. As
development of I Bis progresses, information available for using this indicator to biomonitor condition of coastal wetland habitats could
be displayed. A narrative explanation of these results will be critical to reporting on this indicator.
Limitations
This indicator focuses on anurans (frogs and toads) because they are readily censused aurally by volunteer observers. Other
amphibians, such as salamanders, are not censused at all by these monitoring protocols. However, monitoring results for those
species surveyed may provide an indication of habitat suitability for other amphibians that are dependent on coastal wetlands. The
relationships among calling codes recorded during surveys, anuran chorus size, and local population size and dynamics requires
further study. This validation work is necessary for extrapolations of call code survey data to population size estimates.
Interpretation
Amphibian populations naturally fluctuate through time; therefore, this indicator would be evaluated as part of an overall analysis of
biological communities of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Many amphibian species are associated with wetlands for only a portion of
their life cycle. Periodically, more rigorous studies may be needed at some sites to relate annual occurrence indices and their
temporal trends to environmental factors. Adequate upland areas adjacent to coastal wetlands are important to amphibians, and so
measures of suitable, adjacent upland areas also need to be considered when assessing anuran population trends. Interpretation of
this indicator will be most effective if coupled with patterns observed in other indicators (e.g., Indicator #4501, Invertebrate
Community Health; Indicator #4507, Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance; Indicator #4510, Wetland Area by Type).
Many anuran species use aquatic and terrestrial habitats during their life cycle. Temporal trends in occurrence of local anuran
populations can be influenced by factors external to breeding wetlands, such as surrounding upland habitat condition or local land
uses. These are important considerations for efforts to develop a wetland amphibian IBI for monitoring coastal wetland biotic
condition.
Comments
Properly trained volunteer and professional participants currently conduct monitoring for this indicator, and all data are subject to a
stringent quality assurance program. Additional coastal wetlands are monitored as volunteer participants become available.
Available data on historical and current presence/abundance should be collected to supplement monitoring data. Anuran monitoring
programs and/or protocols other than the MMP exist, however they do not specifically focus on coastal wetlands.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
54
-------
Protocol testing and evaluation of this indicator has been applied to a selected set of representative wetlands for certain coastal
reaches of the Great Lakes through the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium and Great Lakes Environmental Indicators projects.
Any amphibian deformities observed should be noted and shared with the appropriate jurisdictional representatives responsible for
monitoring effects of environmental contamination on wildlife.
Unfinished Business
Work is currently underway to use data collected for this indicator to seek viable metrics for developing and index of biotic integrity for
rapidly monitoring condition of discrete Great Lakes coastal wetland sites. In calculating annual indices of wetland dependent anuran
species occurrence, there is a need to estimate and account for variation resulting from detection probabilities that are virtually always
lower than 100 percent. Habitat associations of wetland dependent anurans and landscape level factors that influence anuran
occupancy and population dynamics are important questions that require further investigation.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s) 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
July 15, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
55
-------
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (indicator ID: 4506)
/Measure
Concentrations of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in snapping turtle eggs.
Purpose
To assess the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in snapping turtle eggs, and to infer the extent of
organochlorine chemicals and mercury in food webs of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
Snapping turtle populations in Great Lakes coastal wetlands and populations observed at contaminated sites should not exhibit
significant differences in concentrations of organochlorine chemicals and mercury compared to a clean inland reference site, such as
Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Subsequently, this lack of difference in contaminant concentrations should ensure normal
hatching success and low abnormality rates (GLWQA Annexes 1,12 and 13).
Endpoint
Chemical levels, biological and reproductive measures (exact measures to be confirmed) in Snapping Turtles are not different from
those turtles from reference sites away from the Great Lakes, e.g. inland sites from Ontario, Atlantic Canada or the Prairies.
Features
Snapping turtles are long-lived, top predators that bioaccumulate contaminants. Their sedentary nature means that their contaminant
burdens reflect local sources of contaminants, although not necessarily a specific industry. The embryonic, physiological, and sexual
development of snapping turtles appear to be sensitive to organochlorine chemicals. Given these characteristics, the snapping turtle
is useful in monitoring trends in contaminants levels within specific wetlands. Variations in diet among snapping turtle populations can
influence the degree of contamination in the population. In areas where fish are the primary source of food, snapping turtles are more
likely to bioaccumulate greater concentrations of persistant contaminants.
Illustration
Mean concentration of organochlorine chemicals and mercury at the uncontaminated reference site (e.g., Algonquin Provincial Park)
superimposed over concentrations from representative sites from the Lakes and connecting channels. This would be presented as a
bar graph showing sites and concentrations, along with the mean concentration for the reference site as a comparison.
Limitations
This indicator requires labor-intensive sampling to collect eggs (2 weeks in June) and expensive analyses (as with any species
requiring such chemical analyses). The monitoring for this indicator, as with any biotic indicator, focuses only on bio-accumulative
chemicals, and therefore does not illustrate trends in non-bioaccumulative contaminants that may be present in Great Lakes coastal
wetlands.
Interpretation
Contamination levels observed in snapping turtles at reference sites, and other sites throughout the Great Lakes, would provide the
context needed to interpret this indicator.
Comments
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes. The
SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems identifies the ecoreaches from which representative
wetlands will be selected.
The concentrations provided as endpoints for this indicator serve as tentative concentrations which should not be exceeded to
ensure that the hatching success and hatchling deformity rates do not significantly exceed those at the examined inland, non-
contaminated reference sites.
The mean wet weight concentration in snapping turtle eggs provided as endpoints are concentrations found in eggs from Big Creek
Marsh, Lake Erie which showed no significant difference in hatching rates and deformity rates as compared to Lake Sasajewun,
Algonquin Provincial Park, an inland lake in Ontario.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Pollution from non-
point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
56
-------
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
July 19, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
57
-------
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
(Indicator ID; 4507)
/Measure
Species composition and relative abundance of wetland-dependent birds, based on evening surveys using protocol developed for
Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) or modification of the MMP protocol.
Purpose
To assess wetland-dependent bird species composition and relative abundance, and to infer condition of coastal and inland wetland
habitat as it relates to factors that influence the biological condition of this ecologically and culturally important component of wetland
biotic communities.
Ecosystem Objective
To restore and maintain diversity and self-sustaining populations of Great Lakes coastal and inland wetland bird communities.
Breeding populations of bird species across their historical range should be sufficient to ensure population maintenance of each
species and overall species diversity (GLWQA Annex 2).
End point
Endpoints should be established based on current data available from pristine or near pristine wetland habitats that occur in the Great
Lakes basin, and such endpoints should be supported by information gathered from a literature search of available current and
historical data. Data regarding wetland-dependent bird diversity and abundance would be evaluated for patterns by lake, wetland
type, and ecoregion, and then calibrated against ecosystem objectives, and against monitoring objectives based on professional
judgement of those with field monitoring expertise.
Features
To restore/maintain the overall biological integrity of Great Lakes coastal and inland wetlands, various ecological components need to
be addressed. This indicator tracks trends in Great Lakes coastal and inland wetland-dependent bird diversity and relative
abundance over time, and efforts will be made to develop indices of biotic integrity (IBIs) using data for this indicator to measure
relative biotic condition of coastal wetland habitats.
Illustration
For representative coastal and inland wetlands in each of the lake basins, species richness and measures of relative abundance are
graphically displayed. As annual data accumulate, graphs showing trends in relative abundance through time are presented. As
development of IBIs progresses, information available for using this indicator to biomonitor condition of coastal wetland habitats could
be displayed. A narrative explanation of these results will be critical to reporting on this indicator.
Limitations
A rigorously tested index of the relations between wetland-dependent bird community composition and factors that affect biotic
condition of wetland habitats (i.e., IBIs) is a preferable approach to community-based indicators, but wetland-dependent bird IBIs have
not yet been developed for Great Lakes coastal wetlands. However, work is currently underway to develop a wetland-bird IBI for
monitoring coastal wetland habitat condition. The IBI should be able to take advantage of the information on species occurrence and
relative abundance currently collected through the MMP.
Interpretation
Both regional and local bird populations naturally fluctuate over time; therefore, several years of monitoring data are required to detect
all but the most dramatic trends. Interpretation of this indicator will be most effective if coupled with patterns observed in other
indicators (e.g., Indicator #4501, Invertebrate Community Health; Indicator #4504, Amphibian Diversity and Occurrence; Indicator
#4510, Wetland Area by Type). Wetland birds are highly mobile and most are dependent on wetlands for only part of their life cycle.
Temporal trends in local bird populations can be influenced by factors external to breeding wetlands, those at wintering grounds,
during migration, or non-wetland areas at breeding grounds. For this reason, intensive work is required to identify site- and region-
specific impacts to bird breeding productivity and survivorship. These intensive studies are particularly important for informing efforts
to develop a wetland-dependent bird IBI for monitoring coastal wetland biotic condition.
Comments
Properly trained volunteer and professional survey participants currently conduct monitoring for this indicator, and all data are subject
to a stringent quality assurance program. This indicator applies most directly to the selected representative wetland sites, but could
complement other existing wetland monitoring efforts in both coastal and inland sites in the Great Lakes basin. Wetland birds are
important culturally and ecologically. Monitoring wetland-dependent bird species of conservation concern (e.g., Black Tern, Least
Bittern, King Rail) should receive special attention during protocol development. Additional coastal and inland wetlands are monitored
as volunteer participants become available. Available data on historical and current presence/abundance should be collected to
supplement monitoring data. Monitoring programs and/or protocols other than the MMP exist, however they do not specifically focus
on coastal wetlands.
Unfinished Business
Work is currently underway to use data collected for this indicator to seek viable metrics for developing an IBI for rapidly monitoring
condition of discrete Great Lakes coastal wetland sites. In calculating annual indices of wetland dependent bird species relative
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
58
-------
abundance, there is a need to estimate and account for variation resulting from detection probabilities that are virtually always lower
than 100 percent.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(s): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring IJC Desired
Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
July 15, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
59
-------
Coastal Wetland Area Extent by Type (indicator ID: 4510)
/Measure
Areal extent of coastal wetlands by hydrogeomorphic type as a range (e.g., dry year/low water level area versus wet year/ high water
level area).
Purpose
To assess the periodic changes in area (particularly losses) of coastal wetland types, taking into account natural lake level variations.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain total areal extent of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, ensuring adequate representation of coastal wetland types across their
historical range. (GLWQA Annexes 2 and 13)
End point
No net loss of coastal wetland area due to human actions and, in the future, a gain to coastal wetlands due to restoration activities,
recognizing that a reference year needs to be selected and accurate inventory integrated into the analysis.
Features
The total wetland area should be reported by lake basin and hydrogeomorphic type. The baseline status should be considered within
a historical perspective. The monitoring must be conducted on a regular and ongoing basis over an entire Great Lakes water level
cycle for meaningful baseline data.
Illustration
For each wetland type, tabular summaries and graphics could show the areal extent of hydrogeomorphic wetland types by lake basin
as they change relative to water level and over time.
Limitations
Although not inexpensive, remote sensing, with statistically significant ground-truthing, would be the most cost-effective method to
comprehensively monitor this indicator throughout the Great Lakes basin. The costs would be partially offset if other SOLEC
indicators are also concurrently monitored using remote sensing. Additionally, integrating SOLEC needs with those of existing and
proposed regional initiatives (i.e. Great Lakes Observing System and National Ecological Observation Network) would also offset
costs and greatly increase scientific benefits.
The extent of each coastal wetland type varies with Great Lakes water level fluctuations. Monitoring must be repeated throughout the
Great Lakes water level fluctuation cycle. No one is currently doing this on a regular basis. Conducting the monitoring and detecting
human-induced change in an area may not be feasible in the two-year time frame of SOLEC. Scientifically meaningful monitoring of
coastal wetlands needs to be long-term and regular.
Wetland area change caused by human actions may be difficult to measure because (a) natural water level fluctuation can have a
dramatic effect on area by type and (b) a historic "original size" by type for each water level regime is difficult to establish. But again,
remote sensing techniques can provide meaningful data and establish trends and linkages with human activities if linked to ground-
truthing.
Interpretation
This indicator needs to be evaluated in terms of both wetland quality and extent. While some wetlands may decrease in both area
and quality due to the lack of water level fluctuation, as on Lake Ontario, the area of other wetlands could remain within the range
determined by natural water level fluctuations, but be degraded by other factors, such as sedimentation, excessive nutrients, invasive
species or land use pressures. When interpreting the data, the other coastal wetland indicators that evaluate wetland quality need to
be considered. Measurement should be based upon total area of inventoried coastal wetlands where known. Where areal extent is
not known, efforts should be focused on collecting that baseline data. Total change can be roughly determined on a lake basin basis
and for scientifically-based sampling, priority sites should be established where regular ground-truthing facilitates a statistical analysis.
Comments
The wetland area measured would include the data from indicator #4511, Gain in Restored Wetland Area by Type.
Unfinished Business
• A cost efficient method for data acquisition and monitoring using remote sources must be implemented
• Complementary data sets that can be concurrently gathered should be defined and integrated into the collection process
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from
non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
60
-------
Last Revised June 28, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
61
-------
Coastal Wetland Restored Area by Type (indicator iD;45ii)
/Measure
Gain in restored wetland area by type.
Purpose
To assess the amount of restored wetland area, and to infer the success of conservation and rehabilitation efforts.
Ecosystem Objective
Sufficient gain in restored wetland area to ensure adequate representation of coastal wetlands by type across their historical range.
(GLWQA Annexes 2 and 13)
End point
The endpoint for this indicator needs to be defined and could be as simple as defining a certain amount of Great Lakes areas that
should be classified as wetland. There should be enough gain in wetland area to offset any losses to ensure no net loss; however,
opportunities for wetland gain may be limited by lack of available sites. Also, the endpoint should consider wetland quality including
zones of vegetation and desired species.
Features
This indicator measures additional restored wetland area, not enhancement of existing wetland area. When evaluating this indicator,
wetland quality, not just total restored area needs to be considered. High quality examples of each wetland type, based on
geomorphology and climatic setting, should be used to define the expected zones of vegetation, sediment characteristics, and plant
species in restored wetland. Also, wildlife use, based on baseline high quality wetlands, could be used to evaluate the success of the
wetland restoration. Other coastal wetland indicators should be used to help interpret wetland quality.
Illustration
A graph displaying the amount of gained/restored wetland area by type over time.
Limitations
The gain in restored wetland area does not necessarily reflect the quality of the wetland. Also, lack of available sites for restoration
would be a limitation.
Data quality may vary because data will be submitted from a number of agencies. Also, because of multi-agency partnerships in most
restoration projects, it is crucial to ensure that restored areas are counted only once when agencies submit data from the same
project.
Wetland area change caused by human actions may be difficult to measure because (a) natural water level fluctuation can have a
dramatic effect on area by type and (b) a historic 'original size' by type for each water level regime is difficult to establish.
Interpretation
By looking at both indicator #4510, Wetland Area by Type, and the gain in restored area within a particular water level regime, it will
be possible to determine whether the no net loss goal is being met, or being surpassed with additional gains. Further investigation or
incorporation of historical data could be important for Lakes Erie and Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. For many of the wetland
types characterizing the Great Lakes shoreline, baseline data for high quality examples exist for both the typical zonation, relation to
water depth, and typical plant species of each zone. Baseline data for Lakes Erie and Ontario and the St. Lawrence River are less
reliable because of the high level of wetland degradation. In Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, water level
control/manipulation has altered the species composition in even the least disturbed wetlands.
Comments
Gain in wetland area will be determined using data reported by agencies that track wetlands restoration, and confirmed by remote
sensing. This will allow gain, not just enhancement of existing wetland, to be tracked. Agencies will need to provide documentation
about the location of restoration projects and track restoration (i.e. true gain in area) versus enhancement (i.e. modifications to
existing area).
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land
Related Issue(s): habitat, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from
non-point sources
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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
62
-------
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
63
-------
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands (indicator ID: 4516)
/Measure
Suspendei
upstream of coastal wetlands.
Suspended Sediment Unit Area Yield (tonnes/km2 of upstream watershed) for a representative set of existing monitoring sites just
Purpose
To assess the severity of sediment yields flowing into coastal wetlands and potential impact on wetland health.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain and restore healthy coastal wetlands which are highly dependent on appropriate sediment loads. (GLWQA Annexes 1, 2
and 13)
End point
Wetlands require some sediment to maintain barriers and elevation against scour etc., so the reference value is not zero. A desired
endpoint can be set from unit area yields to representative wetlands without sedimentation problems.
Features
Sediment yield is critical to habitat health and is one of the major wetland stressors. Sites throughout the basin can be chosen to
represent stream inflow to individual wetlands and it is possible that there is enough existing monitoring to represent the basin-wide
situation. The data are already collected, analyzed, and maintained comparably in both countries. There is fairly high variability
among the data because stream sediment yields are directly related to flow, which varies depending on precipitation events. Sediment
yields are also dependent upon agricultural land management practices and land use. This indicator links to other wetland stressor
indicators that have similar causes, including 4560, Nitrate and Total Phosphorus into Coastal Wetlands, and indicator 4519, Number
of Extreme Storms. Sediment affects the wetland State/Response indicators including those associated with area by type, invasive
plants and wildlife.
Illustration
This indicatoi
axis). The desired reference point or endpoint could be indicated on the y axis and across the graph.
This indicator could be displayed graphically as tonnes of sediment per km2 of coastal wetland watersheds (y axis) versus time (x
Limitations
The indicator is developed from flow measurements using stream-specific and regularly updated relationships of flow and sediments.
Interpretation
Interpretation will be based on the magnitude of the difference of the monitoring stream sediment yields from the reference yield. The
reference yield will be scored as 10. The greater the difference in the monitored yield, the lower the score. Additional information that
could help interpret reasons for stream sediment yield include: weather, conservation practices data, and upstream reservoirs. Data
for percentage of silt and clay are also available and can help interpret associated contaminants and whether material is likely to settle
out or not.
Comments
This is a clearly understood indicator to which both development and agriculture industries can relate. Excess sediment is of concern
not only for its physical smothering, in-filling and light obstruction properties but also for other harmful contaminants it can carry.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, sediments
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
64
-------
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
(Indicator ID; 4858)
/Measure
Maximum percentage of Great Lakes area covered by ice each year.
Purpose
To assess the temperature and accompanying physical changes to each lake over time, and to infer potential impact of climate
change on wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
GLWQA General Objective: "These waters should be free from materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the water as result of
human activity that. . . produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life." Change in water temperature
(potentially due to global warming) will affect ice extent on the Lakes and, in turn, affect coastal wetlands. Awareness of occurrence
will encourage human response to reduce the stressor towards minimizing biological disruption.
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of historical data to determine the average number of days per
year that ice historically (prior to 1980) formed on each lake.
Features
Ice cover reflects temperature, wind, and heat stored in a lake, therefore, this is a good indicator of climate effects. This data is
already collected annually for each lake by NOAA using satellite imagery. There is a natural variability in MAXIMUM ice extent
accounted for in the interpretation.
This indicator may show similar trends to other indicators of climate change (ie. 4519, Number of Extreme Storms, 4857, First
Emergence of Water Lily Blossoms in Coastal Wetlands, and 4861, Water Level Fluctuations). It is indirectly linked to any other
indicator that track trends in wetland area/habitat change.
Illustration
A graph displaying the maximum percentage of ice cover on the y axis and years on the x axis. The historical median and extremes
will be indicated.
Limitations
The data that have already been collected by NOAA are specific to each lake rather than coastal wetlands.
Interpretation
Even though it is unclear if storms alter ice extent, storms can break up ice and alter their formation, therefore, information regarding
storms and their severity is needed to properly interpret this indicator.
To interpret this indicator, data for maximum percentage ice cover need to be gathered each year. From the period of record for
maximum percentage of ice cover, the pre-1980 high and low extremes will be determined. The historic range will be divided into 3
equally occurring ranges of maximum per cent ice cover: below average, average, and above average (i.e., maximum per cent ice
cover exceeded 0 to 33.3%, 33.3% to 66.7%, 66.7% to 100% of the pre-1980 years of record). The indicator will score high if the
annual maximum percentage values for the previous 10 years are within the maximum and minimum historical extremes and they are
distributed fairly evenly among the 3 historical ranges. Low scores will be obtained if any annual maximum percentage cover value
lies beyond the high or low extremes or if the annual values are becoming highly skewed away from a fairly even distribution among
the 3 ranges.
Comments
This is a very understandable feature. Lake ice indicates coastal wetland ice and itself affects wetlands (e.g., winter storm severity).
The endpoint is reached when the previous 10 years' values of maximum per cent ice cover are distributed evenly within the pre-1980
historic range of maximum per cent ice cover.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): climate change
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
65
-------
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
66
-------
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels (indicator ID: 4860)
/Measure
Concentration of nitrate and of total phosphorus just upstream from, or in, a set of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Purpose
To assess the amount of nitrate and total phosphorus flowing into Great Lakes coastal wetlands, and to infer the human influence on
nutrient levels in the wetlands.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintenance and restoration of more natural levels of nutrients to maximize: species and community diversity, wetland integrity and
wetland values. (GLWQA Annexes 3 and 13)
Endpoint
In the growing season, at least one instance of < 0.5 mg/l nitrate and < 0.03 mg/l total phosphorus.
Features
This indicator will assess the concentrations of nitrate and total phosphorus found in and entering Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
These are the major nutrients affecting coastal wetlands. Data for this indicator will be collected from the following locations: 1)
existing closest stream monitoring sites within 5 km upstream of a coastal wetland (within 10 km upstream if on the Canadian Shield);
2) existing monitoring for Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants (LRTAP) at stations nearest the coastal wetland sites with stream
monitoring stations; and 3) proposed in situ monitoring of a representative set of coastal wetlands. Past trends can be constructed
using historical stream data, which exists for many years.
The indicator will be updated on an annual basis, as new data are available. Stream sampling data are often collected on the order of
1 sample per month. Concentrations may vary with seasons and events but choice of presence/absence type indicator during the
growing season greatly reduces variability. This indicator links to other coastal wetland indicators that assess wildlife affected by
eutrophication or reduced habitat diversity (e.g., 4501, Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health; 4502, Coastal Wetland Fish
Community Health; 4504, Amphibian Diversity and Abundance in Coastal Wetlands), as well as indicator 4510, Coastal Wetland Area
by Type, and indicator 4513, Presence, Abundance and Expansion of Invasive Plants. The in situ sampling piggy-backed on wetland
visits proposed for other indicators and will have relatively low associated lab costs.
Illustration
This indicator will be presented using a graph with y axis as % of sites with at least one instance of both <0.5 mg/l nitrate and <0.03
mg/l total phosphorus from May to July, and x axis as time in years. Percentage reaching the endpoint can also be recorded for each
of the set of upstream samples (with airborne contribution (LRTAP) concentrations added) and the set of in situ samples in case their
trends differ.
Limitations
Low incremental cost assumes (1) no major downsizing of the stream water quality monitoring network, and (2) on-site wetland visits
by biologists monitoring other indicators. Total phosphorus has an official standard; nitrate does not. Variation within each wetland
will require a general protocol for such factors as storm event avoidance and grab sample location.
Interpretation
The higher percentage of sampled wetlands and streams reaching the endpoint (at least one instance of both < 0.5 mg/l nitrate and
<0.03 mg/l total phosphorus from May through to July), the better. A ranking system of 0 to 10 can be used to interpret this indicator,
with 0 for no stations reaching the endpoint and 10 for all (100%) stations reaching the endpoint.
Analysis of this indicator must consider recent data from monitoring stations dropped since the previous year's monitoring. For
example, if dropped stations were all high water quality, then their omission, rather than just pollution levels, affects the trend in
percentage reaching the endpoint.
Comments
In nutrient over-enriched wetlands, a few species out-compete many others reducing biological and social values. One instance of
low concentration indicates the site is capable of non-excessive nutrient levels and allows the indicator to avoid (1) the confusion
imposed by the high variability in concentration which often occurs among monthly samples, and (2) the need for many more samples
to fully assess nutrient level regimes.
Unfinished Business
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
67
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): nutrients
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control of phosphorus, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 8: Absence of excess phosphorus
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
68
-------
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations (indicator ID; 4861)
/Measure
For each lake: 1) Mean lake level; 2) Lake-wide annual range in monthly averages; 3) Lake-wide seasonal peak (days after January
1); 4) Lake-wide seasonal minimum (days after September 1); and 5) Elevation Difference between Upper and Lower Emergent
Vegetation Extent based on Water Level model (Painter and Keddy, 1992).
Purpose
To assess the lake level trends that may significantly affect components of wetland and nearshore terrestrial ecosystems, and to infer
the effect of water level regulation on emergent wetland extent.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain and restore healthy coastal wetlands whose existence and integrity depend on naturally fluctuating water levels (GLWQA
Annexes 2 and 17).
End point
The endpoint for this indicator is based on four historic ranges (i.e., data exceeded 0-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, and 75-100% of the
years examined) for each measure per lake. All years of historical data from 1918 to 1959 for Lake Ontario, and from 1918 to 1980
for all other lakes, will be used to set the historic ranges. The endpoint is reached if in the previous 20 years, distribution of data is
fairly evenly distributed among the four historic ranges. The endpoint for water level regulation effects is the elevation difference
between upper and lower emergent vegetation extent, calculated by application of the Painter and Keddy model to water levels in
Lakes Ontario and Superior under a "no regulation" scenario.
Features
Lake levels have a major influence on undiked coastal wetlands and are basic to any analysis of wetland change trends. This
indicator uses existing annual summaries of lake and basin-wide water level fluctuations based on daily data. Natural variability will
occur in each measure, but will be accounted for in the interpretation method. Yearly data can vary and should be reviewed
whenever data for other wetland indicators are collected. Interpretation into the score of 10 (see Interpretation), however, will show
far less variability and may be required only every second or third SOLEC cycle. This indicator links to indicator #4510 Coastal
Wetland Area by Type, and all wildlife indicators. The data for this indicator are already collected, standardized, easily available and
analyzed.
Illustration
One graph per lake of "Correspondence of Previous 20 Years of Water Levels With Historical Distribution" on the y-axis with the x-
axis as time in years. Lakes Ontario and Superior will also have a graph of "Effect of Regulation on Extent of Emergent Vegetation
Elevation", which will be the difference between pre- and post-regulation modeled values each year. Lakes Michigan and Huron will
be illustrated on one graph.
Limitations
Some analysis is required to set historical reference ranges and to calculate emergent vegetation elevation difference. The indicator
shows changes from historic distribution of levels but cannot distinguish if changes are due to natural climatic variability or human-
induced climate change. The emergent elevations are based on a model using lake level data but not direct field measurements of
vegetation extent.
Interpretation
If previous 20 years of data are distributed evenly across the historical range for a measure (i.e., within historical high and low values
AND distributed reasonably evenly among the 4 historical ranges), the trend can be interpreted as "good." If a year is beyond high or
low historical value OR distribution is becoming highly skewed from a fairly even distribution among the 4 historical ranges, the trend
can be interpreted as "bad."
A ranking system of 0 to 10 can be used to determine the trend of the overall indicator (i.e., an aggregate of all five measures). Each
of 5 parameters for each lake will receive a score of 0, 1, or 2, depending on how well the previous 20 years of data fit the historical
ranges. The total of the scores for the 5 parameters identified under Measure above provides a lake score (maximum of 10). An
average of the 4 lakes scores could provide a basin-wide score. The four lakes are Superior, Michigan/Huron, Erie and Ontario. The
y axis of the "Effect of Regulation" graphs will be scaled so larger effects score lower; no effect scores 10.
Lake St. Clair is omitted from the basin-wide score since ice jams in the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers can greatly affect ranges and
extreme levels. For the same reason St. Clair indicators are restricted to the average level and elevation differences.
Comments
Water levels are important to the public. The importance to wetland integrity, however, of natural level fluctuations is less widely
appreciated and use of modelled elevations of emergents, historical ranges and one index for all parameters and lakes may be
difficult for public understanding.
Painter, S. and P. Keddy. 1992. Conceptual Emergent Marsh Response to Water Level Regulation. National Water Research
Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington Ontario.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
69
-------
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water
Related Issue(s): habitat, climate change
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 17: Research and
development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
70
-------
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health (indicator ID: 4862)
/Measure
Presence, abundance, and diversity of aquatic macrophytes within Great Lakes coastal wetlands. The prevalence of native plants in
a wetland is considered an indicator of low levels of human manipulation and increased sediment loading. In contrast, the presence,
abundance, and expansion of invasive plants (both native and non-native), such as flowering rush, great hairy willow-herb, common
frogbit, yellow iris, purple loosestrife, Eurasian water milfoil, curly pondweed, cattail, reed canary grass, and common reed
(Phragmites australis), is considered a response to wetland manipulation and increased sediment loading.
Purpose
To assess the level of native vegetative diversity and cover for use as a surrogate measure of quality of coastal wetlands which are
impacted by coastal manipulation or input of sediments.
Ecosystem Objective
Coastal wetlands throughout the Great Lakes basin should be dominated by native vegetation, with low numbers of invasive plant
species that have low levels of coverage. (GLWQA Annexes 2 and 13).
Endpoint
The characteristic size and plant diversity of coastal wetlands vary by wetland type, lake, and latitude, due to differences in
geomorphic and climatic conditions; in this document these differences will be described broadly as "regional wetland types". The
number and coverage of invasive plant species also varies by region wetland type and must be identified through sampling.
Features
Two considerations in assessing the condition of coastal wetlands are quantity and quality. The aerial extent of a wetland is based on
a combination of physically limiting factors and management history. Evaluation of degradation of a wetland is based on loss of
wetland plants from a portion of the habitat that originally supported wetland. The same wetland can be degraded or modified by the
replacement of native plant species by invasive plant species, or by the reduction of native species diversity (without introduction of
exotic or invasive native species). Similarly, wetland restoration may be evaluated based on the diversity and extend of native plant
species. This indicator will track the quality of coastal wetlands by assessing the native diversity of wetland vegetation overtime.
Illustration
Graphs will display the number of native species over time. Plant diversity can be further refined by using Floristic Quality Indices,
which provide additional information concerning the conservativeness of the plants found in the wetland and the wetland affinity.
Diversity and integrity of a wetland is often not uniform across the entire wetland, with wetland quality sometimes differing between
plant community zones; the most common zones in coastal wetlands being wet meadow zone and emergent zone, with submergent
zone sometimes present. Presence and coverage of invasive (native and non-native) plant species are some of the easiest to
measure indicators of wetland degradation. For many of the most aggressive invasives, it is possible to map the extent within a
wetland using aerial photography or satellite imagery. On a broader scale regional extent of invasive plant ranges can be mapped to
track expansion overtime.
Limitations
The characteristic presence and abundance of native plants has not been adequately documented across the Great Lakes basin, but
most regional wetland types can be adequately described on the basis of existing studies. The changes in species composition and
dominance related to Great Lakes water-level fluctuations has not been adequately determined for many regional wetland types. This
is an important task, as natural water-level fluctuations can introduce changes in wetland vegetation that could falsely be attributed to
either increased wetland degradation or improved management. A further need for wetland plants is laboratory studies to identify
species responses to different types of degradation, including turbidity, sedimentation, heavy metal and organic chemical introduction,
pH change, erosion, exotic plant competition, and increased herbivory by exotic fauna.
Interpretation
A ranking could be developed based on a combined score of 1) the diversity of native plants, 2) the conservatism (FQA) of all plants
or native plants only, 3) the plant zones present within the wetland, 4) the number of invasive plant species, and 5) the coverage
value of invasive plant species.
Comments
This indicator would apply to a selected set of representative wetlands for each of the coastal reaches of the Great Lakes, as
identified in the SOLEC '98 Biodiversity Investment Areas paper on Coastal Wetland Ecosystems, or for each regional wetland type.
Unfinished Business
The evaluation of the response of wetland plant diversity and coverage to water-level fluctuation remains as an obstacle to
development of indicator values, as does identification of the response of individual wetland plants to different types of wetland
degradation.
Relevancies
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
71
-------
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): plant diversity, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from
non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
July 20, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
72
-------
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (indicator ID: 4863)
/Measure
Presence, wetland-proximity, and/or spatial extent of land cover type(s) nearby coastal wetlands
Purpose
Assess the presence, location, and/or spatial extent of land cover in close proximity to coastal wetlands. Infer the condition of coastal
wetlands as a function of adjacent land cover.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the ecological (i.e., hydrologic and biogeochemical) functions of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Presence,
wetland-proximity, and/or spatial extent of land cover should be such that the hydrologic and biogeochemical functions of wetlands
continue.
End point
Ecological endpoints may be inferred by using field sample data and by a literature search of current and historical relationships
between land cover adjacent to coastal wetlands. Field sampling data and a priori knowledge of such endpoints and the mechanisms
of such endpoints could be used to calibrate this indicator at broad scales, and contribute to the understanding of such relationships at
fine scales. Ecological endpoints may include presence/absence or assemblage structure of species; vegetational
characteristics/structure; or characteristics/constituents of soil and water within the wetland.
Features
This indicator offers information on the presence, location, and predominance of land cover adjacent to wetlands, and may provide
information about how such land cover types affect the ecological characteristics and functions of coastal wetlands, as demonstrated
by the use of remote-sensing data and/or field observations. This indicator can be tracked over time if necessary.
Illustration
The coastal area of a desired portion of the Great Lakes could be mapped for the presence, wetland-proximity, and/or spatial extent of
land cover adjacent to coastal wetlands using remote-sensing based geographic information, and analyzed in relationship to field
measures of wetland functions. A limited number of coastal wetland sites could be mapped with regard to this indicator, using field
surveys, sketches, and global positioning systems to record transitions between wetland and adjacent land cover types.
Limitations
To conduct such measures at a broad scale, the relationships between wetland-adjacent land cover and the functions of coastal
wetlands need to be verified. This measure will need to be validated fully with thorough field sampling data and sufficient a priori
knowledge of such endpoints and the mechanisms of impact. The development of indicators (e.g., a regression model using adjacent
vegetation characteristics and wetland hydroperiod) is an important goal, and requires uniform measurement of field parameters
across a vast geographic region to determine accurate information to calibrate such models.
Interpretation
"Land cover" types may be used to infer "land use" types, but such uses should be considered under "Human Impact Measures" (See
SOLEC indicator TBD). Land cover types adjacent to coastal wetlands can be more thoroughly explored and explained if they are
linked to the ecological functions of a wetland (e.g., vegetation density, as it relates to uptake/accumulation/leaching of nutrient runoff,
as it relates to nutrient loading into wetlands, as it relates to wetland water quality). For this reason, interpretation of this indicator is
correlated with many other SOLEC indicators and their patterns across the Great Lakes. Land cover change has great potential for
complicating the development of wetland-adjacent land cover parameters as indicators of wetland function. Thus, multiple-season,
multiple-year analyses of wetland-adjacent land cover are required to develop a robust indicator. The classification system for land
cover types should be linked to the ecological endpoint of interest. This interpretation may vary as a result of the specificity of land
cover type. For example, general-agriculture land cover types (e.g., "row crop agriculture") may be most appropriate, if considering
general nutrient inputs from sheet flow into adjacent wetlands. Alternatively, crop-type land cover information may be most
appropriate if considering pesticide inputs from sheet flow into adjacent wetlands.
Comments
A thorough field-sampling protocol and properly validated geographic information and other remote-sensing-based data could lead to
successful development of wetland-adjacent land cover as indicators of coastal wetland function and ecological vulnerability. This
indicator could be applied to selected wetland sites, but would be most effective if used at a regional or basin-wide scale.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Compartment(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es):
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
73
-------
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Last Revised August 12, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
74
-------
Human Impact Measures (indicator ID: 4864)
/Measure
Presence, wetland-proximity, and/or spatial extent of factors that are a direct or indirect result of human behaviors in or nearby coastal
wetlands
Purpose
Assess the presence, location, and/or spatial extent of factors that are a direct or indirect result of human behaviors. Infer the
condition of coastal wetlands as a function of these human impact measures.
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the ecological (i.e., hydrologic and biogeochemical) functions of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Presence,
wetland-proximity, and/or spatial extent of human impact measures should be such that the hydrologic and biogeochemical functions
of wetlands continue.
Endpoint
Ecological endpoints may be inferred by using field sample data and by a literature search of current and historical relationships
between human activities in the vicinity of coastal wetlands. Field sampling data and a priori knowledge of such endpoints and the
mechanisms of such endpoints could be used to calibrate this indicator at broad scales, and contribute to the understanding of such
relationships at fine scales. Ecological endpoints may include presence/absence or assemblage structure of species; vegetational
characteristics/structure; or characteristics/constituents of soil and water within the wetland.
Features
This indicator will offer information on the presence, location, and predominance of land cover as it relates to human habitation and
activities, and may provide information about how such land cover types and activities affect the ecological characteristics and
functions of coastal wetlands, as demonstrated by the use of both current and historic remote-sensing data. Field-based collection of
human impacts can also be accomplished by: surveys; sketches (using global positioning systems); personal interviews; and record
analyses at local, county, or state offices.
Illustration
The coastal area of a desired portion of the Great Lakes could be mapped for the presence, wetland-proximity, and/or spatial extent of
human impact 'indicators' using remote-sensing based geographic information, and analyzed in relationship to field measures of
wetland functions. Human impacts may include (but are not limited to) agricultural, mining, recreational, and urbanization activities.
Limitations
To conduct such measures at a broad scale, the relationships between human activities and wetland functions of coastal wetlands
need to be verified. This measure will need to be validated fully with thorough field sampling data and sufficient a priori knowledge of
such endpoints and the mechanisms of impact. The development of indicators (e.g., a regression model using impervious surface
parameters and wetland hydroperiod) is an important goal, and requires uniform measurement of field parameters across a vast
geographic region to determine accurate information to calibrate such models.
Interpretation
Human impacts can be interpreted more easily, in the context of wetland impacts, if they are defined as either as direct (e.g., road
density) or indirect (e.g., human population density) impacts. This conceptual distinction between human impact types allows for a
more thorough exploration of the potential mechanistic relationships with ecological functions of affected coastal wetlands (e.g., road
density, as it relates to impervious surface, as it relates to runoff into wetlands, as it relates to wetland hydroperiod). Human impact
measures may be correlated with other SOLEC indicators (e.g., Land Cover Adjacent to Wetlands) and their patterns across the
Great Lakes. Because human activities are temporally variable and are non-linear in their spatial and temporal patterns, this indicator
is complex. Thus, multiple-scale, multiple-season, multiple-year analyses of human impact measures are required to develop a robust
indicator.
Comments
A thorough field-sampling protocol and a properly validated geographic information and other remote-sensing-based data could lead
to successful development of human impact measures as indicators of coastal wetland function and ecological vulnerability. This
indicator could be applied to selected wetland sites, but would be most effective if used at a regional or basin-wide scale.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Compartment(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands
GLWQA Annex(es):
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
75
-------
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Last Revised August 12, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
76
-------
Urban Density (Indicator ID: 7000)
/Measure
Human population per square kilometre of existing and proposed development areas. Total area is adjusted to exclude parks and
other designated greenspace.
Purpose
To assess the human population density in the Great Lakes basin, and to infer the degree of inefficient land use and urban sprawl for
communities in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Socio-economic viability and sustainable development are generally accepted goals for society.
End point
The most efficient and ecologically sustainable conditions will occur when large urban centres are intensively developed with a high
population density. The contrary exists for sparsely populated rural areas — the lower the population density the less stress is
imposed on the ecosystem. As a corollary, new growth is best accommodated by adding to the high density area rather than the
lower density rural areas.
Features
Urban density is a relative measure of efficiency. In general, and other things being equal, higher density land use is less energy and
resource consuming and thus is more efficient from an ecosystem perspective. For example, transportation in higher density areas is
less resource demanding since distances are shorter and public transportation is often more available and inexpensive.
Consequently, air pollution should be lower in more densely populated areas. In addition, since inefficient land use for urban
development implies loss of land use for natural and other purposes there are significant biodiversity dimensions to inefficient land
use. In general, the less land used for development, the greater the opportunities that exist for natural biodiversity goals to be met.
Urban densities have been declining over time as urban development has become much more sprawling with the vast majority of new
development occurring on former agricultural or natural lands. This has resulted in greater reliance for urban residents on the
automobile as virtually the only method of public transit for these widespread and low density new communities has become
impractical. Information for this indicator needs to be collected perhaps every 5 or 10 years as changes in density take place
relatively slowly.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed by a numerical ratio of population to land area (population per square kilometre).
Limitations
This indicator is useful in comparing municipalities to each other, but would need to be aggregated into an index in order to be
represented as a basin wide measure. Identifying park space may be complicated and difficult in some cases because the information
most likely exists only at the local level and would require a survey to collect.
Interpretation
The indicator is a simple representation of urban efficiency since higher density communities typically are lower in cost and less
intrusive on the rest of the ecosystem. Thus, the higher the ratio of population per square kilometre of land the better in achieving
overall urban efficiency and a less stressed ecosystem.
Comments
The indicator is also a good proxy for commercial and industrial sprawl since development patterns for this sector typically parallels
that of residential development. The socio-economic paper of SOLEC '94 indicated the relative urban densities between the City of
Toronto, Ontario and Chicago, Illinois. The SOLEC '96 Land Use paper also discussed at length the efficiency aspects of higher
density through the report.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
77
-------
Land Cover - Land Conversion (indicator ID: 7002)
/Measure
Percent change in land use type, including agriculture, urban development, and forest, marsh or other natural cover.
Purpose
To assess the changes in land use within the Great Lakes basin, and to infer the potential impact of land conversion on Great Lakes
ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted land use goal for Canadians and Americans. This indicator supports Annex 13 of
the GLWQA.
End point
Zero change would be sustainable but probably unrealistic, while reversion of other uses to the natural ecosystem would be desirable.
Features
High rates of land conversion place stress on the natural ecosystem and are typically associated with inefficient land use, such as
urban sprawl. Population growth is a driver for more development which displaces both agricultural and natural lands. Other things
being constant, high conversion rates are associated with rapid rates of urban sprawl which is economically inefficient and displaces
natural land that serves other biological purposes in the ecosystem or agriculture which in turn may convert land from natural uses.
The conventional pattern of land conversion has been for urban growth to displace agricultural lands which, in turn, expand into
remaining lands. Urban development also expands into natural lands.
Illustration
The indicator allows easy and visual interpretation of land use changes and trends. Land conversion is an evolutionary process and
this indicator will be displayed as a graphical representation of land use by category in the basin.
Limitations
This indicator provides a measurement of the conversion of the land use type, but not of the change in quality of the land use. For
example, conversion of a highly intensive, chemical-intensive agriculture area to an urban area, particularly one that is well-planned
and utilizes environmental and resource conservation management plans, may result in less stress to the ecosystem. Also, urban
development on excavated, landfill or other contaminated sites may also be positive changes.
Interpretation
Generally, land that converts from natural to agricultural and from natural and agricultural uses to developed uses is undesirable.
Conversion back to natural uses would be desirable.
Comments
SOLEC '96 represented the rate of land converted from agriculture to developed urban uses. Clearly, loss of agricultural land in the
basin places pressure on other lands such as forests and wetlands to be placed into agricultural uses. Satellite imagery might be
useful in detailing the changes overtime of the urban frontier actually developed and this indicator.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
78
-------
Brownfield Redevelopment (indicator ID: 7006)
/Measure
Total acreage of redeveloped brownfields.
Purpose
To assess the acreage of redeveloped brownfields, and to evaluate over time the rate at which society rehabilitates and reuse former
developed land sites that have been degraded by poor use.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal for North American society.
Endpoint
Elimination of all brownfield sites.
Features
"Brownfields" are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Some of the sites contain underground storage tanks; others have
contaminated soils from industrial waste or manufacturing byproducts. Still others may possess no contamination at all, but the fear of
contamination nonetheless scares prospective buyers and lenders away. This creates an incentive for development to occur in
pristine, undeveloped areas.
The indicator would describe trends in brownfields redevelopment and urban renewal, including areas that technically can not be
described as brownfields. The indicator is a measure of the rate at which society is employing former contaminated (typically
industrial) sites to new and more environmentally compatible uses. Brownfields reuse offers an opportunity to reduce pressure on the
ecosystem by slowing the rate of land conversion and typically increasing urban densities. An inventory of contaminated sites is
maintained by most provincial and state and federal governments, although a broader definition would require municipal involvement.
The goal is to redeploy all of these lands as soon as possible.
Illustration
The total number of identified acres of outstanding brownfield sites throughout the basin by state/province and lake basin. Bar graphs
could be used to demonstrate changes over time.
Limitations
The identification of brownfield sites is limited by the availability of information on vacant and redeveloped sites. Data for this indicator
may not reveal an accurate trend in brownfield redevelopment, particularly if redevelopment on brownfield sites results in another use
that causes further land contamination.
Interpretation
Reducing the number of acres/square kilometres of brownfield sites can be seen as a positive development in the basin. Increasing
brownfield inventories not only indicate challenges of dealing with contaminated sites but also opportunities for redevelopment.
Comments
Numerous examples are available including one site in Detroit that has been converted to a public park. Others are typically reduced
as urban housing or clean industrial use.
The achievement of the end point will depend on the opportunities available for new land uses as an alternative to land conversion.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
79
-------
Sustainable Agricultural Practices (indicator ID: 7028)
/Measure
Number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans in place.
Purpose
To assess the number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans, and to infer environmentally friendly practices in place, such as
integrated pest management to reduce the unnecessary use of pesticides, zero tillage and other soil preservation practices to reduce
energy consumption, and prevention of ground and surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 3, 12 and 13 of the GLWQA.
End point
Sustainable agriculture through non-polluting, energy efficient technology and best management practices for efficient and high quality
food production.
Features
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is important to track changes in agricultural practices that can lead
to better ecological integrity in the basin. The indicator identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming more sustainable and
has less potential to adversely impact the Great Lakes ecosystem. Integrated pest management and zero till soil management are
typically part of an environmental farm management plan. It is expected that more farmers will embrace environmental planning over
time.
Illustration
The total number of farm environmental plans (or ecological plans) that are in place as a percentage of the total number of farms in
the basin.
Limitations
Plans vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and thus may lack consistency in terms of completeness of agricultural sustainable
practices. In addition there is no standard way of knowing the state of implementation of these plans.
Interpretation
Having an environmental management plan in place provides an incentive for farmers to commit to environmentally sound land use
practices. The more plans in place the better. In future there may be a way to grade plans by impacts on the ecosystem. The first
year in which this information is collected will serve as the base line year.
Comments
Unfinished Business
This indicator requires much further development and refinement. Specific consideration will be given to assessing the use
of conservation tillage, buffer strips and herbicide application.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control of phosphorus, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 8: Absence of excess phosphorus, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
80
-------
Economic Prosperity (Indicator ID: 7043)
/Measure
Unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To assess the unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin, and, when used in association with other Societal indicators, to infer
the capacity for society in the Great Lakes region to make decisions that will benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Human economic prosperity is a goal of all governments. Full employment is a goal for all economies and humans are part of the
ecosystem.
Endpoint
Achieving the lowest economically sustainable unemployment levels possible. Levels of unemployment under 5% in western
societies are considered full employment.
Features
The indicator demonstrates the economic ability of humans to avoid abusive behaviour of the rest of the ecosystem. In a global
context, wealthier nations (US and Canada, Europe) are more likely to also have better environmental management regimes because
they can better afford them and can afford to avoid many of the highly exploitive choices with respect to the environment. Data on
employment rates are collected regularly and frequently throughout the basin. The unemployment rate is a better indicator than gross
domestic production per capita for this purpose since it focuses on human ability to meet their own needs through income provision
and not necessarily through undesirable environmentally activities. For example, the oil spill from the Exxon Valdez increased gross
domestic production, although it had a minimal effect on employment rates.
Illustration
The indicator will be best represented by a chart showing trends over years.
Limitations
The collection and presentation of the indicator information is not limited. It was noted in the World Commission on Environment and
Development report "Our Common Future" that although economic well being is associated with higher levels of resource
consumption and environmental degradation, higher levels of economic development afford the ability to better manage the
ecosystem and can constrain unsustainable resource exploitation.
Interpretation
This indicator is useful in defining the extent to which society is meeting only human need and should be presented in the context of
the other ecosystem indicators. Decreasing trends in unemployment may not correlate to improvements in the condition of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. For example, higher employment levels may lead to greater spending, which may cause environmentally
undesirable consequences, such as new sprawl development.
Comments
Since unemployment is determined from those actually seeking work, this is a good indicator of the degree to which society's pursuit
of economic prosperity is being met.
Currently unemployment rates in the U.S. are at almost historic lows. Although distribution of income may not be ideal, there is a
sense that the human component of the ecosystem is better off than it was prior to this period. Arguments for excessive ecosystem
exploitation can be countered as not being necessary.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s): societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 5: Economic viability
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
October 20, 1999
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
81
-------
Ground Surface Hardening (indicator ID: 7054)
/Measure
Percentage of land that is covered by buildings, roads, parking lots and other hardened surfaces.
Purpose
To indicate the degree to which development is affecting natural water drainage and percolation processes and thus causing erosion,
and other effects through high water levels during storm events and reducing natural ground water regeneration processes.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable Development
Endpoint
Imperviousness mitigated through land management engineering (storm ponding, swells, etc.)
Features
This indicator is realted to land conversion indicator for new development. It is also is expected to be indirectly proportional to the
amount of high density development taking place, although low density sprawl that includes shopping malls etc. may be similar to high
density imperviousness
Illustration
New urban development without storm retention ponding or other conservation management systems in place.
Limitations
As noted above this indicator may appear be in conflict with other efficiency indicators, such as urban density. However, used as a
basin-wide measure it is a valuable indicator of groundwater recharge. It is also not clear that runoff will not receive percolation after
being diverted away from impervious surfaces or that it poses significant ecosystem implications in itself - it may be just a measure of
development that has more significant effects.
Interpretation
The interpretation is that hardening of surfaces is generally undesirable.
Comments
Data for this indicator should be fairly easy to achieve by estimating the rough proportions of built up areas that are harder from the
softer ground cover portions by examination of aerial or satellite photos.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Last Revised
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
82
-------
Water Withdrawal (Indicator ID: 7056)
/Measure
Water use per capita in the Great Lakes basin.
Purpose
To assess the amount of water used in the Great Lakes basin per capita, and to infer the amount of wastewater generated and the
demand for resources to pump and treat water.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is societal goal for the Great Lakes basin.
End point
Resource conservation means reducing the amount of water that is used and the amount of wastewater that results from that water
use. Current North American water use rates are in excess of 300 litres per day - reducing that by 50% is desirable and consistent
with some European countries.
Features
The indicator provides a quantitative measure of the rate at which natural resources are being used. For example, high levels of
water use results in considerable wastewater pollution, that results in degraded water quality, as well as increased demand for energy
to pump and treat water. The indicator is a gross measure of water supplied through water supply facilities in a jurisdiction divided by
the total number of people in the jurisdiction.
Illustration
The indicator will be displayed as the water use per capita in litres/capita within jurisdictions in the basin and the basin as a whole.
The indicator is a measure of both residential and industrial/commercial water use.
Limitations
Data are readily abundant although it needs to be gathered in a consistent format. Ground water sources from private wells are
excluded.
Interpretation
Water use symbolizes societal regard to resource use. North Americans, including those in the Great Lakes region, have very high
rates of per capita water use compared with other developed nations, and reductions would result in reduced stress on the
ecosystem. Water use is high and growing in places such as Toronto, in spite of efforts over the years to encourage water efficiency
and conservation.
Comments
Canada and the United States are among the highest water using nations, per capita on the Earth.
Unfinished Business
Need to add a discussion related to understanding the trends presented by the indicator. For example, will a baseline of
"ideal" or "sustainable" water consumption rates need to be developed to determine if data collected on an annual basis (or
another regular interval) reveals positive or negative trends in the amount of water consumed.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, humans
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 16, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
83
-------
Energy Consumption (indicator ID: 7057)
/Measure
Energy use in kilowatt hours per capita.
Purpose
To assess the amount of energy consumed in the Great Lakes basin per capita, and to infer the demand for resource use, the
creation of waste and pollution, and stress on the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal in the Great Lakes basin. This indicator supports Annex 15 of the GLWQA.
End point
Resource conservation minimizing the unnecessary use of resources is an endpoint for ecosystem integrity and sustainable
development.
Features
The indicator is useful on a state/province/country basin basis. The trend for energy use has been increasing over time, which this
indicator will depict as it tracks annual energy use.
Illustration
The indicator will be shown as a measure of kilowatt hours electrical energy used per capita.
Limitations
While the data are readily abundant for electrical energy, it will be more difficult to assess other energy sources such as hydrocarbon
used in transportation, wood burned in fireplaces, natural gas and furnace fuels. This will require considerable effort.
Interpretation
Energy is a key aspect of ecosystem sustainability. The second law of thermodynamics is a starting point to understanding the way in
which energy plays a key role in long term sustainability. Reducing the use of energy of all kinds will reduce 'entropy' and ensure a
more sustainable future. Although electrical energy is a good proxy for total energy use, a complete accounting of all energy used is
desirable. Although all forms of energy should be considered for conservation, electrical energy is used as a proxy.
Comments
Canada and the United States are among the highest energy consuming nations on Earth.
The indicator provides a quantitative measure of the rate at which non-renewable natural resources are being used up and that
renewables are being consumed.
Electrical energy generation is among the largest source of smog related pollutants. In addition, it also generates a major share of all
greenhouse gases that are responsible for global climate change.
Unfinished Business
Need to develop a more quantitative endpoint.
Need to determine how this indicator will be presented - as a graph, on a map, etc?
Need to develop a baseline or reference value to be used in assessing whether energy use is increasing or decreasing over
time.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, humans
Related Issue(s): climate change, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use, societal
GLWQA Annex(es): 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 16, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
84
-------
Solid Waste Generation (indicator ID: 7060)
/Measure
Amount of solid waste generated per capita (tons and cubic metres).
Purpose
To assess the amount of solid waste generated per capita in the Great Lakes basin, and to infer inefficiencies in human economic
activity (i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal for Great Lakes basin society. This indicator supports Annex 12 of the
GLWQA.
Endpoint
The reduction of waste to levels achieved in some European and Asian nations.
Features
Solid waste is generated and deposited on land or is incinerated and the residue remains on the land while other contaminants are
redistributed by air and water sources. Solid waste represents a significant portion of all human land activities that generate waste
and pollution and is stressful to the ecosystem. The indicator represents waste that goes to hazardous and non-hazardous landfills,
as well as incinerators. Annual rates of waste generation will be presented by this indicator and bi-annual reporting will be useful.
Illustration
The indicator will be displayed as tons (tonnes) and cubic metres per capita in jurisdictions and for the basin over time. The indicator
will be for all solid wastes over time.
Limitations
Although data are available for all jurisdictions, this indicator will require data coordination and integration. Variability in waste stream
composition will result in the need for different types of measurement, such as weight versus volume, and may produce conflicting
indications of progress. Regardless of the manner of disposal, the measure should consider the total volume of disposed solid waste.
Therefore, important land contamination issues, such as acres of land fill space, will not be dealt with in this indicator.
Interpretation
Solid waste provides a measure of the inefficiency of human land based activities and the degree to which resources are wasted by
the creation of waste. Reducing volumes of solid waste are indicative of a more efficient industrial ecology and a more conserving
society. Reduced waste volumes are also indicative of a reduction in contamination of land through landfilling and incineration and
thus reduced stress on the ecosystem.
Comments
Canada and the U.S. are among the highest waste producers on Earth. Reuse and recycling are opportunities to reduce solid waste
levels.
Solid waste stored in sanitary landfills is a major source of methane, a very important greenhouse gas responsible for global climate
change. Incineration of mixed solid waste has been shown to be a significant source of mercury and dioxins.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine a specific endpoint.
Need to determine a baseline value to use for assessing positive or negative trends in the amount of solid waste generated.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, land, humans
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, climate change, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): societal
GLWQA Annex(es): 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 16, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
85
-------
Nutrient Management Plans (indicator ID; 7061)
/Measure
Number of Nutrient Management Plans (NMP) in place. Percentage of Municipalities with Nutrient Management By-law's containing
standards for intensive livestock operations.
Purpose
To determine the number of Nutrient Management plans and to infer environmentally friendly practices in place, to prevent ground
and surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2,3, 11,12 and 13 of the GLWQA.
End point
Sustainable agriculture through non-polluting, energy efficient technology and best management practices for efficient and high quality
food production.
Features
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is important to track changes in agricultural practices that can lead
to protection of water quality as well as the sustainable future of agriculture and rural development and better ecological integrity in
the basin. The indicator identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming more sustainable and has less potential to adversely
impact the Great Lakes ecosystem. Nutrient management is managing the amount, form, placement and timing of applications of
nutrients for crop uptake and is typically part of an environmental farm management plan. It is expected that more farmers will
embrace environmental planning over time. The Ontario Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) identifies the need for best nutrient
management practices. Over the past 5 years significant progress has been made by Ontario farmers, municipalities and
governments and their agencies to implement nutrient management planning. Ontario farmers and consultants are attending
workshops to assist with the development of nutrient management plans. Each farmer in their EFP may list environmental actions
such as these that they intend to take as a result of completing their EFP. These actions however are currently not tracked by any
government agency. The EFP was intended to be an education awareness evaluation tool and not to be used to track environmental
actions taken. As part of Ontario's Clean Water Strategy, the recently passed Nutrient Management Act (June 2002) will provide for
province-wide standards to address the effects of agricultural practices on the environment, especially as they related to land-applied
materials containing nutrients. An anticipated requirement of this act will be the tracking of land applied nutrients by farms and
municipalities alike. Two U.S. programs dealing with agriculture nutrient management are the Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plans (CNMP) developed by USDA and the proposed Permit Nutrient Plans (PNP) under the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. State's in the U.S. also have additional nutrient
management programs.
Illustration
For the U.S. portion of the basin the graphic will show the total number of nutrient management plans that are developed expressed
as a percentage of the total number of farms in the basin. In Canada the graphic will show the percentage of municipalities with
nutrient management by-law's containing standards for intensive livestock operations.
Limitations
Presently on the Canadian side (Ontario) Nutrient Management Plans (NMP) are done on a voluntary basis and where municipal by-
laws require them to be completed. Due to the fact that NMP's are voluntarily done every plan developed/put into place is not tracked.
There are similarities and differences between nutrient management by-laws that reflect local concerns yet highlight the need for
standardisation. Such standardisation is proposed in Ontario in the form of province-wide legislation regarding the management of
nutrients. In the United States basin the CNMP's are currently tracked on an annual basis due to the rapid changes in farming
operations. This does not allow for an estimate of the total number of CNMP's. EPA will be tracking PNP as part of the State's NPDES
program.
Interpretation
Having a completed a NMP provides assurance farmers are considering the environmental implications of their management
decisions. The more plans in place the better. In the future there may be a way to grade plans by impacts on the ecosystem. The first
year in which this information is collected will serve as the base line year.
Comments
In 1998 Ontario provincial staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) assisted with the development of a
model by-law for municipalities to use. The intent of the model by-law is to promote consistency in by-law development across the
province. In many instances these by-laws require that OMAFRA, consultants, or professionals certified by OMAFRA complete third-
party review of NMP submitted to support a building permit application. At this time OMAFRA also developed Nutrient Management
Plan software (NMAN). This allowed for the consistent preparation of nutrient management plans and conformed to the Ministry's
1998 Nutrient Management Planning Strategy. Some municipalities enforce each nutrient management by-law by inspections
performed by employees of the municipality or others under authority of the municipality. Presently in Ontario provincial legislation A
Proposed Nutrient Management Act (Bill 81) is before the legislature. If proclaimed, provincial regulations under it would supersede
municipal bylaws and make Nutrient Management Plans a legal requirement for all farms. This proposed legislation stipulates the
establishment of a computerised NMP registry that would act as a tracking method for nutrient management plans. In 1997 the
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
86
-------
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service formed a team to revise its Nutrient Management Policy. The final policy was issued
in the Federal Register in 1999. In December 2000, USDA published its Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning Technical
Guidance (CNMP Guidance) to identify management activities and conservation practices that will minimize the adverse impacts of
animal feeding operations on water quality. The CNMP Guidance is a technical guidance document only; it does not establish
regulatory requirements for local, tribal, State, or Federal programs. PNPs are complementary to and leverage the technical expertise
of USDA with its CNMP Guidance. EPA is proposing that CAFOs, covered by the effluent guideline, develop and implement a PNP.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex (es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control of phosphorus, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 8: Absence of excess phosphorus, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Aug 17,2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
87
-------
Integrated Pest Management (indicator ID: 7062)
/Measure
The acres of USDA recorded Pest Management Plans developed and applied in the U. S. Great Lakes basin. Report the numbers of
farmer attending and Certified under the Ontario Pesticide Education Program Grower Pesticide Safety Course. Evaluate Training
Session Questionnaire Surveys administered to farmers by the University of Guelph (Ridgetown College) who have attended the
Ontario Pesticide Education Program Grower Pesticide Safety Course. USDA tracks the amount of pesticides used by weight by
farmers within the Great Lakes Basin to indicate reductions of use by farmers through pesticide user surveys as an indicator of the
adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices.
Background
Research has found that reliance on pesticides in agriculture is overwhelming and that it would be impossible to abandon their use in
the short term. Most consumers want to be able to purchase inexpensive yet wholesome food. Currently, other than organic
production, there is no replacement system readily available at a reasonable price for consumers, and at a lesser cost to farmers that
can be brought to market without pesticides.
Purpose
To assess the adoption and uptake of Integrated Pest Management practices by farmers and to infer environmentally friendly
practices in place, to prevent ground and surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Article, V1 (e (I, viii) - Programs and other Measures (Pollution for Agriculture), Annexes 1,2, 3, 11,12 and 13
oftheGLWQA.
End point
Sustainable agriculture through non-polluting, energy efficient technology and best management practices for efficient and high quality
food production.
Features
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is important to track changes in agricultural practices that affect bio
diversity, lead to protection of soil, water quality as well as the sustainable future of agriculture and rural development and better
ecological integrity in the basin. To produce effective results this indicator relies on optimum combinations of chemical, biological and
cultural methods (such as crop rotation, tillage, weeding techniques, intensive monitoring and insect mating disruption. The indicator
identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming more sustainable and has less potential to adversely impact the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Illustration
The number/acres of Integrated Pest Management plans being practiced on cropland in the basin compared to the acres needed.
This could be an illustrated on a percentage or acre basis. The growth or decline of crop protection chemicals on a long term trend
basis.
Limitations
USDA only records the IPM plan data on an annual basis currently. It is assumed that these plans, which are voluntary, will be
continue to be carried out. A violation of farm chemical SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for
Discussion, October 2002) 46 use would be a violation of state and federal laws. USDA does track the amount of chemicals applied
but with rapid chemical and technology changes it would be difficult to develop accurate trends.
Interpretation
Having complete records of IMP'S developed and/or chemicals used would provide a better indication of operator's acceptance of
environmentally sustainable practices. This data will serve as a baseline for future trends.
Comments
Chemicals, technology and legislation are continually changing so the indicator will need to be updated and revised as needed.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex (es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent
toxic substances, 13: Pollution from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Aug 17,2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
-------
Vehicle Use (Indicator ID; 7064)
/Measure
Amount of vehicle miles traveled. Number of licensed vehicles in the Great Lakes basin. Amount of fuel consumed.
Purpose
To assess the amount and trends in vehicle use in the Great Lakes basin and to infer the societal response to the ecosystem stressed
caused by vehicle use.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 15 of the Great Lakes Water Qualilty Agreement. An alternative objective is to reduce stress on the
environmental integrity of the Great Lakes region caused by vehicle use.
End point
Declining trends in automobile dependence and vehicle emissions.
Features
Automobiles are the primary contributor to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Emissions from vehicle use also
contribute contaminants to air and water systems. Automobile oriented development degrades the liveability of urban environments.
This indicator assesses the societal response to the well-known consequences of automobile use by measuring trends in vehicle use.
This indicator is reported by measuring vehicle miles travelled, amount of fuel consumed, and car ownership numbers. Vehicle use
measures provide data that is not available from modal split measures including possible trends in trip distance (a proxy for sprawl
development) and trends in number of trips taken.
Illustration
A chart showing vehicle miles travelled in the basin or amount of fuel consumed over time will best represent this indicator. Graphic
representation of this indicator also involves a ratio of vehicle miles travelled to number of licensed vehicles to infer individual
automobile use trends.
Limitations
This indicator is limited by details such as different sized cars and trucks will emit different levels of emissions. Daily vehicle miles
travelled rates may not take into account a lower number of weekend trips. This measure does not separate miles travelled by trip
type, such as commercial goods movement, travel to work and home based trips.
Interpretation
This indicator can be used as a reference, indicating an improvement in the state of the ecosystem, as well as a community's
commitment towards ecosystem health. Results for this indicator should be interpreted in conjunction with urban development
patterns in the basin and indicators in the Urban Issues suite of indicators. Those collected can also be used to compare areas within
the Great Lakes region.
Comments
This indicator should be measured in conjunction with trends in mass transportation (#7012), which is an alternative to vehicle use.
Focusing on automobile use and the current transportation trends will lead to the establishment of higher levels of air quality and in
turn improved human health. Data for this indicator is produced by census agencies and local transportation planning departments.
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: crosscutting - air, land, and water
Related issues: mass transit, air quality, urban sprawl, smog
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility- household/community
GLWQA Annex(es): 10: Hazardous Pollutants, 13: Non-point sources, 15: Airborne Toxic
Substances, 17: Research & Development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy humans, 5: Economic Viability, 6: Biological Integrity and Diversity, 9: Physical Environmental
Integrity
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: F & W Populations, 9: Drinking water, 14: F&W Habitat
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
89
-------
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
(Indicator ID: 7100)
/Measure
Groundwater quality as determined by the natural chemistry of the bedrock or overburden, and the concentrations of anthropogenic
contaminants such as pesticides, nitrates, pathogens and urban pollutants. Measured parameters would include atrazine levels,
nitrate/nitrite levels, total coliform and Escherichia coli levels, taste & odour, TOC/DOC, as well as other parameters of concern.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the quality of groundwater for drinking water and agricultural purposes, and for ecosystem function. The
consumption of groundwater that is degraded in quality may lead to both animal and human health effects. This indicator may also
reveal areas where contamination is occurring, and where programs for remediation and prevention of non-point contamination should
be focused.
Ecosystem Objective
The quality of groundwater will remain at, or approach, natural conditions.
End point
Monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality in the most stressed of the sub-divisions does not detect the deterioration of these
conditions.
Features
Significant variability of natural groundwater chemistry occurs throughout the basin, however, little variability should occur within
hydrogeologic units. Changes in groundwater quality due to anthropogenic activity will indicate the quality of groundwater for human
consumption. This indicator should work in conjunction with the Drinking Water Quality Indicator #4175, which measures
concentrations of chemical substances such as metals (e.g., lead, mercury) and other inorganic compounds, pesticides,
radionuclides, and drinking water disinfection by-products (e.g., trihalomethanes) as well as microbial parameters such as bacteria,
viruses and parasites in raw, treated and distributed drinking water.
Illustration
Maps showing the natural base chemistry of the U.S. states and province of Ontario could be produced. Additional maps could show
the locations of contaminated wells, either in total or for specific types of contamination or areas that are vulnerable to contamination.
Water quality data from groundwater monitoring wells adjacent to stormwater retention basins would also be useful, especially in
permeable overburden or karst areas.
Limitations
Programs to sample both the natural and contaminated quality of groundwater are already present in all eight states and Ontario;
however, they are not currently comparable on all levels. Collaboration between federal, state, and provincial agencies could produce
a sampling protocol that would make all programs comparable. Several national programs exist in the U.S. that are implemented in
all eight states, but sampling sites are too few to be adequate.
Also, groundwater quality sampling of ambient wells unaffected by human activities is necessary to evaluate the natural chemistry. In
some areas ambient sampling has not been done, and if contamination has occurred, natural chemistry may not be evaluated
effectively.
Interpretation
Information relating water use rates may be required to evaluate whether the contamination of groundwater supplies will affect human
health. Groundwater in areas of low to non-existent consumption may remain contaminated with little harm to humans. Still, the
sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems to groundwater contamination should not be overlooked, as the effects will increase significantly in
areas where groundwater discharge is a large component of stream flow.
Comments
None.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: State
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land
Related Issue(s): drinking water, land-use, fish habitat
SOLEC Groupings: Terrestrial, Land Use
GLWQA Annexes: 1,11,13,16
Last Revised
Mar 25 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
90
-------
Groundwater and Land; Use and Intensity (indicator ID; 7ioi)
/Measure
Water use and intensity and land use and intensity.
Purpose
This indicator measures land use and water use and intensity within political sub-divisions (or watershed boundaries) and is used to
infer the potential impacts of these practices on the quantity and quality of the groundwater resource. Specifically referring to water
use, the indicator also measures supply versus demand issues by assessing the reconstruction of water wells and the construction of
new wells.
Ecosystem Objective
Groundwater quantity and quality remain at, or near, natural conditions.
Endpoint
Monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality in the most stressed of the sub-divisions does not detect the deterioration of these
conditions.
Features
Land use is a measure of the primary use of the land (e.g., percentage of an area occupied by livestock feedlot operations) and land
use intensity is the intensity of this use (e.g., head of feedlot cattle per hectare). Water use is a measure of the primary use of all
constructed water wells (e.g., the percentage of all wells that are constructed for livestock watering) and water use intensity of
withdrawals from these wells (e.g., the equivalent annual depth of water use for livestock watering). The intra-annual variability of
water use intensity is also significant. For example, municipal water use is modestly variable during the year while the use of water for
livestock is more temperature dependent and the use of water for irrigation is episodic. The reference watershed sub-divisions should
be sufficiently large to ensure the availability of data and sufficiently small to ensure that contrasts in the potential impacts are not
masked by averaging. Water use that is consumptive (e.g., irrigation) can result in diminished base flows and impacts downstream
water supplies and aquatic habitat. Water use that is not consumptive can result in the degradation of water quality (e.g. water used
for municipal drinking water). Supply versus demand issues are expressed in the reconstruction of water wells; for example, in the
deepening of existing wells or replacement of existing wells with larger capacity wells. Patterns in this practice may indicate a
diminished supply due to climatic factors or adjacent land or water use, an increased demand at the well and variations in the quality
of the supply or the quality requirements of the demand. All of these causes may be evidence of changes in the sustainability of the
groundwater resource. In some cases and jurisdictions, it may not be possible to directly determine water use and intensity. Under
these conditions, it may be necessary to infer water use and intensity from land use and related information.
Illustration
Water use and intensity, and changes in these practices over time, and supply versus demand issues will be mapped by sub-division.
Similarly, land use and intensity, and changes in these practices over time will be mapped by sub-division.
Limitations
Methodologies for the determination of land use and intensity using remotely sensed and census data are presently under
development and testing. Changes in these parameters can be determined with no greater frequency than that of the collection of the
required data and it is unlikely that extensive historical information can be derived. Water use can be measured using data such as
water well construction records and permits to take water. These data may be adequate to measure both current and historical
practices and therefore changes over time. However, not all uses and users of water are captured in these data sets.
The sustainability of prevailing water use and land use and intensity relative to the groundwater resource is not currently known with
certainty in all settings. For example, water well construction information does not include the reason for the reconstruction of a well,
which therefore must be determined from other supporting data.
Also, surface water withdrawals may adversely impact groundwater quantity, if surface water contributes to groundwater recharge.
Interpretation
Statistical methods are used to detect changes in water use and land use and intensity over time and to identify patterns in supply
versus demand.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land
Related Issue(s): land use, agriculture, forestry, and drinking water
SOLEC Grouping(s): groundwater, land use
Comments
Land use and water use and intensity, and the characteristics of the groundwater resource are interrelated. Water use within an area
is dependent on the distribution of land uses within the same area. Likewise, the intensity of water use is dependent on land use and
intensity. Land uses associated with high water use intensities, or with more stringent water quality requirements, are likely to be
restricted in areas where the natural quantity or quality of the groundwater resource are limited.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
91
-------
Last Revised
Mar 25, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
92
-------
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge New Indicator
(Indicator ID: 7102)
Measure
Base flow normalized by catchment drainage area, known as base flow yield. This is a common method in which the absolute base
flow amount can be determined and normalizing against area allows for a site to site comparison.
Purpose
This indicator measures the contribution of base flow due to groundwater discharge to total stream flow by sub-watershed and is used
to detect the impacts of anthropogenic factors on the quantity of the groundwater resource.
Ecosystem Objective
The capacity of groundwater discharge to maintain in-stream conditions and aquatic habitat at, or near, potential is not compromised
by anthropogenic factors. Groundwater inputs influence most critical summer stream habitat characteristics, such as depth,
hydraulics, temperature, and chemistry and the distributions of many aquatic organisms, in particular fishes, are linked to base flow
levels.
End point
Deviations in the base flow characteristics of sub-watersheds are not attributable to anthropogenic factors.
Features
Base flow is the more slowly varying component of total stream flow and is often attributed to groundwater discharge to wetlands,
lakes, and rivers. Base flow represents the lowest stream flows and some of the most extreme stream habitat conditions, such as low
oxygen and high, fluctuating temperatures. Many organisms may be sensitive to, and limited by, these extremes. Base flow is
determined from total stream flow data using mathematical algorithms. Unlike point measurements of groundwater levels, base flow
is an integrated measure of cumulative groundwater conditions and impacts upstream of the stream flow gauge. Various
anthropogenic factors can impact the base flow characteristics of a sub-watershed. For example, increasing extents of paved and
other impermeable surfaces due to urban development can reduce recharge and therefore decrease base flow. In contrast,
conveyance losses, defined as the quantity of water that is lost in transit, in municipal water and wastewater systems, can increase
base flow. Anthropogenic factors in rural settings such as tile drainage and changes in vegetation coverage can impact base flow.
The withdrawal of groundwater by pumping or through the drainage of quarries and other excavations can also impact base flow.
Natural factors such as climate variability modify both average rates of base flow and the annual distribution of flow.
Illustration
Base flow is calculated and summarized using consistent and standard methods. Base flow indices are mapped by sub-
watershed and plotted as time series. Temporal trends, where discernable, are mapped by sub-watershed.
Limitations
Stream flow monitoring of the full land mass is neither technologically nor economically feasible. Methods of determining base flow
from total stream flow data are not standardized and the use of differing methods may produce inconsistent results. Differing
summary statistics of base flow may also yield inconsistent results. Base flow is a delayed measure of changes in net infiltration (i.e.,
recharge due to precipitation less water withdrawal by pumping) and, in some settings, changes in this net rate due to anthropogenic
factors may not be evident for extended periods of time. Water management practices such as flow regulation replicate base flow
characteristics and disable the calculations of natural base flow in sub-watersheds where these practices are significant. Wastewater
discharge similarly disables the calculation of natural base flow in sub-watersheds where this discharge is significant.
Interpretation
Statistical methods are used to detect changes in indices of base flow with respect to time. These methods are also used to
differentiate natural (e.g. climatic) factors from anthropogenic factors as the cause of these changes.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: State
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land, biota
Related Issue(s): groundwater dependant ecosystems, climate change, land use
SOLEC Grouping(s): groundwater
Last Revised
Mar. 25, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
93
-------
Groundwater Dependant Animal and Plant Communities
(including amphibians) (indicator ID; 7103)
/Measure
Numbers and diversity of native invertebrates, fish, wildlife and plant communities dependent on groundwater discharges in tributaries
and near shore areas of the Great Lakes. An additional focus on the presence of native cool water adapted frogs (mink frog and
pickerel frog) and four salamander species (spring salamander, red salamander, two-lined salamander, four-toed salamander) from
the lungless family Plethodontidae that have long-lived larval periods adapted to perennial flowing cool-cold groundwater springs and
headwater streams.
The following fishes are associated with cool, groundwater-fed streams and would serve as indicators: slimy sculpin, mottled sculpin,
and several species of trout (brook trout, brown trout, rainbow (steelhead) trout). Increased abundance of blacknose dace and other
fishes tolerant of warmer conditions relative to that of trout suggests a system that is less influenced by groundwater. Differences
across sites (or at a site over time) in the relative proportions of these fishes versus warm- and cool-water fishes may be indicative of
groundwater inputs (or changes in such over time). Such data will likely be noisy due to natural population variation. Collection of
water temperature data (i.e. hourly measurements during the summer) should also be used for the streams of interest. This will
provide an inexpensive and direct measure, of the groundwater contribution to rivers, since most stream fishes have distinct thermal
optima.
In order to compare and contrast across the Basin, the co-existence of all species dependant on groundwater must be considered.
One could use a species as a surrogate for another where only one species exists. An example would be salamanders and brook
trout.
The following outlines a number of groundwater dependent plant communities that would serve as indicators:
Community Name
Northern Poor Fen
Bog Birch-Leatherleaf Poor Fen
Bog Birch - Willow Rich Boreal Fen
Boreal Calcareous Seepage Fen
Boreal Sedge Rich Fen
Northern Poor Patterned Fen
Dogwood - Willow - Poison Sumac
Shrub Fen
Willow - Mixed Rich Shrub Fen
Patterned Rich Fen
Northeastern Cinquefoil - Sedge Fen
Representative Species
SLENDER SEDGE - Carex lasiocarpa
FEW-SEEDED SEDGE - Carex oligosperma
MOSSES - Sphagnum spp. & Polytrichum spp.
LEATHERLEAF - Chamaedaphne calyculata
SWAMP BIRCH (a.k.a. Bog Birch) - Betula pumila
SLENDER SEDGE - Carex lasiocarpa
SWAMP BIRCH (a.k.a. Bog Birch) - Betula pumila
WILLOW-Salixspp.
SLENDER SEDGE - Carex lasiocarpa
TUFTED CLUB-RUSH - Scirpus cespitosus
HORNED BEAKRUSH - Rhynchospora capillacea
BOG ROSEMARY - Andromeda polifolia var. glaucophylla
BUXBAUM'S SEDGE - Carex buxbaumii
SLENDER SEDGE - Carex lasiocarpa
TUFTED CLUB-RUSH - Scirpus cespitosus
BOG ROSEMARY -Andromeda polifolia var. glaucophylla
LEATHERLEAF - Chamaedaphne calyculata
SWAMP BIRCH (a.k.a. Bog Birch) - Betula pumila
FEW-SEEDED SEDGE - Carex oligosperma
SILKY DOGWOOD - Cornus amomum
WILLOW-Salixspp.
POISON SUMAC - Toxicodendron vernix
LANCE-LEAVED BUCKTHORN - Rhamnus lanceolata
SILKY DOGWOOD - Cornus amomum
BLACK CHOKEBERRY - Aronia melanocarpa
NANNYBERRY - Viburnum lentago
SHRUBBY CINQUEFOIL - Pentaphylloides floribunda
DIOECIOUS SEDGE - Carex sterilis
BIG BLUESTEM - Andropogon gerardii
SHRUBBY CINQUEFOIL - Pentaphylloides floribunda
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
94
-------
Sweet Gale Shrub Fen
Leatherleaf-Sweetgale Shore Fen
INLAND SEDGE - Carex interior
YELLOW SEDGE - Carex flava
NORTHERN PITCHER-PLANT - Sarracenia purpurea
SWEET BAYBERRY - Myrica gale
LEATHERLEAF - Chamaedaphne calyculata
SWEET BAYBERRY - Myrica gale
SLENDER SEDGE - Carex lasiocarpa
Purpose
This indicator will assess locations of groundwater intrusions, support measuring of the contribution of groundwater to stream and
near shore flows, and contribute to evaluation of trophic status, food web dynamics, and location of groundwater-fed habitats and the
groundwater-dependent fish, wildlife and plant communities at risk in the Great Lakes basin. By inference, this indicator will also
describe certain chemical and physical parameters of groundwater, including changes in patterns of seasonal flows.
Ecosystem Objective
The purpose of the GLWQA is to 'restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes'. Loss of
quality and quantity of groundwater in the Great Lakes basin threatens sustained use, and may cause deterioration of drinking water
quality for animals and humans and productive capacity of fauna and flora dependent on groundwater resources. This indicator
supports Annexes 1,2, 10, 12, 16 of the GLWQA and Fish Community Goals and Objectives by Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
The "river continuum concept" proposes that the trophic dynamics and integrity of larger streams is based on biological, chemical and
hydrological processes that occur in the smaller headwater streams that feed them. Cold groundwater is the primary source of flowing
water found in most perennial flowing streams that have a healthy population of cold water adapted fish. However, not all headwater
streams in a watershed are fed by groundwater, many become intermittent or ephemeral in summer months. The identification of cold
groundwater-fed headwater streams would provide useful information for the development of watershed management plans that seek
to protect groundwater sources, and the integrity of the downstream cold water ecosystems.
The newly emerging ecological concept of the "landscape" identifies two operational units, the "patch" and the "corridor", which are
imbedded within a background "matrix" of physical-biological structure. Cold spring-fed habitats that emerge at the surface are called
rheocrenes, limnocrenes and heliocrenes and are unique types of groundwater dominated landscape patches and corridors.
Endpoint
Pre-selected reference species or species composition occurring at a test site. Biomass/production of the selected
species/composition is within normal range (means plus 2 SD) of same parameter measured at selected reference sites.
Features
The diversity would be reported by indices and/or by biomass and/or presence/absence of selected species or compositions e.g.
brook trout, mottled and slimy sculpins, brook lamprey, selected aquatic insects (e.g., mayflies, stoneflies, caddis flies), cedar groves,
watercress. In looking at amphibians in particular, the presence of frogs will be determined based on either visual observations of
adults, collections of tadpoles, or vocal calls. For salamander, efforts will focus on field documentation of salamander "reproductive
potential" such as larvae, egg clutches, or a good mix of juveniles and adults. Specific frog and salamander species found in the Great
Lakes basin that can be used as bio-indicators of cold groundwater-fed headwater include: two frog species (mind frog and pickerel
frog), and four salamander species (four-toed salamander, spring salamander, red salamander, and two-lined salamander).
Where groundwater emerges to the land surface from a cold water table aquifer, a "spring" type aquatic habitat is formed. There are
three general types of cold water-spring habitats:
(1) those that form a well-defined channel (rheocrene);
(2) those that form small pools or basins (limnocrene); and
(3) those that form a vegetated marsh, or swamp (heliocrene).
Cold water springs are unique freshwater ecosystems because their physical and chemical environments are relatively "stable" (low
daily variance), although seasonal amplitude is present. The defining characteristics of spring-fed habitats are: (1) water is constantly
present, and (2) the thermal environment is relatively cooler in summer months, and warmer in winter, compared to other aquatic
habitats across the landscape that are not hydraulically connected to groundwater discharge. Loss of cold spring-fed groundwater
habitats can threaten those species with stenothermic (narrow) temperature adaptations.
Two frog species (mind frog and pickerel frog), and the four-toed salamander, are associated with limnocrene and heliocrene types of
cold water spring-fed wetland habitats in the Great Lakes basin. The three other salamander species (spring salamander, red
salamander, two-lined salamander) are found in very small primary headwater streams that are the origin of larger cold water streams
with native fish species (ie. trout and sculpin type streams). Salamander species move higher into the headwater stream network than
fish, forming what can be viewed as a 'salamander region' within the headwater streams of nature. The presence of salamander
species with long-lived larval periods (2-5 years) can be used to provide a rapid assessment that cold groundwater flow is present. All
four of the proposed salamander bio-indicators have extended larval periods, lasting from 2 to 4 years in duration.
Illustration
For selected watersheds and sub-watersheds, and selected years, changes in species diversity, relative abundance, biomasses, and
distribution would be graphed and/or mapped as surrogate for changes in groundwater quantity, quality and special distribution.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
95
-------
Limitation
Selection of other species to complete the description of aquatic communities in coldwater and to assess cool water environments
may be necessary. Invertebrate species need to be selected basin-wide. For the amphibian portion of this indicator, use of this
indicator depends on experience collecting frogs and stream salamanders, especially larvae. Thus it will be recommended that a
combination of qualitative (visual search, vocal calls) and quantitative (leaf bags for salamander larvae, funnel traps for frog tadpoles)
sampling methods be used to assess each habitat.
Interpretation
More data analyses after modeling of different monitoring networks e.g. well water and fish distributions, plus research, are essential
to using existing databases, and making monitoring programs efficient.
However, it may be possible to overlap field information gained from biological sampling with GIS based mapping of geologic features
such as depth to bedrock to predict the potential location of groundwater-fed headwater streams.
Combining the bio-indicators (amphibians, cold water fish, plants such as mosses, diatoms, benthic macroinvertebrates, crayfish, etc.)
will allow for the identification of cool-cold water groundwater-fed habitat types. In addition, the various biological taxa could be
combined to form an "Index of Ecological Integrity" of cold water habitats with groundwater intrusions for the Great Lakes.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: State
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land, biota
Related Issue(s): habitat, drinking water, land-use, fish habitat
SOLEC Grouping: groundwater
GLWQA Annexes: 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 16, 13
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6:Biological integrity and diversity; 9:Physical environment integrity groundwater
Beneficial Use Impairments: Restrictions on drinking water consumption; loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Mar. 25, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
96
-------
Habitat Fragmentation (indicator ID; si 14)
/Measure
The pattern of natural habitat remaining within ecoregions/subsections, as measured by 1) area to perimeter ratio; 2) habitat patch
size; and 3) percent intact cover.
Purpose
To assess the amount and distribution of natural habitat remaining within Great Lakes ecoregions, and to infer the effect of human
land uses such as housing, agriculture, flood control, and recreation on habitat needed to support fish and wildlife species.
Ecosystem Objective
Each LaMP is likely to contain objectives that address maximizing the amount of land cover adjacent to the lake. This indicator
supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
The Framework on Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Environment Canada et al, 1998) suggests
specific marsh and forest patch sizes that are required to support various species. For example, 200 hectares of forest patch is
required for successful interior forest bird breeding. A total area with more than 70% intact cover is needed for birds.
Features
This indicator will present trends in remaining natural habitat within ecoregions/subsections over time. Sufficient parcels of natural
habitat are necessary to support wildlife activities such as breeding and migration. For example, lack of interior forest habitat
adversely impacts the reproduction of breeding birds. Loss of natural habitat also adversely impacts migrating birds that need to
touch down to refuel on their treks north and south. For some threatened species, there is insufficient habitat to sustain populations.
Illustration
Using GIS, habitat patch size and percent intact cover can be graphically displayed on a map. Calculations to determine area to
perimeter ratio could be done on a GIS using a specially designed algorithm. Although illustrating area to perimeter ratio is more
difficult, it would be possible to highlight all patches with a desirable ratio on a GIS map once calculations are complete.
Limitations
Although "intact cover" most likely means natural vegetation, primarily forest, there is a need to define this term. The relationship, for
example, between the three endpoints — percent intact cover, patch size and perimeter to area ratio — and bird breeding is better
understood than the relationship between the endpoints and bird migration. A better understanding of how these endpoints affect bird
migration is necessary.
Interpretation
Additional research is needed to understand how much habitat is required in a particular ecoregion for different species and for
different functions.
Comments
As suggested, the amount of habitat required for breeding birds is known, but less is known about the amount of natural vegetation
required for migrating birds. The requirements for other species will be just as challenging. Information for this indicator can be
collected using remote sensing products.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
97
-------
Area, Quality, and Protection of Lakeshore Communities
(Indicator ID; 8129)
/Measure
Area, quality, and protected status of twelve special lakeshore communities occurring within 1 kilometre (km) of shoreline. The twelve
special lakeshore communities are sand beaches, sand dunes, bedrock and cobble beaches, unconsolidated shore bluffs, coastal
gneissic rocklands, limestone cliffs and talus slopes, lakeplain prairies, sand barrens, arctic-alpine disjunct communities, Atlantic
coastal plain disjunct communities, shoreline alvars, and islands.
Purpose
To assess the changes in area and quality of the twelve lakeshore communities, and to infer the success of management activities
associated with the protection of some of the most ecologically significant habitats in the Great Lakes terrestrial nearshore.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
End point
No net loss in area or quality of the twelve lakeshore communities.
Features
The twelve lakeshore communities presented in this indicator are identified in "Land by the Lakes," a paper from SOLEC '96, as some
of the most ecologically significant habitats in the terrestrial nearshore. This indicator will map the location and extent of these
lakeshore communities from existing studies (where available), Biological Conservation Databases, remote sensing and aerial photos,
and land use planning data. The quality of the lakeshore communities will be ranked using criteria such as size, condition, and
landscape context. In addition to location and quality, this indicator will identify the protection status related to each identified
lakeshore community (e.g., public conservation ownership, private conservation ownership, protective land use policies), as well as
the severity of threats to the quality of each community, such as the presence of invasive exotic species.
Illustration
Colour mapping could show the distribution of each lakeshore community, ranked by quality or degree of protection for each lake,
ecoregion, or the basin. Bar charts could highlight changes over time for each community, or compare the current area to estimates
of the original area. A preliminary analysis of sand dune complexes across the Great Lakes basin by The Nature Conservancy's
Great Lakes Program provides an example of how the results could be portrayed. In addition to charts showing the percentage of
protective ownership, this model illustrates the severity of different types of stresses affecting this community.
Limitations
Data collection may be difficult for many reasons. Collection of detailed data on a regular basis may be difficult due to the large area
and the number of different jurisdictions to be examined. Identification of lakeshore communities using aerial photography may prove
easy for some communities and more difficult for others. Lastly, information on location and quality for some lakeshore communities
is incomplete, therefore, this indicator will require some expense to establish a reliable baseline.
Interpretation
A baseline of the area of each of the twelve lakeshore communities will be established for comparison with periodic monitoring every
3-5 years to identify changes. As more information becomes available, this indicator could provide a more detailed analysis of
changes in area and habitat quality within each of the communities, as well as a better understanding of the threats to these
communities. Quality rankings for each occurrence of a lakeshore community can be based on techniques developed by
state/provincial Heritage Programs, which establishes classes for size, assesses condition based on disturbance and the
presence/absence of sensitive species, and rates the degree of connection and buffering provided by the surrounding landscape
context.
Comments
This indicator provides easily understood information on the ongoing loss of the best of Great Lakes shoreline communities. The
information conveyed by this indicator will help to focus attention and management efforts on the communities undergoing the
greatest rate of change.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land, biota
Related Issue(s): habitat, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
98
-------
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
99
-------
Extent of Hardened Shoreline (indicator ID; si31)
/Measure
Kilometres of shoreline that have been hardened through construction of sheet piling, rip rap and other erosion control shore
protection structures. (Does not include artificial coastal structures such as jetties, groynes, breakwalls, piers, etc.)
Purpose
To assess the amount of shoreline habitat altered by the construction of shore protection, and to infer the potential harm to aquatic life
in the nearshore as a result of conditions (i.e., shoreline erosion) created by habitat alteration.
Ecosystem Objective
Shoreline conditions should be healthy to support aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal life, including the rarest species. This
indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLVVQA.
Endpoint
No net increase in the amount of hardened shoreline along any of the Great Lakes or connecting channels.
Features
There is limited historical data available on this indicator, but estimates of the extent of shore protection were made as part of an IJC
reference in 1992. Data collection for this indicator could include estimates based on aerial photography and limited field studies, with
a focus on Areas of Concern and sites identified from the 1992 IJC data where shoreline hardening appears to be increasing.
Illustration
A bar chart for each lake, or reaches within lakes, could document the annual change in the amount of hardened shoreline.
Limitations
The field data needed to assess the actual length of new hardened shoreline each year would be costly. A commitment to collect
data within selected areas every 5 years might be more achievable.
Interpretation
The degree of negative impact to aquatic life in the nearshore will vary depending on the design of the protection and on the
antecedent conditions. Some types of hardened shoreline induce more severe impacts than do others. A classification scheme that
reflects the degree of impacts from different types of shore protection should be developed, based on a literature review.
Comments
Some types of shore protection create conditions that are not hospitable to aquatic life in the nearshore. This indicator will measure
the extent to which this is occurring.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide a baseline year and a baseline amount of hardened shoreline for the endpoint.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, land use
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 13: Pollution from
non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
100
-------
Nearshore Land Use (indicator ID; 8132)
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.
End point
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, 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. _ Nearshore communities.
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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
101
-------
July 2, 2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
102
-------
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
(Indicator ID; 8135)
/Measure
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.
Purpose
To assess the number of fledged young, number of developmental deformities, and the concentrations of organic and heavy metal
contamination in Bald Eagle eggs, blood, and feathers. The data will be used to infer the potential for harm to other wildlife and human
health through the consumption of contaminated fish.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 12 and 17 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
1) Concentrations of organic and heavy metal contaminants less than the NOAEL in eggs, blood, and feathers; 2) productivity rate of
1.0 young per occupied breeding area annually; and 3) no observed developmental deformities in nestlings.
Features
Annual productivity data exists for Bald Eagle breeding areas in the Great Lakes since early 1960s. Data exists on the concentrations
of contaminants in eggs and feathers since late 1960s. Annual inspection of nestlings during banding provides rates of expressed
deformities.
Illustration
For each lake, and subunits within each lake, the following trends will be shown graphically: concentrations of organic and heavy
metal contaminants; yearly productivity; and, areas where deformities have been documented. Illustrations for this indicator will also
present territories and habitat suitability indices. The data from 1970-1998 will be displayed; data prior to 1970 may have
inconsistencies.
Limitations
Eagles do not nest on every shoreline of every Great Lake. They are highly viewed by the public and not a good laboratory animal.
They can be linked with the presence of colonial waterbirds and osprey using conversion factors to generate a better geographic
representation.
Interpretation
Biological endpoints specifically related to PTS addressed by the GLWQA are well known and are published in the peer-reviewed
literature on cause-effect linkages.
Comments
This indicator is one of few that has been tested in the field. It is one of the best indicators identified by the IJC in relation to the
GLWQA because long-term data are available and there are known reproductive effects.
Reproductive failure, depressed reproduction, increased incidence of teratogenic effects, and behavioral effects (related to food
gathering or parenting skills) are used as endpoints and related various PTS concentrations. Since different PTS have different
effects, multiple endpoints are necessary. Also, since the effects change based on concentrations in the biological matrix measured
(blood, egg, feather), multiple endpoints are necessary so that progress toward recovery from PTS can be measured.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic
substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 5: Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
103
-------
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
(Indicator ID; 8136)
/Measure
Percent of natural land cover types within 1 km of the shoreline that meet minimum standards of habitat quality.
Purpose
To assess the amount of natural land cover that falls within 1 km of the shoreline, and to infer the potential impact of artificial coastal
structures, including primary and secondary home development, on the extent and quality of nearshore terrestrial ecosystems in the
Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain the health and function of a representative number of shoreline natural land cover types. This indicator supports Annex 2 of
the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Shoreline natural land cover types will be 1) well represented, and 2) healthy. To determine if natural land cover within 1 km of the
shoreline is well-represented and healthy, additional work is required to develop quantitative endpoints.
Features
This indicator will track changes in the number of hectares of coastal communities on the Great Lakes over time. Natural land cover
within 1 km of the shoreline generally includes areas that: provide important habitat to migrating birds; contribute sediment and
chemical loadings to streams and the lake; preserve the integrity of river-mouth wetlands; and sustain other nearshore natural
processes. Only cover type occurrences that meet minimum quality standards would be included. These standards could be based
on occurrence size (e.g., over 2 acres), condition, and landscape context, using similar criteria to those in indicator 8129, Special
Lakeshore Communities. It is not likely that the natural land cover within 1 km of the shoreline has been assessed in many areas
around the Great Lakes. A baseline should be established (i.e. 2000) with re-mapping occurring every ten years (i.e., 2010, 2020) to
track trends in land cover change. Data from this 1 km zone can be linked with land cover analysis occurring further inland to report
on the health of entire watersheds. Data collection for this indicator should be done in conjunction with indicator 8132, Nearshore
Land Use.
Illustration
The percentage of land cover within 1 km of the shoreline can be mapped using remote sensing products, such as satellite imagery,
and then displayed on geographic information systems (GIS). Different types of vegetation communities can be analyzed and
displayed for a particular area of shoreline, or for the entire shoreline of a Great Lake using the GIS. The resulting information could
be portrayed as bar charts for each area, showing both comparisons between cover types and changes over time.
Limitations
Information on historical vegetation communities is likely available in surveyors records, early journals, and old air photos and will
need to be assembled. Although this is a relatively inexpensive indicator, because much of the remote sensing mapping and GIS
software is likely already available, there will be costs involved in adapting existing data to report on the 1 km shoreline zone (i.e.,
joining maps, integrating data at different scales). Establishing a baseline should not be very costly. Costs will rise as this indicator is
related to other information (see Interpretation field).
Interpretation
This indicator will show whether the nearshore natural land cover is increasing or decreasing in comparison to the baseline, and what
kinds of changes are taking place. The information contained in this indicator will be more useful if coupled with other indicators that
measure changes in other components of the Great Lakes nearshore terrestrial ecosystems. For example, information on changes in
the presence and abundance of birds, reptiles, amphibians, plants and other nearshore terrestrial species dependent on land cover
within 1 km of the shoreline will provide a better understanding of how changes in the percentage of natural land cover affects the
ecosystem.
Comments
The information needed to develop endpoints for this indicator is likely available, but will require a literature search and discussions
with additional experts. Representatives from the Long Point and Whitefish Point Bird Observatories should be consulted on the
requirements of migratory birds in the shoreline zone. Assembling the historical and current vegetation community information for the
1 km shoreline zone should be undertaken in partnership with other SOLEC groups who are interested in adjacent watersheds
because much of the baseline information will be common to both interests.
A more detailed definition of the types of natural land cover to be included in this indicator needs to be developed. Data collection
efforts should use satellite imagery at the best resolution available (i.e., 5 or 20 metres) and refine information for specific areas of
interest along the lakes using aerial photography.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
104
-------
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environment integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
105
-------
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability (indicator ID; 8137)
/Measure
The type and number of plant and wildlife species, and vegetation regeneration rates within the nearshore area, defined as the area
within 1 kilometre (km) of the shoreline.
Purpose
To assess the composition and abundance of plant and wildlife species over time within the nearshore area, and to infer adverse
effects on the nearshore terrestrial ecosystem due to stresses such as climate change and/or increasing land use intensity.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
End point
Naturally-regenerating nearshore plant and wildlife communities with a diversity of native species equivalent to historical populations.
Features
This indicator will track changes in nearshore plant and wildlife species composition and abundance over time. Plant and wildlife
species in the nearshore area are sensitive to changes in environmental and habitat conditions. This indicator could draw on several
existing sources of information, as well as encourage new data collection. Ontario, Canada, and most States have comprehensive
data sets for breeding birds on a geo-referenced 10 km x 10 km grid that is periodically updated. Similar data are available for
herptiles, mammals, and trees, although they are less likely to be comprehensive. For some sites along the shoreline, historical data
are available on the regeneration of species such as White Cedar, White Pine, and Canada Yew. Changes in regeneration rates of
these species, or of other communities such as lichens, are indicative of either local pressures such as deer browsing, or broader-
scale environmental changes, such as air pollution. As new data becomes available (on a 10-15 year cycle for comprehensive
coverage), changes overtime can be observed.
Illustration
Using existing breeding bird data, a map could be readily generated showing shoreline cells (i.e. the number of species within their
normal breeding range) with the number of breeding species within each as a percentage of the total number of species within their
breeding range.
Limitations
Comprehensive data is not available for all species groups, and data collection is laborious and largely volunteer-based. Even for the
best data sets, such as the data set on breeding birds, coverage is incomplete in more remote areas. Historical data on regeneration
rates is highly site-specific, and available for relatively few sites.
Interpretation
These data can be compared to the total number of species that could be expected within each shoreline cell. For some species,
population ratios could also be derived as well, as a comparative measure of stress - for example, classing the population of a species
within each cell as abundant, common, scarce, or rare. The nature of observed changes overtime can indicate different kinds of
stresses. For example, a uniform decrease in the diversity of breeding species could indicate a broad-scale stress such as climate
change; decreases only on urban fringes while more remote areas stay the same would more likely point to local habitat changes. It
would be useful to divide the data between resident and long distance migrant birds in order to separate local from broad impacts.
Comments
As part of the indicator development, priority species, which could be groups of birds, woodland frogs, etc., should be selected.
In regional studies carried out in southern Ontario by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, this method showed a range in values from
100% of expected species in good habitats to less than 70% in areas with degraded conditions.
Unfinished Business
Need to develop a more quantitative endpoint.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): exotics
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
106
-------
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment (indicator ID: 8142)
/Measure
Streamflow and suspended sediments at the mouth of major tributaries and connecting channels.
Purpose
To assess the amount of water and suspended sediment entering the Great Lakes through major tributaries and connecting channels,
and to estimate the amount of sediment available for transport to nourish coastal ecosystems.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
End point
Functioning longshore transport process necessary for healthy coastal ecosystems.
Features
The role of streamflow in sediment transport and nourishment of coastal ecosystems is needed to evaluate and predict the health of
the ecosystems. Data for the streamflow and suspended sediments to the lakes from the largest tributaries and for the total combined
flow for each lake will be collected every three years. Trends will indicate a change in the amount of sediments available for coastal
nourishment. Monitoring of streamflow and sediment load is one of the oldest and most well established programs in both the United
States and Canada.
Illustration
Data for the streamflow and suspended sediments to the lakes from the largest tributaries and for the total combined flow for each
lake will be depicted as line graphs.
Limitations
Recent dramatic cuts in the Canadian budget may influence this monitoring. An evaluation is needed to prioritize the location of
monitoring locations.
Interpretation
Once baseline values are determined, streamflow at the mouths of specified tributaries and concentration of suspended sediments
will be tracked.
Comments
Data may be eventually used to help evaluate the impacts of climate change.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide a unit of measurement to increase specificity.
Need to determine a quantifiable endpoint.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): water, sediments
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 23, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
107
-------
Artificial Coastal Structures (indicator ID; 8146)
/Measure
The number and type of artificial coastal structures (including groynes, breakwalls, riprap, piers, etc) on the Great Lakes shoreline.
Artificial coastal structures include structures that extend into shallow waters at an angle from the shoreline, or are placed offshore for
the purpose of breaking the force of the waves. They are distinct from the hardened shoreline works described in indicator 8131,
Hardened Shoreline, which modify the shoreline edge itself.
Purpose
To assess the number of artificial coastal structures on the Great Lakes, and to infer potential harm to coastal habitat by disruption of
sand transport.
Ecosystem Objective
Limit impact to natural features and processes in the terrestrial nearshore and nearshore waters environments. This indicator
supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Modification or removal of artificial coastal structures which are shown to negatively affect coastal sand transport, and restoration of
natural coastal transport and deposition processes.
Features
This indicator will present trends in the number of coastal structures over time. From aerial photos and existing data sets, a baseline
of artificial shoreline structures will be established. Yearly monitoring will be performed to determine if there is an increase or
decrease in the structures. An increase will signify potential increased coastal sand transport disruption.
Illustration
A graph with the number of artificial structures on the y axis and the year on the x axis.
Limitations
It may be difficult to monitor the number of structures on a yearly basis and correlate with the degree of disruption of sand transport in
specific sites. Monitoring could be done every 3-5 years, or in periods directly following high lake levels, when many of these
structures tend to be built.
Interpretation
An increase in the number of artificial shoreline structures in comparison to the baseline will signal a disruption of the coastal process
of sand transport.
Comments
Refer to IJC water level reference study for a classification of shore protection types and summaries of the % length by lake and
shoreline reach.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore waters, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
108
-------
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter (indicator ID: 8147)
/Measure
1) Concentrations of heavy metals (e.g., Hg, Pb, Cd) found in hair, blood, liver, and brain of the American otter; and 2) concentrations
of DDT and metabolites, PCBs/ PCDFs/PCDDs, Dioxin, and other organic contaminants found in fatty tissues, liver, and blood of the
American otter.
Purpose
To assess the contaminant concentrations found in American otter populations within the Great Lakes basin, and to infer the presence
and severity of contaminants in the aquatic food web of the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 1,2, 12 and 17 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
1) Maintenance of otter populations in the upper lakes, and restoration of sustainable otter populations to lower Lake Michigan, Lake
Ontario and Lake Erie watersheds and shorelines; 2) Great Lakes shoreline and watershed populations of American otter should
have an annual mean production > 2 young/adult female; and 3) concentrations of heavy metal and organic contaminants should be
less than the NOAEL found in tissue samples from mink as compared to otter tissue samples.
Features
American otters are a direct link to organic and heavy metal concentrations in the food chain. The species has primarily a piscivorous
diet, but feeds on a wide array of other aquatic organisms. It is also more sedentary than avian species associated with aquatic food
chains and subsequently synthesizes contaminants from a smaller area. It has an appropriate application to measure environmental
contaminants on a Great Lakes level, but also on a localized scale. Changes in the species population and range are also
representative of anthropogenic riverine and lacustrine habitat alterations. Indications of contaminant problems have been noted by
decreased population levels, morphological measures (i.e. baculum length) through necropsies and declines in fecundity. Most State
resource management agencies perform necropsies to determine an index of fecundity, deformities, growth rates, age and general
health of a given population. Fecundity data from necropsies should be expressed by county and provincial management district
annually. Limited toxicological studies have been conducted on Great Lakes otter. Trapping data has been intermittently available
since 1835 in the Great Lakes region as an index of species abundance. In Ontario and the Great Lake States, except Ohio, trapping
success has been used to model populations.
Illustration
Annual trapping success expressed by total killed and number of otter killed/trapper by county and provincial management district
adjacent to Great Lake shorelines from 1950 to the present. Contaminant concentrations and trapping success data could be
presented as bar charts showing trends over time, or on a map of the Great Lakes basin showing comparative data among
management districts.
Limitations
American otters are difficult to maintain for controlled experiments and are highly visible to the public. There is very little toxicological
data available on the species for the Great Lakes. Otters have limited populations in the lower Great Lakes. The method of modeling
otter populations by harvest success and using indices of fecundity does not accurately measure population levels in the Great Lakes.
Little published data exists on the ecology of otters in the Great Lakes region.
Interpretation
Interpretation of this indicator may prove difficult since the ecology of the species and toxicological profiles from the region remain
essentially unknown. No data are available on cause and effect linkages for otter in the Great Lakes. Otter are usually compared to
contaminant levels in mink because the end points of a toxicological effect are better understood.
Comments
The potential of the American otter as a Great Lakes Indicator makes intuitive sense. However, more information on its ecology and
cause and effect linkages to contaminant problems in the Great Lakes region need to be determined to increase the utility of this
indicator.
Resource management agencies should be encouraged to search for and monitor otter toilets on or near Great Lake shorelines for
activity annually to note changes in distribution and stability in populations in relationship to sub-units of the Great Lakes that are
known to be contaminated.
This proposed indicator was the most contentious of the nearshore terrestrial set, with some commenters suggesting that it be
dropped, or replaced with monitoring of otter reproduction. In their view, otter reproduction would provide a measure that is more
useful in assessing progress toward the GLWQA objectives versus evidence of reductions inferred from chemical analyses and
conservative benchmarks. There is also concern that otter contaminant monitoring duplicates the mink indicator.
In response, other reviewers noted that mink are less common than otters in Lake Superior island environments (where they could
provide an indicator that would not be influenced by mainland anthropogenic influences), and that mink are extremely problematic to
study in the field. Otter differ entirely from mink in their habits and habitats. Otter are far more easy to trap safely and study in the
field, and transmitter durations of 3-5 years are possible. They are observable during the day, and their sign is more obvious than that
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
109
-------
of mink. The territorial behavior of the American otter facilitates the determination of population densities and assists in monitoring
efforts. They also live longer than mink, therefore, they synthesize environmental influences for a longer period. Study skins and furs
up to 150 years old are available, allowing a historical analysis of metal concentrations in hair. This historical information could not be
collected using mink. Literature worldwide documents anthropogenic toxins as one reason for otter populations declining in many
parts of the world.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and
monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 17: Research and development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 5: Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
110
-------
Protected Nearshore Areas (indicator ID; 8149)
/Measure
The percentage of the Great Lakes shoreline under various levels of protection in six classes as defined by the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The six IUCN classes are 1) strict protection, such as nature reserves and wilderness; 2)
ecosystem conservation and recreation, such as national parks; 3) conservation of natural features, such as natural monuments; 4)
conservation through active management, such as wildlife management areas; 5) protected landscapes/seascapes; and 6) managed
resource protected areas, such as sustainable use areas.
IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with the
assistance of World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.
Purpose
To assess the kilometres/miles of shoreline in protective status. This information will be used to infer the preservation and restoration
of habitat and biodiversity, the protection of adjacent nearshore waters from physical disturbance and undesirable inputs (nutrients
and toxics), and the preservation of essential habitat links in the migration (lifecycle) of birds and butterflies.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes shall be free of... net loss of fish and wildlife habitat (GLWQA, Annex 2, item xiv). Also relates to several of Lake
Superior LaMP's Habitat Objectives including: land and water uses should be designed and located in harmony with the protective
and productive ecosystem functions; degraded features should be rehabilitated or restored; and, land use planning and regulation
should eliminate or avoid destructive land-water linkages, and foster healthy land-water linkage.
Endpoint
Significant increase in extent of Great Lakes shoreline within formal protected areas.
Features
The reference values are the kilometres/miles of shoreline which are protected as a percent of the total shoreline and the percent of
increase or decrease overtime as measured every two to four years.
Illustration
For each selected area (e.g., basin-wide, lake, special shoreline community, ecoregion, etc.) graphs will be displayed with the
percentage of protected area on the y axis and years on the x axis. Additionally, for each selected area, maps will be displayed that
show the protected shoreline and its class of protection.
Limitations
Data on national parks and RAMSAR sites should be relatively easy to obtain. However, data from other locations require the
cooperation of state/provincial and local authorities, who may not always have the resources to collect or maintain this information. If
baseline data is not readily available, collecting the data will be resource-intensive, and therefore expensive. Subsequent data
updates will require only moderate expense. This indicator is useless unless the data inventory is kept up to date and there is
consistency in data treatment (database management and GIS) which will require readily available expertise, a continuing, low-level,
effort in data management, and a consistent approach.
Interpretation
Once the baseline is established, the percent of the shoreline in protected status can be tracked. "Bad" or "good" trends will be
determined by how the percent of the shoreline in protected status is changing over time. An increase in the percent of shoreline in
protected status would be considered "good;" a decrease would be considered "bad." The indicator may be complemented by
information on the status (ecological integrity, quality) of wetlands, natural land cover along the shoreline, and information on special
communities. It may be interesting to show where protected areas and AOC/RAP or Biodiversity Investment Areas coincide, and
where the information for this indicator is useful for the evaluation of RAPs or Biodiversity Investment Areas.
Comments
A protected area database has been kept at Environment Canada; whether it is up-to-date or not is unknown. Precise spatial
information (precise location and extent, which part of the shoreline, how far inshore) is either not available or poor. In Canada, data
for RAMSAR sites, national parks, or MAB sites should be easy to locate. It is not known how often this data is updated, or whether
the sites are periodically monitored for their quality (ecological integrity). In the U.S., data on protected areas would have to be
compiled from federal and state agency sources. A useful starting point for relevant data can by found in the Environmental
Sensitivity Atlases for each of the lakes and connecting channels.
This indicator overlaps with coastal wetland indicators. It would be good to link the information with an indicator on the location,
extent and quality of wetlands; also, to what extent these wetlands are protected. The indicator may need some refinement to
express "representativeness" (proportion of special lakeshore habitat types included) or better links to "Important Bird Areas", or
conservation plans.
MAB Man and the Biosphere. Initiated by UNESCO to address problems relating to conservation of resources,
resources systems, and human settlement development.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
111
-------
RAMSAR The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the
framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their
resources.
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): habitat, stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): nearshore terrestrial, societal
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
112
-------
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance (indicator ID; si so)
/Measure
Diversity and abundance of breeding bird populations and communities in selected habitat types, and an avian index of biotic integrity.
Purpose
To assess the status of breeding bird populations and communities, and to infer the health of breeding bird habitat in the Great Lakes
basin.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
End point
For this indicator, the desired outcome would vary by species and habitat type. A target of no decline in area-sensitive bird species
(forest/grasslands/savannah) could be established for a select group of species within each habitat type being sampled. A target of
increasing populations of contaminant-sensitive bird species in coastal breeding territories could also be established and monitoring
protocols designed to assess attainment. A target of 90% of the monitoring stations achieving species presence equal to 90% of the
expected number based on habitat and range could be a third type of desired outcome.
Features
The Great Lakes basin supports a rich diversity of breeding bird species. This region is one of the most important regions on the
North American continent for abundance and diversity of breeding birds. Long-term, comprehensive monitoring of the status and
trends of bird populations and communities can allow resource managers to determine the health of bird communities and habitat
conditions. Because breeding birds are strongly linked to habitat conditions, this indicator has potential to have cross applications to
other wildlife taxa and other indicators.
An "index of biotic integrity" has been used successfully in other areas and while its application to bird communities is in the
experimental stages, it should be considered. For this approach to be successful across the Great Lakes basin, reference areas with
healthy bird communities would be identified and compared with other, potentially less healthy areas. Commonly-used indices of
diversity (e.g., species richness, Shannon-Weiner, Simpson's) could be used to describe the health of the bird community in selected
habitat types and could be tracked overtime.
Illustration
Data from this indicator could be presented in a variety of ways. Population status and trends for bird species of interest could be
illustrated by simple line graphs representing selected geographic areas or the whole basin. Comparison graphs showing area
sensitive forest bird species and species pre-adapted to highly modified landscapes could be used to show effects of land use
changes across the basin. Indices of biotic integrity for areas surveyed would be presented in bar graph form and compared to other
areas for which the index has been calculated. Broader scaled biodiversity patterns across the Great Lakes basin could be presented
in map form that identify key habitat areas (biodiversity investment areas, protected areas, biodiversity hot spots). These maps could
also be used to illustrate changes in bird population patterns overtime.
Limitations
Confidence in using these data to express the health of a large-scale, diverse ecosystem, would depend on having site specific data
that adequately represented the range of habitat conditions in the region. For example, relying only on bird monitoring activity in
National Parks, where disturbance and fragmentation of habitat is likely low, could result in overly optimistic pictures of population
trends or ecosystem health. Conversely, reliance on data from easily accessible areas such as road-side counts, could lead to
indices threat suggest conditions are worse than they really are. Data gathering for this indicator is personnel intensive during the
short, early-summer breeding season. To adequately survey the Great Lakes basin will require large numbers of trained staff and
substantial travel expenses.
Interpretation
Changes in abundance, density, and productivity are caused by many factors both on and off the breeding territories. Care must be
used in determining the causes of these changes, especially for birds that spend much of each year on migration or in distant
wintering habitats. Utilizing information from ongoing research and management on migration routes and wintering areas will be
essential for interpreting these data.
Comments
Populations and communities of birds have been used to indicate a wide variety of ecological stressors and processes. Birds are
abundant in many habitat types. They make up about 70% of the terrestrial vertebrate species in Great Lakes forests for example.
Understanding population dynamics and habitat associations of breeding birds will aid in understanding major elements of ecosystem
health.
By following a consistent protocol of 10 minute point counts by highly trained professional bird surveyors, stratifying points by habitat,
prioritizing habitats to be surveyed, and conducting surveys only on rain-free, calm days, compatible data can be collected by many
researchers and agency staff. Substantial agreement and consistency has already been achieved on survey methodology by
researchers across the Great Lakes basin.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
113
-------
Habitat analysis and landscape assessment of the Great Lakes basin (see habitat cover indicators) would allow a monitoring protocol
to be developed that would identify priority habitat types. It would also allow a stratified, random sampling design, based on relative
area of habitat types to be developed. This would provide a more valid, robust and geographically integrated monitoring program than
what now exists. Monitoring efforts ongoing in several National Forest (Superior, Chequamegon) and National Parks (Apostle
Islands, Isle Royale) and the USFWS Breeding Bird Survey can be used to take model elements for developing this indicator. The
Ontario Forest Bird Monitoring Program and Marsh Monitoring Program also provide site-specific data which could be integrated into
this indicator. A Great Lakes basin-wide monitoring protocol for gathering habitat-specific information on the status and trends of bird
populations and communities, coordinated with systematic, landscape-scale vegetation data will allow basin-wide biodiversity
mapping based on bird populations. For most habitat types and bird taxa, monitoring is most efficient when survey data on all singing
birds are collected. Multiple indices of ecosystem health can then be calculated based on data gathered.
This indicator allows interpretation at multiple scales. Population trends of an individual species within a limited geographic area
provides useful information to land managers and may suggest specific management activities that should be undertaken.
Comparisons of indices of biotic integrity among sites would provide a way to evaluate the variety of management strategies
employed in similar environmental settings. Analysis of broad patterns, using biodiversity maps provide opportunities to identify
landscape level activities that influence ecosystem health.
Expansion of ongoing monitoring and efforts to standardize data gathering and quality control would be one way to approach the
development of this indicator with the funds that might realistically be expected.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related Issue(s): habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
114
-------
Threatened Species (indicator ID; si 61)
/Measure
Number, extent, and viability of species ranked as G1-G3 or S1-S3 in the Biological Conservation Database. A global or "G" rank is
assigned on the basis of relative endangerment based primarily on the number of occurrences of the element globally. A rank of G1
means critically imperiled globally due to extreme rarity or due to factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction. A rank of G2 means
imperiled globally due to rarity or due to some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. A rank of G3
means either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range
or due to other factors making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. A state or "S" rank focuses on the status of a species or
ecosystem within the boundaries of a state. A rank of S1 means critically endangered with less than five known occurrences. A rank
of S2 means six to twenty occurrences which are to some extent threatened. A rank of S3 means very rare or local throughout its
range.
Purpose
To assess the number, extent and viability of threatened species, which are key components of biodiversity in the Great Lakes basin,
and to infer the integrity of ecological processes and systems (e.g., sand accretion, hydrologic regime) within Great Lakes habitats.
Ecosystem Objective
Healthy populations of all vegetation and wildlife, including the rarest of species. This indicator supports Annexes 2 and 17 of the
GLWQA.
Endpoint
Viable populations of G1-G3 or S1-S3 species that are stable and persistent over the long term, even though local populations may
fluctuate significantly in time and space.
Features
The rarest species of an ecosystem are indicators of the health of and stresses on the ecosystem. This indicator would emphasize
vascular plants for ease of sampling, and would include wildlife to the extent possible. Optimum sampling methods would need to be
determined. Representative areas of large size (e.g. 10 km x 10 km square with appropriate habitat) would be selected with
ecological subdivisions supporting the species, and sampled at 2-5 year intervals at coarse and fine scales to document locations,
aerial extent, and numbers target species. Sampling area size and timeline for trend analysis might vary by species, depending on the
habitat and life history. Comparison of successive sampling results would be used to identify short and long term trends. It would be
important to select sampling areas that are ecologically relatively intact, as well as some with varying degrees of observable human
impact.
Illustration
Graphs of population numbers for each target species over time per sampling site, ecoregion, and basin-wide.
Limitations
It would be costly to annually monitor all populations of all species. A subset could be sampled annually, to determine trends that
might be applicable to the entire set. Certain species are more sensitive to change than others.
Interpretation
Natural environments are dynamic by nature, therefore, local decreases or even extirpations of a threatened species may be normal.
On the other hand, local extirpations can also be linked to human alterations of habitats through activities such as development.
Measures will need to be interpreted with contextual information on anthropogenic disturbances, and need to be taken over sufficient
space and time to generate a "big picture" of metapopulations in contiguous or semi-contiguous habitats. Overall stability or
increases in viable populations indicates integrity of key supporting processes to which the species are adapted. Overall decreases in
population numbers and/or extent can signal deterioration of key processes that maintain suitable habitat.
Comments
Experts from the states/provinces should collectively decide which species would be the best indicators. Using the ranking system
from the Biological Conservation Database provides a more uniform assessment of status across jurisdictions, and provides access to
an existing digital database.
Unfinished Business
Need to provide quantitative values for "viable populations."
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
115
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 17: Research and
development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 14: Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Last Revised Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
116
-------
Health of Terrestrial Plant Communities (indicator ID; 8162)
/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
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 14: Loss of (fish and) wildlife habitat
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
117
-------
Status and Protection of Special Places and Species
(Indicator ID; 8163)
/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), ill
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 over time (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
SOLEC Grouping(s): societal
GLWQA Annex(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
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
118
-------
Forest Health Criterion #1: Conservation of Biological
Diversity (Indicator ID; 8500)
/Measures
(1) Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area
(2) Extent of area by forest type and by age-class or successional stage
(3) Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories as defined by IUCN or other classification systems
Purpose
Criterion 1 indicators describe the extent, composition and structure of Great Lakes basin forests. They address the capacity of
forests to perform the hydrologic functions, and host the organisms and essential processes that are essential to supplying high
quality water and protecting the physical integrity of the watershed.
Ecosystem Objective
Indicator (1) summarizes total forest area and area by forest type. The extent and diversity of forest cover are positive indicators of
basin health. Water draining forested watersheds is of high quality, as measured by sediment yields, nutrient loadings, contaminant
concentrations and temperatures. Forests also control soil erosion, increase groundwater infiltration, stabilize shorelines and regulate
storm run-off. Leaf litter and woody debris provide critical food and habitat for fish and other aquatic wildlife.
Indicator (2) summarizes the structure of forest based on age class. Many ecological processes and wildlife species are associated
with vegetative structures (age, diameter and height of vegetation) and successional stages (variable species of vegetation).
Indicator (3) summarizes the extent of forest by type in a protected area category. Protected status ensures that specified tracts of
land remain under forest cover, and is indicative of the value a society and its policymakers place on forest conservation.
Endpoint
No endpoints yet. Establishing endpoints requires consensus on desired forest cover patterns.
Features
U.S. data from U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Database. Raw data available online at:
http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/fiadb17 dump/fiadb17 dump.htm. These are statewide data sets and therefore require
geoprocessing using GIS software to extract data relevant to basin only. Canadian data courtesy of Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources.
Illustration
Indicator (1): Pie chart to show proportions of total forest area that lie within each forest type.
Indicator (2): Line graphs to compare age-class distributions, by area, of the major forest types (maple-beech-birch, aspen-birch,
white-red-jack pine, spruce-fir) to the age-class distribution of the forest at large. Separate graphs will be used for the U.S. and
Canadian basin forests, because there are significant differences in the age-class distributions of the two countries' basin forests.
Indicator (3): Bar chart to highlight the protection rate (percentage of area under protected status) for major forest types. Again,
separate charts will be used for the U.S. and Canada because definitions of protected forest differ slightly.
Limitations
Indicator (1): Data do not indicate if forests are located in riparian zones, where the impact on the watershed is the greatest. More
importantly, the data do not indicate if the expansion in forest area is occurring in riparian zones.
Indicator (2): No data on extent of forest by successional stage. Although certain species are associated with the various
successional stages (aspen-birch tends to be early successional and maple-beech-birch is mid- to late-successional), designation of
successional stage is currently made by professional judgment rather than a standard protocol.
Indicator (3): IUCN, U.S. and Ontario definitions of protected areas differ slightly. There is substantial overlap among these
definitions, but a more consistent classification system would ensure proper accounting of protected areas and would enable
aggregation of the two countries' data. Moreover, existing definitions only incorporates public land and does not include forests that
may be protected through conservation easements and land trusts, or timber lands managed in a sustainable manner.
Interpretation
Implications for water quality and quantity are difficult to establish, but the data provide insight on general trends in forest
sustainability. Healthy, vigorous forests are indeed crucial to basin ecosystem health. Interpreting the data with respect to forest
health, however, will require additional assistance from forestry experts and stakeholders.
Comments
Once the U.S.D.A. Forest Service updates Ohio data (current set is from 1991), then the area covered by riparian forests within the
U.S. basin can be calculated. Changes in data definitions made in 1999 make it difficult to aggregate Ohio data with data from other
states, which were collected in 2001-2002.
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
119
-------
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issues: habitat, water quality, run-off regulation, shoreline stability
SOLEC Groupings: forests
GLWQA Annex(es): 1 (indirectly)
IJC Desired Outcome(s): Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, Physical Environment Integrity (Quality and Quantity of Stream
Base Flow)
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): Degradation of aesthetics, Loss offish or wildlife habitat, Degradation offish or wildlife populations
Last Revised
August 20, 2004
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
120
-------
Forest Health Criterion #2: Maintenance and Productive
Capacity of Forest Ecosystems (indicator ID: ssoi)
Description not available at this time
Forest Health Criterion #3: Maintenance of Forest Ecosystem
Health and Vitality (indicator ID: 8502)
Description not available at this time
Forest Health Criterion #4: Conservation & Maintenance of
Soil and Water Resources (indicator ID: 8503)
Description not available at this time
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
121
-------
Acid Rain (Indicator ID; 9000)
/Measure
1) Levels of pH in precipitation in the Great Lakes Basin, and 2) the area within the Great Lakes basin in exceedance of critical
loadings of sulphate to aquatic systems, measured as wet sulphate residual deposition over critical load (kg/ha/yr).
Purpose
To assess the pH levels in precipitation and critical loadings of sulphate to the Great Lakes basin, and to infer the efficacy of policies
to reduce sulphur and nitrogen acidic compounds released to the atmosphere.
Ecosystem Objective
The Canada/U.S. Accord on Air Quality pledges the two nations to reduce the emissions of acidifying compounds to the point where
deposition containing these compounds does not adversely impact aquatic and terrestrial biotic systems. This indicator supports
Annexes 1 and 15 of the GLWQA.
End point
Levels of sulphate in wet deposition are not to exceed critical loads, defined by ecozone to be from 8-20 kg/ha/yr.
Features
Measurements of sulphate deposition and pH are made by the US NDDN and Canadian CAPMoN networks along with provincial and
state partners. These data are stored in databases on both sides of the border.
Illustration
Data are routinely extracted from databases into annual maps of sulphate and pH deposition. These maps will be used to depict this
indicator.
Limitations
Interpretation
This measure is not sufficient to fully understand the deposition problem and trends in pH concentration throughout the basin is
another related indicator. Areas exceeding the sulphate critical load continue to be ecologically stressed due to high levels of acidity.
Comments
Current projections how that this may not occur until after 2010. The two specific measures tracked both provide indication of
progress towards the goal of reducing acidifying substances.
Further progress in reduction of acidifying substances are required.
Unfinished Business
Need to determine what the target pH level is.
Need to add more information on how often measurements of sulphate and pH are made, and the spatial trends (i.e.,
location of monitoring sites within the Great Lakes basin) described by this indicator.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air, water, land
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Feb. 24, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
122
-------
Exotic Species (Indicator Code; 9002)
/Measure
Purpose
This indicator will assess the presence, abundance and distribution of invasive exotic species in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem
and their impacts on ecosystem functioning. This indicator is under development. It has been added to the SOLEC list in response to
suggestions from multiple reviewers of the Version 3 list of SOLEC indicators.
Ecosystem Objective
End point
Features
Illustration
Limitations
Interpretation
Comments
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Last Revised
Feb. 25, 2000
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
123
-------
Climate Change; Effect on Crop Heat Units (indicator ID: 9003)
/Measure
The temporal change in seasonal Crop Heat Units (CHU) in the Great Lakes basin. Crop Heat Units are indicators of crop suitability,
used to assist farmers in selecting the most appropriate varieties or hybrids of crops specifically corn and soybeans suitable for their
area. They represent the total accumulated CHU for the frost-free growing seasons in each area.
Purpose
To assess the trends in Crop Heat Units in the Great Lakes basin as an indicator of climate change. A change in atmospheric
temperature due to climate change has the potential to increase Crop Heat Units. This indicator may also aid to infer the potential
impact climate change has on species diversity and crop productivity.
Ecosystem Objective
GLWQA General Objective: "These waters should be free from materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the waters as result of
human activity that. . . produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life." Change in atmospheric
temperature will potentially affect the CHU in the Great Lakes basin. Changes in Crop Heat Units will affect the spatial variability,
species diversity and productivity of crops in the Great Lakes basin.
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of historical data, to determine the average Crop Heat Units in
the Great Lakes basin prior to when the effects of climate change are evident.
Features
Crop Heat Units are essentially crop development units, they are used to predict how climate, affects the growth and development of
crops from planting to maturity. Temperature is the most important among all environmental factors that influence rate of plant
development.
Daily temperatures are influenced by latitude, elevation and location (such as the proximity to large water bodies). Lower overall
temperatures tend to impede crop growth where as warmer temperatures support crop growth. It is predicted that increases in
temperature and subsequent increases in CHU due to climate change will eliminate many natural habitats and change their potential
productivity making them more suitable to human economic activities such as farming. It is predicted that climate change will produce
a positive change in agricultural productivity such as increased yields in corn and soybeans in the Upper Great Lakes region.
According to Rochefort and Woodward (1992), climate is often hypothesized to be the primary factor in determining species
composition and defining plant distribution. It is predicted that a 3 C increase in temperature as determined from General Circulation
Models (GCM's) will increase the diversity of approximately one third of the worlds floristic regions. Bootsma (2002), also predicts
using Canadian General Circulation Model (CGM1) scenarios that CHU in Ontario, near the Great Lakes would increase by over 400
for the period 2010- 2039 and between 800 for the period 2049 - 2069. It is also predicted that areas on the US side of the basin that
presently have CHU -2800 will display increases in crop yield of up to 2025. For grain corn and soybeans, the earliest available
hybrids/varieties require ~ 2300 CHU.
These GCM also predict that the mean surface temperature will warm by 3°C, and the global mean precipitation will increase by 10%.
However, it must be noted that GCM's are essentially mathematical formulations of atmosphere, ocean and land surface processes,
they do not include vegetation. According to Rochefort and Woodward (1992), the exclusion of vegetation leads to significant errors in
surface energy balance and hydrological calculations.
Illustration
A graph showing the Seasonal Crop Heat Units for different regions in the Great Lakes basin on the y-axis and years on the x-axis,
beginning with the cutoff date for the historical data. The graph will indicate the overall trend and also will display extreme events.
Time series maps showing the contours of CHU in the Great Lakes basin and how these contours have migrated or changed would
also provide useful information.
Limitations
A limitation of the CHU method is that it assumes temperature will have the same response on a crop regardless of its developmental
stage. However, corn responds more sensitively to temperature in the vegetative to silking stage as opposed to the stage from silking
to maturity.
In addition, CHU assumes that plant growth is directly related to temperature only, however other environmental factors such as
photoperiod (the daily period from sunrise to sunset), soil fertility, soil moisture, slope and location also affect plant growth.
Interpretations
Information on changes in species diversity and crop yield from vegetation surveys and harvest data collected over time in the Great
Lakes basin will help to strengthen the link between CHU, species diversity and productivity. It also should be noted that past and
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
124
-------
future changes in species diversity and crop yields may be attributed to development of higher yielding hybrids and to changes in
input costs of production.
Increased temperature and subsequent increases in CHU could expand areas where corn and soybeans can be economically
produced, allowing longer season hybrids to be grown provided that increased temperature does not lead to increased water deficits.
Thus producers in the Great Lakes basin will likely shift to corn and soybeans as the climate warms.
Comments
To interpret this indicator, climatological data including daily maximum and minimum temperature will need to be collected. Separate
calculations need to be conducted for both day and night, as the daily CHU is the average of the two. According to Brown and
Bootsma (1993), the daytime relationship uses 10°C (SOT) as a base temperature and 30°C (86°F) as an optimum, because warm
season crops do not develop when daytime temperatures fall below 10°C and they develop fastest at 30°C. The nighttime relationship
uses 4.4°C (40°F) as the base temperature and does not specify an optimum temperature because nighttime minimum temperature
seldom exceeds 25°C in Ontario. The seasonal CHU are obtained by adding all the daily CHU values between the start and the end
date.
CHUday = 3.33 (Tmax - 10.0°C)) -0.084 (Tmax -10.0°C)2
CHUnight=9/5(Tmin-4.4°C)
CHU = (CHUday + CHUnight)/2
When doing calculations the start and end date of the daily accumulations need to be determined to get annual sums. According to
Brown and Bootsma (1993) the date to start accumulating CHU is estimated as: 1) The last day of 3 consecutive days with daily mean
air temperature less than 12.8°C (55°F) and 2) The starting date for this 3-day period each year occurred after the date the 30 year
average daily mean temperature reached 10°C (SOT) in spring for each weather station site. The end date which CHU stop
accumulating is either 1) the first occurrence of -2°C (28T) or 2) the date when the 30 year daily mean air temperature dropped to
12°C or lower.
Climatological data is easily accessible from meteorological stations in Canada from Environment
Canada's, Meteorological Service of Canada and in the U.S. from the National Climatic Data Center. CHU is recognized around the
U.S. and Canada as one of the best methods to quantify the effect of temperature on corn development.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related issue(s): climate change, species diversity
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 9, 2002
Appendix 1: Great Lakes Indicator Suite 2004 - Descriptions
125
------- |