State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
1998
•
BIODIVERSITY INVESTMENT AREAS
Aquatic Ecosystems
Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas in the Great Lakes Basin:
Identification and Validation
Draft for discussion at SOLEC 98
Dr. Joseph F. Koonce
Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
Dr. Charles K. Minns
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Bayfield Institute,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Burlington, Ontario
Dr. Heather A. Morrison
Aqualink
Toronto, Ontario
October 1998
-------
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
1998
BIODIVERSITY INVESTMENT AREAS
Aquatic Ecosystems
Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas in the Great Lakes Basin:
Identification and Validation
Draft for discussion at SOLEC 98
Dr. Joseph F. Koonce
Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
Dr. Charles K. Minns
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Bayfield Institute,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Burlington, Ontario
Dr. Heather A. Morrison
Aqualink
Toronto, Ontario
October 1998
Internet web-site: http://129.22.156.152/ABIA/index.htm
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary v
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives and Approach 2
1.3 Context , 3
2. Conceptual Framework 4
2.1 For Biodiversity Investment Areas in the Great Lakes Basin 4
2.2 For Fish Biodiversity in the Great Lakes Basin 4
3. Identification of Candidate Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas (ABIAs) 7
3.1 Survey Methodology 7
3.2 Survey Results 7
3.3 Evaluation 8
4. Validation of Candidate ABIAs Using Habitat Supply Analysis 13
4.1 Habitat Supply Analysis 13
4.2 Components of Habitat Supply Analysis for ABIAs 14
4.2.1 Fish species/Life stage-Habitat Attribute Suitability Modelling 14
4.2.2 Habitat Attribute-Spatial Unit Mapping 15
4.2.3 Spatial Unit-Fish Species/Life stage Suitability Mapping 16
4.2.4 Comparison of Suitability Maps with the Distribution of ABIAs 17
4.3 Outline of Approach for Lake Erie Basin 17
4.4 Sample of Expected Results 17
5. Status Indicators for ABIAs 26
6. Conclusions and Recommendations 30
7. Acknowledgements 31
8. References 32
8.1 Paper Publications 32
8.2 Internet Web-site Publications 33
9. Appendices 34
Appendix 1 Sample English and French language survey questionnaires used by experts to
nominate candidate ABIAs 34
Appendix 2 Detailed summary of the candidate ASIA survey results 36
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
-------
List of Tables and Figures
Table 3.1 Tabulation of ABIAs associated with designated Great Lakes' Areas of Concern 9
Table 4.1 Pearson correlation coefficients between Defensible Methods suitability indices and fish
community measure for standard survey transects in Severn Sound. [Values in bold-face are
significant at P=0.05 after Bonferroni correction,] 18
Table 5.1 Hypothetical organization for the assessment of class, potential, and status based on evaluation
of habitat features conditions across spatial units, or locations 28
Table 5.2 Average QHEI scores for Lake Erie shores with equivalent grade scores. Grades are A:
excellent, B: good; C: fair, and D: poor. Data courtesy of R. Thoma, Ohio EPA 28
Table 5.3 Average QHEI scores for Lake Erie tributaries. Lacustuary scores with lacustuary habitat
grades, dam locations and miles of free flowing stream below dams. The overall tributary
habitat grade is also given. Tributary habitat grades are calculated using the lacustuary QHEI
grade and the amount of free flowing stream (below dams) that is available to spawning fish
from Lake Erie. Grades are A: excellent, B: good; C: fair, and D: poor. Data courtesy of R.
Thoma, Ohio EPA 29
Table 5.4 ASIA status of river mouth habitats on the Ohio shore of Lake Erie, based on the results of R.
Thoma, Ohio EPA 29
Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework for the identification and validation of aquatic biodiversity
investment areas (ABIAs), linking biodiversity, habitat attributes, and spatial units 6
Figure 3.1 A map of the Great Lakes and their drainage basins showing the distribution of candidate
ABIAs identified by experts in survey responses 11
Figure 3.2 The percentage frequency distribution of candidate ABIAs among the Great Lakes and
connecting channels 11
Figure 3.3 The percentage frequency of occurrence of various selection criteria among candidate ABIAs.
12
Figure 3.4 The percentage frequency of various spatial unit types among the candidate ABIAs 12
Figure 4.1 Habitat suitability ratings compiled for yellow perch, Percaflavescens, by habitat attribute:
A) depth, B) substrate, and C) cover for each life stage. (Source: Lane et al. 1996 a,b,c) 19
Figure 4.2 Aggregate use of habitat attributes A) depth, B) substrate, and C) cover by young-of-the-year
of all fish species using lacustrine habitat in the Great Lakes. (Source: Lane et al. 1996 a,b,c).
20
Figure 4.3 The matrix of combinations for the three habitat attributes, depth, substrate, and cover, used
to estimate suitability values for the adult life stage of Great Lakes fish species 21
-Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
Figure 4.4 Graphs showing the relationships, and their statistical significance, between direct measures
of the fish community (A - density, B - biomass, and C - species richness per standard
electrofishing transect sample) composite habitat suitability index values obtained using the
Defensible Methods approach of Minns et aL (1995) for littoral areas in Severn Sound, Georgian
Bay 22
Figure 4.5 Habitat suitability index maps based on Defensible Methods ratings of physical habitat
attributes without reference to thermal habitat for A) coldwater non-piscivorous fishes and B)
walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) in the Canadian waters of Lake Erie. [Source: Minns and
Bakelaar, 1998 in press] 23
Figure 4.6 Habitat suitability maps based on Defensible Methods ratings of physical habitat attributes
without reference to thermal habitat for three life stages of northern pike, Esox Indus: A)
spawning, B) yoy or nursery, and C) adult in the Long Point region of Lake Erie 24
Figure 4.7 Habitat suitability maps based on Defensible Methods ratings of physical habitat attributes
for part of Matchedash Bay, Severn Sound on Georgian Bay 25
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
-------
Notice to Readers
This paper on Biodiversity Investment Areas is one of three such papers that were prepared for
discussion at SOLEC 98. The idea of Biodiversity Investment Areas originated at SOLEC 96 for
the Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystem, This work has continued and been expanded to include
Aquatic Ecosystems and Coastal Wetland Ecosystems. The authors of these papers have drawn
information from many experts.
Participants are encouraged to review this document prior to SOLEC and provide comments,
specific information and references for use in preparing the final post-conference versions of the
papers.
iv Aquofic Ecosystems - BIAs 4- SOLEC 98
-------
Executive Summary
Here, we report on initial efforts to identify and validate candidate aquatic biodiversity
investment areas (ABIAs) across the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystems. The ABIA concept is linked
to its terrestrial shorelands counterpart, Lands by the Lakes, reported at SOLEC'96 and placed in
context with other national and international biodiversity initiatives. The working definition of an
ABIA used in this study is: a specific location or area within a larger ecosystem that is
especially productive, supports exceptionally high biodiversity and/or endemism and
contributes significantly to the integrity of the whole ecosystem,
A conceptual framework is presented as the basis for developing scientifically defensible
methods for identifying and validating ABIAs. The framework is focused on three dimensions
where the three main axes represent biodiversity, spatial units, and habitat features in discrete
elements. Paired intersections of the axes represent the distribution of biodiversity (biodiversity
and spatial units), the characterization of spatial units, or locations, by the overlaying of many
habitat features (spatial units by habitat features), and the niches of individual species and life
stages (biodiversity by habitat features). In this preliminary assessment of ABIAs, attention has
been concentrated on freshwater fishes.
To augment the implementation of the conceptual framework, a survey of Great Lakes experts
was undertaken to establish a preliminary list of candidate ABIAs. So far, the candidate ABIAs
provide broad geographical coverage across the basin and many types of spatial unit have been
included. The survey approach has many subjective elements resulting from the varying abilities
and experience of the experts consulted, the uneven distribution of prior observations and
assessment, and the lack of quantifiable criteria for identification. This list of candidates will be
compared with the areas identified via the application of scientific models based on the
conceptual framework.
The methodology for a quantitative approach to the identification of ABIAs, Habitat Supply
Analysis (HSA), is described. This approach is being implemented with the aim of providing a
complete assessment for fish ABIAs in the Lake Erie Basin ecosystem (lake, tributaries, and
connecting channels) at SOLEC 2000. Meanwhile aspects of the approach are illustrated with
results from prototype studies.
The conceptual framework and the components of the habitat supply methodology are used to
formulate a comprehensive scheme of status indicators for ABIAs. ABIAs can be classified
according to their class (healthy, damaged, lost, and missing), relative level of potential importance as
a biodiversity investment areas (low, medium, and high), and their current status (as a percentage)
derived from a composite assessment of the many habitat features characterizing the spatial units
making up an ABIA. The ABIA cksses are matched by ABIA management strategies: healthy -
conservation, damaged - restoration, lost - creation, and missing - enhancement. The missing class
represents new opportunities to enhance, reproduce, and connect existing ABIAs in overall efforts to
restore the integrity of Great Lakes Basin ecosystems.
The next steps toward the creation of a comprehensive ABIA system are outlined.
SOLEC 98 4- BtAs - Aquatfc Ecosystems v
-------
1. Introduction
Identification of Biodiversity Investment Areas has become a preferred approach to conservation of
biodiversity. In contrast to a species-by-species approach, focus on geographical areas provides
conservation planning with a way of protecting threatened habitats, communities, and ecological
processes on which a wide range of species depend. Strategic identification and protection of a
fundamental set of Biodiversity Investment Areas thus results in the preservation of both known and
unknown endangered or rare species and genetic diversity within species.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC, 1994) proposed the use of Natural Heritage programs to identify critical
areas for maintenance of biodiversity in the Great Lakes Region. This approach was implicitly
hierarchical and promoted the view that understanding and managing threats to regions of biodiversity
required assessment of essential ecological systems that sustained biodiversity resources. This concept
of identifying regions of high biodiversity was applied to terrestrial ecosystems within the Great Lakes
basin (Reid and Holland, 1996). Regions of high biodiversity were classified using a landscape-scale
analysis of ecologically significant bioregions and constituent ecosystems. Recently, The Nature
Conservancy has attempted to consolidate this landscape-scale approach with hierarchical aquatic
ecosystem classification for protection of aquatic biodiversity (Lammert et al. 1997). The proposed
classification systems rely on nested spatial hierarchies, which relate climate influenced ecological
provinces to large-scale biological and ecological patterns. Within an ecological province, geology and
landforms entrain zoogeography and aquatic ecosystem patterns. In practice, this classification system
depends on well-characterized plant communities to demarcate ecoregional provinces. Although aquatic
ecosystems are climate and landscape influenced, their ecosystems are dominated by higher frequency
dynamic processes. As Steele (1974) suggests, animals in aquatic ecosystems are the analog for plants in
terrestrial ecosystems in terms of persistent biomass structure. Unlike plants, however, most aquatic
animals are mobile, and the regulatory structures of aquatic ecosystems become inextricably linked to
life-cycle ambits of dominant animal species. Consequently, a hierarchical classification of ecoregional
provinces, based solely on landscape features, may prove too static to capture the important processes
that regulate biodiversity resources in large-scale aquatic ecosystems such as the Great Lakes.
The basic challenge in developing a workable ABIA framework for aquatic ecosystems is to capture both
static and dynamic regulatory components. Because fish biomass constitutes over half of the standing
biomass of most lake ecosystems (cf. Kitchell et al 1979), the approach we propose here is based on the
relation of habitat structure to fish diversity and production. From the level of microhabitat description,
this approach is quite compatible to landscape approaches (e.g. Lammert et al 1997; Seelbach et al.
1997). It differs, however, in that it provides a biological connection of microhabitat structure to the
regulation of ecosystem structure and function through the utilization of these habitat structures by fish
throughout their life cycles.
1.1 Background
The importance of preserving the earth's biological diversity (biodiversity) was formally recognized in
the Convention on Biological Diversity at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in 1992. Canada and the United States of America were among 138 countries
that ratified the convention recognizing the importance of biological diversity to humanity's economic
and social development. Biodiversity refers to the variety of organisms and the diversity of physical
environments in which they occur and is recognized at genetic, species, ecosystem and sometimes
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
-------
landscape levels of organization (U.S. Congress 1987, Noss, 1990). Preserving biological diversity is
important because it:
• Provides opportunities for sustainable economic development
• Nurtures human welfare, and
• Enables the ecosystems to adapt to change
and for:
* The aesthetic values of natural ecosystems
• The contribution of land- and water-scapes to the emotional and spiritual well-being of
today's highly urbanized human populations
• The cultural identity of many indigenous peoples
• The ethical reason that the earth supports many other life forms that warrant our respect,
whether or not they are of benefit to humans (EPA, 1997).
Preserving and restoring habitats have been identified as the best strategies for preserving biodiversity
(Arico, 1995; Gray, 1997). In 1996, SOLEC oversaw the designation of Biodiversity Investment Areas
(BIAs) (See web-site 1.1). in the nearshore terrestrial environment of the Great Lakes. These BIAs were
defined as clusters of places, called ecoregions, that have exceptional biodiversity value. Biodiversity
value was assigned to an ecoregion based on characteristic shoreline types, significance of natural
communities, existing representation in parks/protected areas, presence of a priority unprotected feature,
land use, trend in shoreline health and, health of associated ecological communities. The purpose of
identifying these areas was to draw attention to those nearshore terrestrial sections of shoreline with the
greatest concentrations of biodiversity values. The United States and Canada, through the Binational
process, decided to expand this effort to identifying similar areas for nearshore, offshore, tributary and
coastal wetland environments in the Great Lakes Basin for SOLEC 1998.
1.2 Objectives and Approach
The objective of this study was to identify and, eventually, provide a scientifically defensible basis for
the selection of, Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas (ABIAs) in the Great Lakes. An ABIA is defined
as a specific location or area within a larger ecosystem that is especially productive, supports
exceptionally high biodiversity and/or endemism and contributes significantly to the integrity of
the whole ecosystem. These areas can be large (e.g.. a specific tributary and its receiving waters or a
whole lake basin) or small (e.g. a coastal wetland, an offshore reef, an embayment, or a segment of
shoreline). This definition is similar to but does not completely overlap that used for 'biodiversity
hotspots' (Reid 1998). Hotspots are areas with high biodiversity and/or high incidence of endemics or
rare species. The ABIA definition reaches beyond the idea of hotspots to encompass consideration of
centres of high levels of natural, self-sustaining productivity and ecological integrity of ecosystems as
envisaged in the successive versions of the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Fish biodiversity was chosen as the initial indicator of overall biodiversity for the assessment of ABIAs
in the Great Lakes. Fish communities are well known to be excellent indicators of overall ecosystem
integrity and health (Lyons et al., 1995). Furthermore, preserving fish biodiversity is compatible with
conservation of individual endangered species and populations (Lyons etal., 1995). There is also
evidence that high biodiversity areas for one taxonomic group are similar for other groups (Reid 1998).
This study of ABIAs in the Great Lakes Basin was developed in three phases. In the first phase, a
conceptual, and methodological, framework was developed as a basis for placing the ABIA idea into an
•Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs 4- SOLEC 98
-------
appropriate ecological and scientific context (Section 2 below). In the second phase, a survey approach
was adopted as a means of identifying ABIAs. This survey began in the summer of 1998 and is regarded
as a short-term strategy for designating ABIAs. Progress on the survey is reported in this manuscript
(Section 3 below). In the third phase, a scientifically defensible method of validating the identification of
ABIAs is described and preliminary indication of its potential to accurately identify these areas is
reported. It is regarded as a long-term strategy for identifying ABIAs (Section 4 below). In Section 5, the
strength and weaknesses, and advantages and disadvantages of the different identification strategies are
assessed along with the operational status of the ABIA concept. The report concludes with a set of
recommendations for the future.
1.3 Context
This and similar efforts in SOLEC 1998 to identify and designate biodiversity investment areas (BIAs)
parallel and complement other ecosystem management efforts in the Great Lakes Basin and beyond.
These related efforts include the overarching concepts of the Ecosystem Approach and their practical
implementation in the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for designated Areas of Concern (AOCs) and
Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) to be developed for each Great Lake under the terms of
successive revisions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The scope of that agreement has been
progressively expanded from a focus on water quality issues to the widest consideration of ecosystem
health throughout the basin, including the lands, the waters, the air, the peoples, the economic activities,
etc. The BIA efforts complement the Ecosystem Approach in recognizing that conservation and
restoration of biodiversity requires the conservation, restoration, and, where necessary because of past
indifference or neglect, creation of habitats and ecosystems.
The Great Lakes Fishery Convention Act (1955) and the Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan
(SGLFMP, 1980 And revised 1997) recognize the important role of fishery and other agencies in
management and conservation of fisheries, fish productivity, and the ecosystems supporting them. Part of
SGLFMP commits the signatory agencies to the development of complementary sets of fish community
and environmental objectives for each Great Lake. In the recent revision of SGLFMP, the agencies
recognized that those objectives have to be developed in the context of ecosystem management. This
study of ABIAs, focused on fish biodiversity, is based on concepts consistent with the goals of the
SGLFMP objective setting.
Beyond the Great Lakes Basin, the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, now known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with respect to federally managed marine
fish stocks in the United States required that 'essential' habitats for these stocks be identified as a major
step toward increasing the management of habitat as a requisite component of stock management. The
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, is responsible for completing
essential habitat plans. These activities, that bring stock and habitat management closer together, parallel
the ABIA assessment process. Similarly in Canada, the 1986 Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat,
while lacking a clear mandate for the conservation of fish biodiversity per se, directs agencies to develop
area fish habitat management plans as a basis for managing future threats from development activities
and for ensuring that the requisite natural, self-sustaining productivity of habitats supporting fish
production and harvests be maintained.
SOLEC 98 4- BIAs-Aquatic Ecosystems-
-------
2. Conceptual Framework
As the arenas of ecosystem management are often made more complicated through the use of terms such
as biodiversity, integrity, health, even ecosystem, etc., whose meanings or interpretations are often
contentious, this section presents an attempt to ground the BIA, and particularly the ABIA, ideas on
current ecological science, especially aquatic ecosystem science.
2.1 For Biodiversity Investment Areas in the Great Lakes Basin
Biodiversity Investment Areas (BIA) are geographical regions rich in critical habitat for a number of
species. Reid and Holland (1996) identified 19 BIAs representing important large core areas of shoreline
habitat in the Great Lakes region. The ecoregions represented by these BIAs have characteristic sets of
climate and physical features that develop unique assemblages of plants and animals. For shoreline
BIAs, plant communities are important indicators of status and serve as benchmarks for restoration.
Extending the BIA concept into lakes requires a change of indicators. Because watershed processes
influence the structure of aquatic communities, some correspondence between identified shoreline BIAs
and Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas (ABIAs) is bound to occur. However, plants are much less
important regulators of community structure in aquatic ecosystems, and physical and chemical factors
are correspondingly more important determinants of local biodiversity. The central challenge of
identifying ABIAs within the Great Lakes is thus finding a set of criteria that demarcate habitat
structures that are important to maintenance of lake-wide biodiversity and that regulate structure and
productivity of lake ecosystems.
2.2 For Fish Biodiversity in the Great Lakes Basin
Like plants in terrestrial systems, animal communities provide persistent structure for aquatic
ecosystems. One way to differentiate ABIAs is to evaluate habitat through effects on fish abundance and
distribution. Figure 2.1 represents a conceptual framework with which to organize identifying
characteristics of ABIA sites. The framework consists of three primary axes: Spatial Units (or
Locations), i.e., landscape features that together comprise an ABIA; Habitat Attributes, i.e., qualities that
describe these spatial units such as water chemistry, temperature, depth, substrate type, etc.; and Fish
Species by Life Stage. All three axes are categorical. Intersection cells represent the suitability of a
particular Spatial Unit within a specific ABIA for a particular life history stage of a single species of fish.
Projections onto planes of the axes are integrated summaries of Habitat Attributes. An ABIA is thus
defined as a set of specific Spatial Units with their associated Habitat Attributes. The intersection of the
Fish Species/Life Stage and Spatial Unit axes indicate the fish biodiversity supported by that ABIA, and
the intersection of each Fish Species/Life Stage with Habitat Attribute axes represents the niche space.
An advantage of the ABIA framework in Figure 2.1 is its reliance on readily discernable axis
components. Spatial Units are specific geographical features such as tributaries, embayments, beach
littoral zones, wetland littoral zones, pelagic zones, submerged reefs, and profundal regions that together
comprise an ABIA. Each Spatial Unit may have subcategories but identification by location, and
hierarchical organization, limits category overlap. Furthermore, no two ABIAs will be the same. ABIAs
may have the same types of Spatial Units (ex. beach and embayment) but the Habitat Attributes that
describe these Spatial Units will be unique to a geographical location and hence an ABIA. Selection of
Habitat Attributes, for use in the framework, depends on relevance to fish abundance and distribution.
-Aquatic Ecosystems - BtAs + SOLEC 98
-------
These attributes will include a range of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, but the
attributes chosen must allow consideration of current, potential, and desired state of the ABIA.
Assessment of ABIAs can be conducted through an aggregate consideration of the habitat requirements
of all fish species and life stages and methodology to enable this approach will be outlined in section 4
below.
More focused assessments of economically important, rare and endangered species or invading species is
also feasible, especially where more detailed knowledge of life stage habitat requirements (niche) is
available. Such analyses will not be described in this report but such assessments are under development
and will be reported later. Those assessments will allow for a more explicit consideration of the spatial
and temporal interconnections and interactions between locations serving different life stages of
particular species. The framework provides the basis for tracking habitat constraints throughout the life
cycle of a species. Thus locations that serve as corridors connecting essential habitats for consecutive life
stage may in a static analysis not appear to be critical or limiting. However, if the connection is broken or
disrupted, the value of the adjacent ABIAs may be diminished or lost.
The use of fish abundance and distribution data to identify ABIAs and to indicate status of in-lake habitat
is conceptually appealing and more scientifically defensible than approaches that rely too heavily on
intuition. Although habitat constraints are only one of several factors that regulate aquatic community
structure, a growing body of evidence suggests that availability of habitat can have important effects on
both biodiversity and relative abundance of economically important fish. Because of their ability to
exert a "top-down" control on aquatic ecosystems, species composition and abundance of fish influence
the diversity and structure of other species. For example, excessive abundance of detritivorous species,
like Carp, can have a deleterious effect on littoral aquatic vegetation. Through effects on reproduction
and survival of early life history stages and through effects on growth and survival of juvenile and adult
fish, habitat limitations have the potential to limit the productive capacity of aquatic ecosystems, their
ability to respond to invasion of exotic species, and their overall stability. The framework in Figure 2.1
thus lends itself to diagnostic analysis of factors contributing to loss of fish productivity as well as
restoration analyses that would indicate levels of habitat availability that would provide various desired
levels of abundance and distribution of fish.
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
-------
Figure 2.1. Conceptual framework for the identification and validation of aquatic biodiversity
investment areas (ABIAs), linking biodiversity, habitat attributes, and spatial units.
Biodiverstiy ••§
CO
o.
C/3
Features of
ABIA
•Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
3. Identification of Candidate Aquatic Biodiversity
Investment Areas (ABIAs)
A mail-out questionnaire was the first approach used to identify Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas
(ABIAs), The following sections describe this approach and the results obtained up to the time of
writing.
3.1 Survey Methodology
Seven hundred experts in Great Lakes ecology from Canada and the United States were identified using
the SOLEC mailing list database, A questionnaire (Appendix 1) was prepared and mailed to those
experts. Recipients were also asked to copy and further distribute the questionnaire to other experts in
their organization or group, experts who may not have been included in the original mailing list.
The questionnaire required an ABIA nomination, a detailed description of the site and, attributes of the
site that made it a good candidate for an ABIA. Recipients were asked to complete a separate
questionnaire for each nomination. An ABIA was defined as a specific location, or area within a larger
ecosystem, that is especially productive, supports exceptionally high biodiversity and/or endemism and
contributes significantly to the integrity of the whole ecosystem. The questionnaire required the
nominator to:
• Identify the candidate as specifically as possible
• Indicate its general position in a lake or connecting channel basin
• Describe the main spatial units using elements in a generic classification scheme,
supplemented with commentary where needed
• Select up to 3 items from a list of possible reasons for the candidacy
• Indicate at the life stage, species and community level the target biodiversity elements
• Add any addition comments or explanation
Most respondents completed the check-off portions of the questionnaire and many provided commentary
information, often supplemented with other printed material. The results from the questionnaires were
compiled in a GIS compatible database and mapped using Arc View® application by ESRI Corporation.
Geographical coordinates for candidate sites were obtained where available from two web-sites (1.2 and
1.2). Otherwise, coordinates were read from large-scale paper maps.
3.2 Survey Results
To date, 70 sites have been nominated as ABIAs by 60 experts (Appendix 2 - Detailed Summary of
ABIA Survey Responses). Thus, the response rate at the time of reporting was less than 10 percent, a rate
considered typical for mail-out questionnaires.
The sites are distributed throughout the Great Lakes Basin (Figure 3.1). Most of the sites (87%) are in the
lakes compared to the connecting rivers and most sites are in the upper lakes (Figure 3.2).
Most of the sites were selected because they exhibit a number of important attributes. The majority of
sites were indicated to support 'high biodiversity' (57%), are 'very productive' (56%) and are 'critical
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
-------
for economically important species' (41%) (Figure 3.3). The next most frequently selected attributes
were 'rare habitat features' and 'critical for rare species'.
The majority of sites were characterized by more than one location feature (Appendix 2). The most
common location features, characterizing the sites, were 'wetland' (46%), 'tributary' (44%) and/or
'offshore reef (36%) (Figure 3.4). 'Shorelands', 'nearshore reefs', and 'islands' were the next most
frequently selected features.
To date, 12 of the 70 ABIA nominations are located within Areas of Concern (AOCs) designated by the
International Joint Commission (Table 3.1).
3.3 Evaluation
Questionnaires, completed by experts, provided valuable information about the location, characteristics
and attributes, and significance of potential ABIAs. Although expert nominations can provide supporting
evidence for validating ABIA selection models, used explicitly, they do not provide scientifically robust
results because of several methodological shortcomings. These shortcomings include:
• Low response rate of experts to the request for ABIA nominations (<10%)
• Uneven distribution of experts throughout the Great Lakes resulting in a biased
geographical distribution of ABIAs
» The competence of the experts to identify ABIAs cannot be assessed or compared.
Other shortcomings arise because some areas have been studied more intensively than others. This
discrepancy increases the likelihood that intensively studied sites will be nominated more frequently than
lesser-studied areas. For example, the AOCs represent a small proportion of the total area of the Great
Lakes Basin but 17 percent of ABIAs were located in AOCs. Also, the constant flux in the pool of Great
Lakes experts results in a loss of 'institutional memory* of sites that may have been studied in the past
but that are no longer being studied. This may also affect the likelihood of a site being nominated.
Furthermore, not every site that is nominated by experts would be considered a good ABIA candidate.
An example of this last point, is the nomination of NIPSCO Dean Mitchell Generating Station discharge
outlet in Illinois as an ABIA. The warm water from this discharge outlet attracts a number of fish
species but the site itself is not characterized by habitat features that support sustainable aquatic
biodiversity. Some of the shortcomings might be addressed by amending the questionnaire to gather
additional data. However, the shortcomings of the expert nomination process for selection of ABIAs,
highlight the need for the development of a scientifically defensible approach.
8 Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
Table 3.1. Tabulation of ABIAs associated with designated Great Lakes' Areas of Concern.
Site*
68
54
4
63
39
Site Name
Humbug Marsh
Maiunee River,
Maumee Bay and
coastal Shorelands
Presque Isle Bay
and Associated
Wetlands
St. Ckir River
Delta/Lake St Clair
Saginaw Bay
Watershed
Detroit River
Erie
Erie
Erie
Huron
Location
Features
Tributary, Wetland
Tributary, Embayment,
Shorelands
Wetlands, Embayment,
Beach
Wetlands, Embayment,
Shorelands, Islands
Tributary, Wetlands,
Nearshore Reef,
Embayment
Attributes
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Rare Species, Critical for
Economically Important
Species, Critical for
Endangered Species, Rare
Habitat Features, High
Connectivity
Critical for Economically
Important Species
High Biodiversity,
Critical for Rare Species,
Critical for Endangered
Species, High Habitat
Diversity, Rare Habitat
Features
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Rare Habitat
Features, Critical for Rare
Species, High
Connectivity
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, High
Habitat Diversity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species
Comments about Site
Last remnant Great Lakes coastal marsh on
the 32-mile Michigan shoreline of the
Detroit River.
Sandspil arcs towards mainland to form
large, shallow embayment with aquatic
plant beds, emergent marsh, shallows,
beaches and mussel beds.
Submergent and emergent macrophytes.
Shallow, warm and productive waters.
Migratory route for valuable fish
populations from Lakes Erie and Huron.
Saginaw Bay offers a huge variety of
habitat types such as very large stands of
emergent grass wetlands and nearshore
rocky bottom that are highly productive and
which support a rich and diverse flora and
fauna
Comments about Attributes of
Site
Migration route for the 117 species of fish that
inhabit the Great Lakes; for the 27 species of
waterfowl that frequent Michigan's coastal
wetlands; the more than 17 species of raptors,
including eagles, hawks, and falcons; the more
than 48 species of non-raptors, including
loons, warblers, neotropical songbirds, cranes,
and cattle egrets, and numerous species of
butterflies that migrate annually from Canada
to the southern United States and South
America.
Reproductive habitats for the various walleye
life
stages are linked by physical processes and
function as a unit. These habitats are
critical/essential for walleye reproduction and
they exist no where else in space or time for
this stock.
This site supports rare species including the
bowfin, spotted gar, Iowa darter, lake sturgeon,
eastern sand darter and Great Lakes
muskellunge. Furthermore, this site supports
approximately 20 species of freshwater
mussels and several rare fish species;
productivity and species diversity are high.
One of the last remaining stretches of natural
shoreline, spawning and nursery ground for
numerous fish species. Most diverse native
plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate communities
in Great Lakes.
Saginaw Bay supports a rich flora and fauna
teough high rates of primary productivity and
very protected shallow waters along with
emergent grasses. Saginaw Bay and tributaries
support extremely valuable sport fisheries for a
variety of species, principally yellow perch and
a recovering walleye population. The bay also
supports a commercial fishery for whitefish,
yellow perch and other species.
Experts
Dr. Bruce Manny
(U.S. Geological
Service)
Mr. David Davies
(Ohio Division of
Wildlife)
Mr. Roger Kenyon
(Pennsylvania Fish and
Boat Commission); Mr.
Charles Bier (Western
Pennsylvania
Conservancy)
Dr. Tim Johnson
(Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources); Dr.
Heather Morrison
(Aqualink); Mr. Robert
Haas (Michigan
Department of Natural
Resources)
Dr. Dave Fielder
(Michigan Department
of Natural Resources);
Dr. Russell Moll
(Michigan Sea Grant);
Mr. James Baker
(Michigan Department
of Natural Resources)
SOLEC 98 4- BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
-------
Table 3.1. continued
Site#
31
43
33
g
73
3
67
Site Name
Thunder Bay
Klydel Wetland
Cootes Paradise
and Hamilton
Harbor
St, Lawrence
River
St. Marys River
Nipigon River/
Vipigon Bay
St Louis River
Watershed
Huron
Niagara River
Ontario
St Lawrence
St Marys
Superior
Superior
Location
Features
Tributary, Wetlands,
Nearshore Reef,
Embayment, Sborelands,
Pelagic
Wetlands
Wetlands, Embayment
Wetlands, Embayment,
Shorelands
Wetlands, Nearshore
Reef, Islands
Tributary, Embayment
Tributary, Wetlands,
Jmbayment
Attributes
Rare Habitat Features,
High Biodiversity, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, High
Connectivity
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, High
Habitat Diversity, High
Connectivity
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species, Critical
For Economically
Important Species
rfigh Productivity, Critical
!or Rare Species, Critical
"or Endangered Species
Comments about Site
Some of the last remaining Great Lakes
shoreline wetland habitat. Area has many
shipwrecks that provide habitat for fish.
This wetland was originally 102 acres
but only 60-70 acres remain. Desperately
needs protection from illegal development
and threatened development.
Undergoing restoration. Surrounded by
urbanization and upstream agricultural
stresses.
Migratory route for economic important
species such as the american eel. It is also
growth habitat for eel.
The St. Marys offers not only a variety of
labitat but also some unique environmental
conditions.
^arge commercial harbor; area of concern;
ligh value habitat; largest US tributary to
Lake Superior.
Comments about Attributes of
Site
This site should be considered a marine
sanctuary.
Endangered wetland in urban setting. Wetland
is
being used as a nature area for environmental
education on the 9.3 acres that is owned by
North Tonawanda School District. We're
trying to save the rest.
Critical part of a sequence of connected
streams,
wetland, bay, open lake, shore areas and open
lake pelagic.
Main nursery and migratory habitat for eels
that ate the basis of a commercial fishery - also
member of the predatory fish community.
The river offers a blend of many habitat types.
River has a high biodiversity of fish species
and a remnant population of brook trout. This
is the last refuge for coaster brook trout. It
also supports a recovering lake sturgeon and
walleye population. It is the largest tributary
to Lake Superior.
Common tern nesting site; walleye spawning
area for western Lake Superior; sturgeon
restoration; significant remaining wetlands.
Experts
Dr. Dave Fielder
(Michigan Department
of Natural Resources);
Mr. Alfred Beeton
(Great Lakes Research
Mrs. Elizabeth
KaszubsM (Citizens for
a Green North
Tonawanda)
Dr. Charles Minns
(Fisheries and Oceans
Canada)
Dr. Peter Hodson
(Queen's University)
Dr. Dave Fielder
(Michigan Department
Natural Resources)
Mr. Bob Thomson
(Ontario Minisuy of
Natural Resources);
vfr. Ed Iwachewski
[Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources)
vis. Karen Plass
(St Louis River
Citizens Action
Community)
10
•Aquatic Ecosystems - 8/As + SOLEC 98
-------
Figure 3.1. A map of the Great Lakes and their drainage basins showing the distribution of candidate
ABIAs identified by experts in survey responses.
Figure 3.2. The percentage frequency distribution of candidate ABIAs among the Great Lakes and
connecting channels.
30.0n
fc
Watershed
C/5
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
11
-------
Figure 33. The percentage frequency of occurrence of various selection criteria among candidate
ABIAs.
Attributes of ABIA
Figure 3.4. The percentage frequency of various spatial unit types among the candidate ABIAs.
Location Feature
12
- Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
4. Validation of Candidate ABIAs Using Habitat Supply
Analysis
The conceptual framework (Section 2 above) provided the template for a method of identifying ABIAs
for all biodiversity and, particularly, for fish biodiversity. In this section, an approach to translating the
conceptual framework into an operational tool is described. Prototype results illustrate what might be
expected when a habitat supply analysis is completed for the Lake Erie Basin. A science-based,
reproducible methodology will:
• Decrease reliance on a limited and changeable pool of experts able to recognize ABIAs
• Allow the identification of ABIAs in more remote and less studied areas of the Great
Lakes, and
• Contribute to the development of more extensive mapping of BIAs in the Great Lakes
basin and beyond
» Once ABIAs are identified, efforts can be taken to conserve and/or restore these areas as
needed to attain overall ecosystem management goals and objectives.
4.1 Habitat Supply Analysis
Habitat Supply Analysis (HSA) is a data synthesis and integration methodology that enables
implementation and testing of the conceptual framework described earlier. The three primary surfaces,
defined by the axes of the conceptual matrix (Figure 2.1), may be visualized as elements in an equation
that predicts locations of high biodiversity from the product of fish habitat suitability models and the
characterization of locations using a range of habitat attributes. The primary objective of the HSA
portion of this project is to test the powers of fish species/life stage-habitat attribute suitability models.
These models are used, in combination with GIS-based representations of the Habitat Attributes of each
Spatial Unit, to predict observed patterns of Fish Species/Life stage in each Spatial Unit. The predicted
patterns of Fish Species/Life stage in each Spatial Unit represent the biodiversity at an ABIA.
Application of this HSA approach, to validating the identification of ABIAs, does not preclude other
methodologies for identifying ABIAs or other applications of HSA. Indeed HSA, as applied to fish, is
envisioned as the central resource for information and assessment in the development and
implementation of Area Fish Habitat Management Plans (AFHMPs). Such plans can provide:
• A habitat inventory in a GIS-based information system with analytical capabilities.
» An overview and context for planning biodiversity and habitat conservation and
restoration priorities.
» A means of identifying key habitat features and significant locations.
• A direct link to fishery resource management wherein habitat objectives are marshalled
in support of fisheries objectives.
• A solid guide for development activities and regulatory actions by conservation
authorities and local governments. If you have a colour-coded map, you can get that
consideration built into local planning documents and guidelines.
• A context in which site-specific activities can be assessed.
The current project, to validate the ABIAs identified by experts, is consistent with the wider applicability
of AFHMPs.
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems 13
-------
The present HSA approach is consistent with, and derives elements and concepts from, a number of
previous efforts to address conservation and protection of natural ecosystems. Previous efforts include
the HEP-HSI approach of USFWS (USFWS 1981, Terrell et al 1982) and GAP analysis (Scott et al.,
1993)
4.2 Components of Habitat Supply Analysis for ABIAs
There are four main components in the application of HSA:
1) Fish species/Life stage-Habitat Attribute Suitability Modelling,
2) Habitat Attribute-Spatial Unit Mapping,
3) Spatial Unit-Fish species/Life stage Suitability Mapping (Biodiversity Mapping), and
4) Comparison of Biodiversity Maps with the Distribution of ABIAs.
Implementation of these steps is planned for both a generic assessment offish species biodiversity and a
specific assessment of the suitability of habitat to fish species of special interest. The sequence described
below is given in detail for the generic assemblage assessment. This same sequence would be followed
for a species level assessment.
4.2.1 Fish species/Life stage-Habitat Attribute Suitability Modelling
The approach to habitat attribute suitability index modelling is based on the Defensible Methods
approach developed by Minns et al. (1996,1997, 1998a,b). At present, the modelling scheme has only
been implemented for lacustrine fish habitat but a corresponding scheme for streams is under
development. Concepts in the modelling approach are applicable to any taxon or grouping of biodiversity
in any ecosystem type. The approach to modelling lacustrine fish habitat suitability index values has
several steps that address the suitability of habitat to fish proceeding hierarchically from; various life
stages of individual fish species; individual fish species; groups offish and; fish assemblages.
Life stage suitability:
• Simple suitability ratings are assembled by habitat attribute (Depth, substrate, and cover) for
each life stage of each species in the assemblage being considered. Ratings of nil, low, medium,
or high for each category of each attribute are rendered on a numerical scale as 0.0,0.33,0.67,
and 1.0, Sample ratings for yellow perch, Percaflavescens, are shown in Figure 4.1. Aggregate
assessments by life stage of habitat preference across the whole fish assemblage present in the
Great Lakes show the high importance of shallow waters with softer substrates like sand and silt
and with vegetation present (Figure 4.2).
» The suitability index value, of combinations of one category per habitat attribute across the set of
attributes, is computed as the product of the simple independent suitability values. This creates a
matrix, or cube, of suitability values (Figure 4.3).
Species suitability:
• For each species, the suitability matrices for the three life stages are weight-summed using a set
of weights that sum to one,
* A fixed set of weights is used for all species in each application of Defensible Methods. For the
default approach, all weights are equal which assumes that there is no a priori way of knowing
14 Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs 4- SOLEC 98
-------
the relative importance of different life stages without a detailed assessment of the habitat-
limited bottlenecks in a population's dynamics and productivity.
• Each species matrix is then rescaled, such that the sum of suitability values across all
combinations of categories, cells in the matrix, equals 1. This provision ensures that that each
species can only contribute 1 to any group suitability matrix.
Group suitability:
• Groups of fish species are formed using criteria that reflect either ecological life style
preferences, e.g. thermal (warm-, cool-, and cold-water) or trophic (piscivore, and non-
piscivore), or human use preferences, e.g., commercial, sport and forage species, or other
reasonable criteria. In site-specific applications of Defensible Methods, a combination of thermal
and trophic groupings has been used which usually results in six groups of species.
• The matrices for species in a group are summed and then rescaled so the maximum cell value is
1. Thus the group suitability matrix expresses relative suitability among cells but ensures that
pools of group matrices are not influenced by differences in the number of species making up a
group.
Assemblage suitability:
• Matrices from the groups are sum-weighted using a set of group weights that sum to 1. The
group weights depend on the priorities of fishery management agencies and users and
fundamental properties of the target ecosystem (size, maximum depth, nutrient status, etc.).
The suitability value matrices obtained at any of the 4 levels in the hierarchy of calculations can be used
to evaluate the suitability of habitats in one or many locations.
As might be expected, for a modelling scheme based on combining habitat preferences for many species,
the suitability values obtained for group and assemblage are correlated with integrated fish community
measures such as species richness, abundance and biomass. In Severn Sound, an analysis of combined
fish community and habitat assessment data collected in the littoral zone showed that fish measures for
warmwater and coolwater groups, for the assemblage, and for Index of Biotic Integrity were significantly
correlated with corresponding Defensible Methods-based habitat suitability indices (Table 4.1, Figure
4.4)(Minns, et al. in preparation).
This approach, which takes into account depth, substrate and cover, can be extended to other habitat
attributes. At present, modelling for thermal and light habitat is under way for some species. Suitability
maps for temperature and light will be developed separately. Shifting from physical habitat which is
treated using 2-dimensional models to dynamic habitat attributes with 3- and 4-dimensional features
poses a significant analytical challenge.
4.2.2 Habitat Attribute-Spatial Unit Mapping
To apply the suitability models to ecosystems and to identify those areas and locations with higher or
lower suitability for supporting fish biodiversity, the habitat attributes used in the development of the
suitability values must be mapped across locations. The spatial extent of the required map coverage will
depend on the objectives of the assessment exercise. For the ABIA project, the Great Lakes Basin is the
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems 15
-------
target area but assembling map coverage of habitat attributes for that whole region is not possible at
present. Instead, Lake Erie and its basin have been selected for the initial test of the predictive power of
habitat suitability models (see Section 4.3 below).
Separate map layers are prepared for each habitat attribute in a geographical information system (GIS).
The map layers are then intersected, or overlaid, to identify spatial polygons with unique combinations of
habitat attributes. The overlay step brings the maps of all habitat attributes into a single map layer.
Differences in polygon boundaries are incorporated to produce a map with many polygons. Each overlay
polygon has one category from each habitat attribute identified. This combined map is known as a unique
conditions map. For example, if depth, substrate and vegetation map layers are overlaid, there might be
spatial polygons in sheltered nearshore locations with depth in the range 0 to 1 metres; substrate
consisting of sand (60%), silt (30%), and clay (10%); and submerged vegetation cover of 60%.
4.2.3 Spatial Unit-Fish Species/Life stage Suitability Mapping
Linking the Fish Species/Life stage-Spatial Unit suitability index models to Habitat Attribute-Spatial
Unit mapping requires three steps:
1) The overlay of separate habitat attribute maps to obtain a unique conditions map,
2) Development of a series of correspondence tables linking the categorical elements for
each attribute in the suitability models and the habitat attribute-spatial unit maps, and
3) Attachment of suitability values to each unique polygon in the overlay map.
Completion of these steps results in the production of a series of location suitability maps.
The correspondence tables linking Fish Species/Life stage-Habitat Attribute suitability matrices to
Spatial Unit-Habitat Attribute maps is necessary because it is difficult to obtain the same classification
schemes for all sources of data. For instance, while substrate suitability values are specified for discrete
categories of substrate (e.g. sand, boulder, clay), field mapping of substrate may identify either new
categories representing mixtures of the discrete categories (e.g. sandy-gravel, silty-clay, etc.) or
proportions of discrete substrates present (e.g. 30% gravel+60% sand+10% silt, etc.). If the field data
consists of categories representing mixtures, the correspondence tables must indicate the expected
proportional composition, based on expert opinion of by inference from available compositional data,
e.g. sandy-gravel = 70% gravel+30% sand. Similar approaches are used for other habitat attributes. Once
the proportions have been established in the correspondence tables, weighted suitability values can be
computed for field-based map categories.
With the suitability models and correspondence tables in place, the assignment of suitability values to
polygons in the overlay map is straightforward. Life stage, species, group and assemblage suitability
values can be assigned to overlay map polygons and suitability maps generated. The suitability maps can
be analyzed in several ways:
1) The maps can be classified by assigned non-overlapping ranges of suitability to
categories, e.g. 0.0-0.3 low, 0.3-0.7 medium, 0.7-1.0 high,
2) Areas in particular suitability ranges can be determined,
3) Weighted-suitable areas, the sum of area multiplied by suitability across all polygons,
can be computed as an area equivalent measure of habitat supply.
16 Aquatfc Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
4.2.4 Comparison of Suitability Maps with the Distribution of ABIAs
The comparison of ABIA nominations with biodiversity maps will be a straightforward process. The
candidate ABIAs can be classified into a series of classes depending on the criteria used to identify them.
The suitability maps are developed with a continuous scale from 0 to 1 but can be reclassified into
categorical maps with ranges of suitability from poor through to excellent. ABIA and Suitability class
values can be cross-tabulated with the expectation that ABIAs will be more strongly associated with high
suitability classes or values.
4.3 Outline of Approach for Lake Erie Basin
Work has begun on a habitat supply analysis for fish biodiversity in the Lake Erie Basin and results will
be reported at SOLEC 2000. Lake Erie was selected because 1} Pilot-scale mapping activities have
already been undertaken (Minns et al. 1997,1998); 2) Much effort is going into the definition of fish
habitat suitability models linked to population models for several key fish species in the lake; and 3)
Significant changes are occurring in the ecosystem with major habitat impacts.
The habitat supply analysis for Lake Erie will cover all aquatic habitats in the lake, in the tributaries, and
in the connecting channels. The many habitat feature maps will be compiled from existing sources rather
than from new, expensive data collection programs. There are sufficient extant data, or where necessary
the means to infer or extrapolate, to provide a substantive test of the predictive power of this approach to
the identification of ABIAs in the Great Lakes Basin.
4.4 Sample of Expected Results
Several previous studies have provided preliminary evidence of the feasibility of the habitat supply
analysis approach in Lake Erie, in Long Point Bay on Lake Erie, and in Severn Sound on Georgian Bay.
These pilot projects illustrate the potential of this approach.
In a prototype for the Lake Erie HSA, Minns and Bakelaar (1998 in press) used available bathymetric
and substrate data and an inferred map of submerged vegetation cover in conjunction with the Defensible
Methods approach described in section 4.2 above to predict habitat suitability maps in the Canadian
waters of Lake Erie. Suitability maps were developed for major groupings of fish based on thermal and
trophic preferences and for selected species (Figure 4.6). These maps are based on physical habitat
considerations alone and thermal habitat was not considered. The maps show limited areas of suitable
habitat for coldwater non-piscivores in the central and eastern basins of the lake and extensive areas for
walleye throughout the lake. The habitat supply analysis work currently under way in support of the
SOLEC and other efforts is a direct outcome of that work.
More recently, Minns et aL (1998 in revision) undertook a more limited study of the Long Point Bay area
in Lake Erie, taking advantage of a detailed aerial remote sensing study to map nearshore habitats in
1994. A suitability model was used to assessment habitat supply for three life stages in northern pike
(Esox lucius, L.) and the supply estimates were used with Minns et a/.*s (1996) population model for
pike to predict potential biomass and production in the Bay area. There were also efforts in the Long
Point study to assess thermal habitat in 4-dimensions, daily over the year by area grid and depth. The
thermal and physical indices have yet to be combined. The suitability maps obtained for the Long Point
area illustrate the potential for assessing the importance of contiguity (Figure 4.6). The dark areas
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems 17
-------
represent fifty percent of the weighted suitable area, i.e., the product of area and suitability by unique
habitat area, with the greatest suitability values. The higher quality habitats for each life stage do not
overlap much but rather are intermingled thereby minimizing the distances as organisms pass from one
life stage to the next
The third example from Severn Sound illustrates how the suitability maps that identify ABIAs might be
used to guide local planning and development (Minns et al, in preparation). The nearshore habitat of the
whole shoreline of Severn Sound on Georgian Bay was mapped over several years. The habitat data were
assembled in a GIS and habitat suitability mapping performed (Figure 4.7). The figure shows a small
portion at the mouth of Matchedash Bay. The suitability maps are being combined with wetland maps,
maps identifying rare habitat features, and local knowledge of important fish habitats, to produce a
colour-coded nearshore map. Areas are coded red, yellow, or green according to their importance as fish
habitat. The colour scheme coordinates with a planning and development guidance document and the
combined product will be used in local and regional planning offices to province first-cut guidance and
direction for proposed development activities. Red areas have a higher fish biodiversity investment
values and the types and scope of developed allowed will be more restricted than in green areas. Green
areas are often sites where past neglect and ignorance led to a loss of habitat value and now represent
important sites for habitat enhancement or creation.
Table 4.1. Pearson correlation coefficients between Defensible Methods suitability indices and fish
community measure for standard survey transects in Severn Sound. [Values in bold-face are significant
at P=0.05 after Bonferroni correction.]
Defensible Methods Indices
Thermal Trophic Life Stage
Category Status
Warmwater
Coolwater
Coldwater
Non-
piscivores
Piseivores
Non-
piscivores
Piseivores
Non-
piscivores
Piseivores
Composite Index Score vs Total
Adult
YoY
Spawning
Adult
YoY
Spawning
Adult
YoY
Spawning
Adult
YoY
Spawning
Adult
YoY
Spawning
Adult
YoY
Spawning
Fish Variables
Fish Capture Variables
Species Density Biomass
Richness
0.249
0.389
0.171
0.162
0.208
0.172
0.449
0.456
0.244
0.120
0.152
0.127
Insufficient
0.383
0.522
0.265
0.142
0.198
0.139
0.428
0.460
0.183
0.133
0.159
0.243
0.389
0.180
0.144
0.182
0.157
0408
0374
0.250
0.100
0.122
0.136 0.107
Catch for Correlation
M
M
None Caught
M
0.396
if
0.442
0.319
18
•Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs 4- SOLEC 98
-------
Figure 4.1. Habitat suitability ratings compiled for yellow perch, Percaflavescens, by habitat attribute:
A) depth, B) substrate, and C) cover for each life stage. (Source: Lane et al. 1996 a,b,c).
A)
B)
C)
0-1 m 1-2m 2-5m 5-10m
10+m
jDSpavming Bursary • Adult I
III
r-i
I
|
-i
1
Bedrock Boulder Cobble Rubbe Gravel Sand SI day Hard-pan
DSpavining BNursery BAddt
Emergent Submergent Structure
DSapwning B Nursery • Adult]
SOLEC 98 4 BIAs - Aquaf/c Ecosystems-
None
19
-------
Figure 4.2. Aggregate use of habitat attributes A) depth, B) substrate, and C) cover by young-of-the-
year of all fish species using lacustrine habitat in the Great Lakes. (Source: Lane et al, 1996 a,b,c).
A)
B)
Percent of species
Ptrewit of •pecto
C)
Emergent
Submergent
Other
None
20
•Aquatic Ecosystems - B/As 4- SOLEC 98
-------
Figure 4.3. The matrix of combinations for the three habitat attributes, depth, substrate, and cover, used
to estimate suitability values for the adult life stage of Great Lakes fish species.
1 X2 X 3X 4x 5 X6X 7X 8X 9
SUBSTRATE
SOLEC 98 4- BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
21
-------
Figure 4.4. Graphs showing the relationships, and their statistical significance, between direct measures
of the fish community (A - density, B - biomass, and C - species richness per standard electrofishing
transect sample) composite habitat suitability index values obtained using the Defensible Methods
approach of Minns et al. (1995) for littoral areas in Severn Sound, Georgian Bay.
,«i«"""i
I
0.2
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Composite Suitability Index
0.2
0.4 0.6 0.8
Composite Suitability Index
0.4 0.6 0.8
Composite Suitability Index
22
•Aqucrfic Ecosystems - B/As + SOLEC 98
-------
Figure 4.5. Habitat suitability index maps based on Defensible Methods ratings of physical habitat
attributes without reference to thermal habitat for A) coldwater non-piscivorous fishes and B) walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) in the Canadian waters of Lake Erie.[Source: Minns and Bakelaar, 1998 in
press].
Cold Water
Non-Piscivore
Suitability
• high
• Medium
-10 0
50km
Walleye
Suitabilit
|Hgh
• Medium
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquof/c Ecosysfems-
23
-------
Figure 4.6. Habitat suitability maps based on Defensible Methods ratings of physical habitat attributes
without reference to thermal habitat for three life stages of northern pike, Esox lucius: A) spawning, B)
yoy or nursery, and C) adult in the Long Point region of Lake Erie.
A.
0 Suitability
<=50% Cumulative WSA
> 50% Cumulative WSA
B,
0 Suitability
<= 50% Cumulative WSA
> 50% Cumulative WSA
C.
0 Suitability
<= 50% Cumulative WSA
> 50% Cumulative WSA
24
•Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs 4- SOLEC 98
-------
Figure 4.7. Habitat suitability maps based on Defensible Methods ratings of physical habitat attributes
for part of Matehedash Bay, Severn Sound on Georgian Bay.
SUITABILITY
RED
YELLOW
GREEN
LAND
SOLEC 98 4- BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
25
-------
5. Status Indicators for ABIAs
Habitat Supply Analysis identifies areas within the Great Lakes that have the potential to support high
biodiversity. In actuality, these areas may not be supporting levels of biodiversity that equal their
potential. Consequently, the following schema has been proposed to classify ABIAs according to their
current level of production and biodiversity. These classifications are:
• Healthy ABIAs - These are ecosystem locations that are relatively intact and
functioning. Conservation efforts should be concentrated at these sites.
• Damaged ABIAs - These are locations that are damaged or degraded but that still retain
the inherent capacity to support biodiversity and ecosystem functions if stressors are
removed or ameliorated. Restoration efforts should be concentrated at these sites,
» Lost ABIAs - These are sites where past actions have led to their complete loss thereby,
eliminating important contributors to biodiversity maintenance. Creation efforts should
be directed to these sites where feasible.
» Missing ABIAs - These are sites where, because of their position in a sequence of
locations or their contiguity to other locations, enhancement of habitat features would
locally increase biodiversity and directly contribute to larger scale ABIA objectives.
Because of the high degree of connectivity among locations in aquatic ecosystems and the high level of
mobility of many of the target biodiversity elements, it is unlikely that there are any areas that are not to
some degree an ABIA. Thus within the four classes of ABIA, levels such as Low, Moderate, and High
will be needed to distinguish the degree of actual or potential biodiversity investment contribution
among locations (Table 5.1). Areas that are rated low may still be essential to the overall functioning of
the ecosystem even if the relative contribution to maintenance of biodiversity and natural productivity
appears to be low. For example, some locations may only be used on a transient basis as migration
corridors between other locations supporting functions such as reproduction, rearing, or foraging. Such
an ABIA classification scheme may have the most practical significance as a basis for priorizing
conservation, restoration, creation, and enhancement activities. Furthermore, this scheme should ensure
that no further loss or degradation of status in any ABIA occurs and, that necessary restoration, creation
and enhancement activities will be used to achieve gains in status for some ABIAs.
Implementation of this classification scheme requires that all locations be assigned a class and a status or
level. Various units can be used to quantify the coverage in each class by level combination. For
example, lengths of streams and rivers, lengths of shoreline, areas of lake or wetland, etc., can be used as
indicators. Change in class or level can be reported on a location specific basis or in aggregate for a
region, a whole lake basin, or for the Great Lakes basin as a whole.
In this classification scheme, given that habitat impairment has been identified in nearly all AOCs, those
candidate ABIAs identified in the survey would probably be classified as Damaged and then assigned
status on their relative biodiversity contribution in a local and regional context. Many of the coastal
wetlands, that have been lost to infilling, would be classified as Lost whereas other wetlands, that have
been cut off from the lakes by dyking, would classified as Damaged. In AOCs and other areas where
habitat creation has been undertaken, potential sites for islands and reefs might be classified as Missing
once the opportunity has been noted. Such a location may be withdrawn from a Damaged-Low
combination, banked as Missing-High while the means of effecting the changes are planned, and then re-
entered as Healthy-High once the enhancement activity has successfully occurred.
26 Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
Without a detailed analysis of habitat supply and effects on individual species, any assessment of status
of the ABIAs in the Great Lakes with these criteria is premature. However, it is possible to illustrate the
type of status assessment that will be possible by reviewing the contributions of the proposed framework
to existing evaluations of habitat status. In a recently completed assessment of the state of Lake Erie, the
Lake Erie Commission (1998) rated the aquatic habitat quality of Lake Erie shorelines and river mouths
within Ohio. Using a Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), they found that the overall shoreline
rated only fair on a scale of poor, fair, good, and excellent and that the overall score for river mouth
QHEI was poor (Tables 5.2 and 5.3).
Table 5.4 is a re-classification of the river mouth QHEI results using the proposed ABIA status classes.
All of the tributaries in Ohio fall into a degraded class. With finer analysis of habitat structures within
the tributaries, it becomes clear that there are some major losses of habitat (principally caused by dams
or shoreline hardening). These losses in specific locations result in the following assessment by the Lake
Erie Commission: "Currently, only three of nine lakeshore areas and two of the 11 river mouths possess
habitat suitable to support healthy biological communities." The contrast between the only two river
mouths that support healthy biological communities, namely the Grand River and Maumee River, is also
instructive. Unlike the Grand River, the Maumee River outlet is continuous with an extensive coastal
wetland complex that serves as a nursery area for river-run fish species such as walleye. While walleye
are known to spawn in both the Maumee and Grand Rivers, the Grand River is not a major contributor to
walleye recruitment in Lake Erie. The primary rivers are the Maumee and Sandusky. Despite its
degraded status, the Sandusky River because of its proximity to nursery area would thus be a prime
candidate for restoration efforts. The Grand River, in contrast, contributes less to lake-wide biodiversity
and productivity because nursery habitat is limited or missing entirely. The Grand River in Ohio,
therefore, would be a candidate for enhancement of missing habitat features.
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems 27
-------
Table 5.1. Hypothetical organization for the assessment of class, potential, and status based on
evaluation of habitat features conditions across spatial units, or locations.
Spatial
Units
Wetland
Reef
Bay
Reef
Stream
Etc.
Habitat features
1 2 3 4 ...
H M M H
H H H H ...
H L M H
M L M L
L L L H
IX
Anaysis
(HSA)
.»
-»
-*
-»
-»
>i>
Class Potential Status
Damaged High 60%
Healthy Medium 95%
Lost Medium 0%
Damaged Low 70%
Missing High 20%
in
Table 5.2. Average QHEI scores for Lake Erie shores with equivalent grade scores. Grades are A:
excellent, B: good; C: fair, and D: poor. Data courtesy of R. Thoma, Ohio EPA.
Lake Erie shoreline regions
Area
Lucus Co.
Ottawa Co.
Erie Co.
Lorain Co.
Cuyahoga
Co.
Lake Co.
Ashtabula
Co.
Sandusky
Bay
Lake Erie
Islands
Lake shore
average
QHEI
49.1
49.0
56.0
55.6
51.0
53.4
52.1
48.5
63.2
53.4
Grade
D
D
B
B
C
C
C
D
A
C
28
•Aquofic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
Table 5.3. Average QHEI scores for Lake Erie tributaries. Lacustuary scores with lacustuary habitat
grades, dam locations and miles of free flowing stream below dams. The overall tributary habitat grade
is also given. Tributary habitat grades are calculated using the lacustuary QHEI grade and the amount of
free flowing stream (below dams) that is available to spawning fish from Lake Erie. Grades are A:
excellent, B: good; C: fair, and D: poor. Data courtesy of R. Thoma, Ohio EPA.
River system
Maumme R.
Portage R.
Sandusky R.
Huron R.
Vermilion R.
Black R.
Cuyahoga R,
Chagrin R
Grand R.
Ashtabula R.
Conneaut Cr.
Average
Lacustuary
QHEI
50.9
54.2
43.6
52.1
48.0
49.9
34.0
53.7
52.4
48.2
41.0
47.2
Tributary
grade
C
C
D
C
D
D
F
C
C
D
D
D
Lacustuary
habitat
grade
B
D
F
D
C
C
D
D
B
C
C
D
Dam
location*
32.2
20.8
18.0
14.6
23.7
No dam
20.7
4.8
30.9
No dam
20.4
N/A
Miles of free
flowing
stream
below dam
17.4 mi.
5.8 mi.
2.3 mi.
4.3 mi.
21.8 mi.
N/A
13.9 mi.
3.4 mi.
26.7 mi.
N/A
18.9 mi.
N/A
* Dam location given as number of miles upstream of the confluence of the tributary with Lake Erie.
This distance includes the portion of river affected by Lake Erie water levels.
Table 5.4. ABIA status of river mouth habitats on the Ohio shore of Lake Erie, based on the results of
R. Thoma, Ohio EPA.
River system
Maumme R.
Portage R.
Sandusky R.
Huron R.
Vermilion R.
Black R.
Cuyahoga R.
Chagrin R
Grand R.
Ashtabula R.
Conneaut Cr.
Average
Lacustuary
habitat
grade
B
D
F
D
C
C
D
D
B
C
C
D
Miles of free
flowing
stream
below dam
17.4 mi.
5.8 mi.
2.3 mi.
4.3 mi.
21.8 mi.
N/A
13.9 mi.
3.4 mi.
26.7 mi.
N/A
18.9 mi.
N/A
ABIA Class
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
Degraded
SOLEC 98 4- BiAs - Aquaf/c Ecosystems-
29
-------
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
While this report is an interim report of a work-in-progress, it is already possible to drawn several
conclusions and make some recommendations that will affect how this work proceeds in preparation for
SOLEC 2000.
• Conceptual Framework:
» Accept that the terrestrial BIA scheme created for SOLEC 96 is not directly transferable
into an ABIA scheme because of key structural and functional differences between
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
» Recognize that the three axis model linking biodiversity, habitat attributes and spatial
units provides a strong basis for integrating ecosystem assessments and has many
potential applications when translated into an operational methodology.
* Surveying for Candidate ABIAs;
• Recognize the subjective nature of candidate areas identified by experts in a non-
quantitative context.
• Continue to gather candidate ABIAs recommended by experts around the Great Lakes
Basin as a means of clarifying the concept of ABIAs and as a test-bed for the
quantitative approach (HSA).
• Expand the scope of information gathered in the survey approach.
* Implement method of gathering survey data using an Internet web-site.
» Implement a semi-automated method for updating the candidate database and updating
the web-site.
• Habitat Supply Analysis:
» Complete the prototype application of the HSA approach for the Lake Erie Basin for fish
species assemblages using the aggregate Defensible Methods approach to suitability
modelling and compare the results with the survey-based candidate ABIAs.
* Carry through the development of habitat supply data for individual species using more
detailed suitability models and link the supply results via density dependent functions to
population models.
• Pursue analysis of contiguity issues arising for sequences of life stages within species
and for interaction between species in assemblages and communities.
• Status Indicators:
• Develop further the class, potential, status approach to indicators for ABIAs drawing on
the Lake Erie HSA to derive quantitative results and to identify habitat management
strategies.
30 Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
7. Acknowledgements
This work was undertaken with the support and encouragement of the Habitat Advisory Board of the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Financial contributions and equivalent support came from U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada. We especially want to note the continuing advice and encouragement given by Dr.
Kent Fuller with U.S. E.P.A and Dr. Harvey Shear with Environment Canada. We want to note the
assistance and support of members of the Lake Erie Committee and their Environmental Objectives task
group. We thank Roger Thoma with Ohio Environment Protection Agency for his help with the data and
advice. We want to recognize the contributions of Carolyn Bakelaar and Peter Brunette, GIS Consultants,
in the map- and web-related aspects of the project activities. Many other individuals and agencies have
assisted the project team with data and information acquisition. We thank all those in the Great Lakes
community who have responded to the request for candidate ABIAs, including those not yet incorporated
into the database and web-site.
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems 31
-------
8. References
8.1 Paper Publications
Arico, S. 1995. Report on international efforts in research, monitoring and capacity building in the field
of marine and coastal biological diversity. Ocean and Coastal Management. 29:329-335.
EPA, Environmental Protection Authority. 1997. NSW State of the Environment 1997. Environmental
Protection Authority, New South Wales, 799 Pacific Highway, P.O. Box 1135, Chatswood,
2057, Australia. Publication Number 131-555. Chapter 4.
Gray, J.S. 1997. Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodiversity and
Conservation. 6:153-175.
Kitchell, J. R, R. V. O'Neill, D. Webb, G. W. Gallepp, S. M. Bartell, J. F. Koonce, and B. S. Ausmus.
1979. Consumer regulation of nutrient cycling. Bioscience 29: 28-34.
Lammert, M., J. Higgins, M. Bryer, and D. Grossman. 1997. A Classification Framework for
Freshwater Communities: Proceedings of the Nature Conservancy's Aquatic community
Classification Workshop. New Haven, Missouri, April 9-11,1996. The Nature Conservancy.
Lyons, J.; Navarro-Perez, S.; Cochran, P.A.; Santana, E.G.; Guzman-Arroyo, M. 1995. Index of biotic
integrity based on fish assemblages for the conservation of streams and rivers in west central
Mexico. Conservation Biology.9:569-584.
Minns, C.K., Brunette, P.C.E., Randall, R.G., Stoneman, M., Sherman, K., Craig. R., and Portt, C.B. in
preparation. Development of a fish habitat classification model for littoral areas of Severn
Sound, Georgian Bay, a Great Lakes' Area of Concern. Can. MS Rep, Fish Aquat. Sci. 0000:00p.
Minns, C.K. and Bakelaar, C.N. 1998 in press. A method for quantifying the supply of suitable habitat
for fish stocks in Lake Erie. Aquat. Ecosystem Health and Managem. 1:000-000.
Minns, C.K., Doka, S.E., Bakelaar, C.N., Brunette, P.C.E., and Schertzer, W.M. 1998 in revision.
Identifying habitats essential for pike, Esox lucius L., in the Long Point region of Lake Erie: a
suitable supply approach. American Fisheries Society Symposium 00:000-000.
Minns, C.K., R.G. Randall, J.E. Moore, & V.W. Cairns. 1996. A model simulating the impact of habitat supply
limits on northern pike, Esox lucius, in Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
53(Suppl l):20-34
Minns, C.K., J.D. Meisner, J.E. Moore, L.A. Greig, & R.G. Randall. 1995. Defensible Methods for Pre-
and Post-Development Assessment of Fish Habitat in the Great Lakes. I. A prototype
methodology for headlands and offshore structures. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
2328:xiii+65p.
Noss, R. F.1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 4:355-
364.
Reid, W.V. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(7): 275-280.
32 Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs 4- SOLEC 98
-------
Reid, R. and Holland, K. 1997. The Land by the Lakes: Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems. Background
Paper for SOLEC 96. ISBN 0-662-25033-3,
Scott, J.M.; F. Davis; B. Csuti; R. Noss; B. Butterfield; C. Groves; H. Anderson; S. Caicco; F. D'Erchia;
T. Edward Jr; J. Ulliman; R. G. Wright. 1993. GAP Analysis: A geographic approach to
protection of biological diversity. Wildl. Monogr, 123:1-41.
Seelbach, P., M. J. Wiley, J. C. Kotanchik, and M. E, Baker. 1997. A landscape-based ecological
classification for river valley segments in lower Michigan (MI-VSEC Version 1.0), State of
Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division Research Report 2036.
Terrell, J. W., MeMahon, T. E., Inskip, P. D., Raleigh, R. F., and Williamson, K. W. 1982. Habitat
suitability index models: Appendix A. Guidelines for riverine and lacustrine applications offish
HSI models with the Habitat Evaluation Procedures. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish. Wildl, Serv.
FWS/OBS-82-10.A. 54p.
The Lake Erie Commission. 1998. State of Ohio, 1998 State of the Lake Report: The Lake Erie Quality
Index. Ohio Lake Erie Commission. Toledo, Ohio. 88 p.
The Nature Conservancy. 1994. The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes
Ecosystem: Issues and Opportunities. The Nature Conservancy. Chicago, IL. 118p,
UNCED. Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. Nairobi, 1992.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981, Standards for the development of habitat suitability
index models. 103 ESM. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish. Wildl. Serv., Div. Ecol. Serv. n.p.
U.S. Congress. 1987. Technologies to maintain biodiversity. Off. of Technol. Assessment, OTA-F-330.
U.S. Gov. Printing Off., Washington, D.C. 334pp.
8.2 Internet Web-site Publications
1.1 www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/nearterr/presentation
1.2 http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/
1.3 http ://mapping,usgs .gov/www/gnis/gnisform.html
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems 33
-------
9. Appendices
Appendix 1. English and French versions of the mail-out questionnaire for ABIA nominations.
SOLEC '98 Questionnaire to Identif
Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas in the Great Lakes Basin
Name:
Position:
Agency:
Address:
Great Lakes Basin unit(« SOLEC 98
-------
SOLEC'98 Questionnaire d'identification des
Zones d'lnvestissement dans la Biodiversite Aquatique
de la region des Grands Lacs
Norn:
Poste:
Agence:
Adresse:
T6l6phone:
T6Ieeopieur:
Adresse electronique:
> ? (Soyez aussi precis que possible):
E&ment dans le bassin des
Grands Lacs (Cochei-en une
seule):
Caracteristique principale
(Coehez-en 3 au
maximum):
Autres caract6ristiques de
I'endroit:
Lacs:
O Superieur
O Michigan
O Huron
O St. Glair
OErie
O Ontario
Rivieres:
O St. Mary's
O St. Clair
O Detroit
O Niagara
O Le Saint-
Laurent
O Affluent
O Marecages
O Recif frangeant
OBaie
O R6cif-barriere
O Pelagique O lle(s)
O Benthique
O Table de terre
O Littoral
Q Plage
Decrivez brievement.
Lists de contrdle (Cochez-en 3
au maximum):
Biodiversite' (nom):
Autres criteres:
O Biodiversiti 6iev§e
O Productivite 6lev6e
O Essentielle pour les especes
rares
O Essentielle pour les especes
commerciales
O Essentielle pour les especes
menacees
O Diversite elevie de I'habitat
O Caracteristiques rares de
I'habitat
O Importante valeur de rapports
Communaute:
De"crivez brievement..
Sous-communaut6:
Especes:
Stade(s) de
developpement:
Veuille TELECOPIER ou POSTER votre/vos reponse(s)a ['attention de: Dr. Heather Morrison,
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, DFO, BoTte Postale 5050, 867
Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6, CANADA.
Telephone: (905) 336-4497 Photocopieur: (905) 336-6437
Adresse electronique: morrison@dfo-mpo.ge.ca
N.B. Uncandidat par page. Envoyez plusieurs feuilles, agmfez-les si n&cessaire.
SOLEC 98 4- BIAs - Aquofic Ecosysfems-
35
-------
Appendix 2. Descriptions of sites within the Great Lakes basin that have been nominated as Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas (ABIAs)
as of August 31,1998,
Sitei
68
7
1
54
10
13
4
Site Name
Humbug Marsh
Grand River in
Ohio
Long Point
Mtumee River,
Maumee Bay and
coastal shorelands
Old Women
Creek Estuary
Point Pelee
National Park
Wetlands
Presque Isle Bay
and Associated
Wetlands
Watershed
Detroit River
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Location
Features
Tributary, Wetland
Tributary
Wetlands, Nearshore
Reef, Embayment
Tributary, Embayment,
Shorelands
Tributary, Wetlands,
Shorelands
Wetlands, Shorelands,
Beach
Wetlands, Embayment,
Beach
Attributes
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Rare Species, Critical for
Economically Important
Species, Critical for
Endangered Species, Rare
Habitat Features, High
Connectivity
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Rare Species
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Rare Species, Rare Habitat
Features
Critical for Economically
Important Species
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Rare Habitat
Features
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species, Critical
far Endangered Species
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species, Critical
for Endangered Species,
High Habitat Diversity,
Rare Habitat Features
Comments about Site
Last remnant Great Lakes coastal marsh on
the 32-mile Michigan shoreline of the
Detroit River,
Wild and scenic river in Ohio. Many fish
and freshwater mussel species.
The park is a RAMSAR International
Wetland. Point on N. shore of Lake Erie -
1 100 hectares of marsh plus barrier beaches
and associated uplands.
Sandspit arcs towards mainland to form
large, shallow embayment with aquatic
riant beds, emergent marsh, shallows,
leaches and mussel beds.
Comments about Attributes of Site
Migration route for the 117 species of fish that
inhabit the Great Lakes; for the 27 species of waterfowl
that frequent Michigan's coastal wetlands; the more
than 17 species of raptors, including eagles, hawks, and
falcons; the more than 48 species of non-raptors,
including loons, warblers, neotropical songbirds,
cranes, and cattle egrets, and numerous species of
butterflies that migrate annually from Canada to the
southern United States and South America.
The Grand River is under development pressure and
appears to be vulnerable to degradation from
urbanization.
This site supports one of the largest and most diverse
areas of aquatic vegetation in Lake Erie.
Reproductive habitats for the various walleye life
stages are linked by physical processes and function as
a unit. These habitats are critical/essential for walleye
reproduction and they exist no where else in space or
time for this stock.
This site is a state nature preserve and national
estuarine research reserve.
There is much literature supporting the importance of
this site to fish biodiversity.
This site supports rare species including the bowfin,
spotted gar, Iowa darter, lake sturgeon, eastern sand
darter and Great Lakes muskellunge. Furthermore, this
site supports approximately 20 species of freshwater
mussels and several rare fish species; productivity and
species diversity are high.
Experts
Dr. Bruce Manny
(U.S. Geological
Service)
Ms. Donna Myers
{U.S. Geological
Service)
Dr. Jim Sherry
(Environment
Canada); Dr.
Charles Minns
(Fisheries and
Oceans Canada)
Mr. David Davies
(Ohio Division of
Wildlife)
Dr. Rosanne
Fortner
(Ohio State Sea
Grant)
Mr. Bill
Stephens on
(Parks Canada)
Mr. Roger Kenyon
(Pennsylvania Fish
and Boat
Commission); Mr.
Charles Bier
(Western
Pennsylvania
Conservancy)
36
•Aquatic Ecosystems - BlAs 4- SOLEC 98
-------
Site*
58
64
53
57
63
11
56
Site Name
Rondeau Bay
Sandusky Bay
Sandusky River
and Sandusky Bay
Spooner Creek
St Clalr River
Delta/Lake St Clair
Sydenham Rivet
Tonawanda Creek
Watershed
Watershed
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Location
Features
Embay ment
Embayment, Pelagic
Tributary, Wetlands,
Embayment
Tributary
Wetlands, Embayment,
Shorelands, Islands
Tributary
Tributary
Attributes
High Productivity, High
Habitat Diversity
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, High
Connectivity
High Productivity
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Rare Habitat
Features, Critical for Rare
Species, High
Connectivity
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species, Critical
for Endangered Species,
Rare Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species
Comments about Site
Rare habitat in the Great Lakes. Area
supports high productivity of
phytoplankton.
This creek is the uppermost tributary to
Cattaraugus Creek, New York's largest Lake
Erie tributary, and is located just
downstream of the Springville Dam, which
forms an upstream barrier to anadromous
fish movements in Cattaraugus Creek. A
12.8 square mile watershed;
1.5% gradient; 14C - 15C mean Sept. temp.;
wild sthd. Population, approx 6000 YOY
per ha.; deep cut forested channel; spring
seeps
Submergent and emergent macrophytes.
Shallow, warm and productive waters.
Migratory route for valuable fish
populations from Lakes Erie and Huron.
Comments about Attributes of Site
Very important for sustaining walleye populations in
Lake Erie.
This land is privately owned and has limited public
access. Creek supports steelhead, darter, Cyprinidae,
sculpin.
One of the last remaining stretches of natural shoreline,
spawning and nursery ground for numerous fish
species. Most diverse native plant, vertebrate, and
invertebrate communites in Great Lakes.
The Sydenham River supports the richest fresh-
water mussel community in Canada including many
rare and endangered species of mussels. It also supports
other threatened and endangered species including the
spiny softshelled turtle, eastern sand darter. The river
should be declared an ecological preserve to protect its
rare Carolinian flora and fauna from intensifying
agricultural practices.
Experts
Mr. Jack Robinson
(Lower Thames
Valley County
Authority)
Dr. Robert Heath
(Kent State
University)
Mr. David Davies
(Ohio Division of
Wildlife)
Mr. Floyd
Cornelius (New
York State
Department of the
Environment)
Dr. Tim Johnson
(Ontario Ministry
of Natural
Resources); Dr.
Heather Morrison
(Aqualink); Mr,
Robert Haas
(Michigan
Department of
Natural Resources)
Dr. Janice Smith
(Environment
Canada); Ms.
Muriel Andreae
(St. Clair Region
Conservation
Authority)
Mrs. Kathryn
Schneider
(New York State
Department of the
Environment)
SOLEC 98 4- BIAs - Aquatic Ecosysfems-
37
-------
Site#
55
69
40
59
21
38
19
49
Site Name
Western Basin
Reef Complex
Baie du Dore
Big Sound Area -
Parry Sound
Bothwells' Creek
Dorans Bay
Fathom Five
National Marine
Park
Fishing Islands
North Shore of
Lake Huron from
vlackinac Straits to
International line
with Canada
Watershed
Erie
Huron
Huron
Huron
Huron
Huron
Huron
Huron
Location
Features
Offshore Reef,
Nearshore
Reef, Shorelands, Islands
Wetlands, Embayment,
Islands
Nearshore Reef,
Embayment, Islands
Tributary
Embayment
Nearshore Reef, Pelagic,
Islands
Offshore Reef
Wetlands, Nearshore
Reef, Embayment,
Shorelands, Islands
Attributes
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, High
Habitat Diversity, High
Connectivity
Critical for Rare Species,
High Habitat Diversity,
High Connectivity
High Biodiversity, Rare
Habitat Feateres
Critical for Economically
Important Species
High Biodiversity, Rare
Habitat Features
Critical for Economically
Important Species
HUgh Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species, Critical
"or Economically
Important Species, High
rlabitat Diversity, Rare
Habitat Features, High
Connectivity
Comments about Site
Physically complex structure; shallow,
warm productive waters; macrophyte beds
and diversity of substrate types. One of the
few remaining areas of high quality
nearshore habitat and biological
communities along Ohio's shoreline.
100 ha shallow coastal embayrnent and
wetland opening northwest into Lake
Huron, Underwood Creek Tributary is next
to Douglas Point which is an
Environmentally Sensitive Area and Scott
Point ANSO. The mean depth is 2-3m and
it contains an island and protective shoals.
This is the only fall/winter spawning
ground of rainbow trout in Ontario, The
gene pool of this population of rainbow
trout is significantly different from the rest
of the RT populations in the lake.
This area is characterized by embayments,
wetlands, nearshore communities, bird
colonies, open water.
This area is characterized by die abundance
of sand shoals.
Composed of Niagara Escarpment, reef,
.sland and sheltered waters. This
escarpment is key to lake trout
rehabilitation - historically 68% of
spawning lake trout from MI waters were
from here. Lake herring a state threatened
species is also common here.
Comments about Attributes of Site
This site provides spawning and nursery grounds
for many fish species. Little undisturbed shoreline on
mainland. Considerable habitat loss following
colonization by zebra mussels. There is much literature
supporting the importance of this site to fish
biodiversity.
Provincially significant class 2 wetland, 24 vegetation
communities, 50% marsh, 46% fen, 4% swamp.
Nursery, spawning, feeding migratory habitat for at
least 50 species of fish. Breeding & feeding habitat for
provincially significant waterfowl, birds, reptiles, and
amphibians. More than 150 species of plants. Unique
coastal habitat in eastern shore south to Sarnia.
Only area outside of Lake Superior with significant
natural reproduction of remnant lake trout.
Unique temperature regime because water flows from
underground springs and maintains a temperature of
4C-7C in the winter. The warm temperature induces
native lake trout to spawn in Nov-Feb period, 2-3
months before spawning period.
This site provides whiteflsh habitat.
Protected area. This area is 120 km2 national marine
jroteeted area. It is part of the Niagara Escarpment
World Biosphere Reserve. Already the park has played
an important role in focussing research and study in a
relatively undisturbed area.
This site provides whitefish habitat.
Nesting for shore birds in Les Cheneux Islands. Islands
used by cormorants, terns, gulls, & variety of other
birds.
Experts
Mr. David Davies
(Ohio Division of
Wildlife); Dr. Tim
Johnson (Ontario
Ministry of Natural
Resources; Dr.
Jeffrey Busch
(Ohio Lake Erie
Office)
Mr. Don Wismer
(Ontario Hydro)
Mr. John
Fizsimons
(Department of
Fisheries and
Oceans)
Mr. Doug Dodge
(Ontario Ministry
of Natural
Resources)
Ms. Ann Brindle
(Grey Sauble
Conservation
Authority)
Mr. Scott Parker
(Parks Canada)
Ms, Ann Brindle
(Grey Sauble
Conservation
Authority)
Mr, James Johnson
[Michigan
Department of
Natural Resources)
38
•Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs 4- SOLEC 98
-------
Site*
39
20
22
62
IS
9
74
6
26
Site Name
Saginaw Bay
Sauble Beach
Tank Range
(near Meaford)
Clay valleys'
troughs off Black/
Kintzele Ditch
Bight Inland lakes
of north western
lower Michigan
Embayment South
of Little Tail Point,
located NW of
Green Bay
on Green Bay
Fischer Creek
Grand River
System
Grand Traverse
Bay
Watershed
Huron
Huron
Huron
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Location
Features
Tributary, Wetlands,
Nearshore Reef,
Embayment
Beach
Shorelands
Offshore Reef
Profundal
Embayment
Tributary, Wetlands,
Shorelands
Tributary, Wetlands,
Islands
Nearshore Reef,
Offshore
Reef, Shorelands
Attributes
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, High Habitat
Diversity, Critical for
Economically Important
Species
Critical for Economically
Important Species
Critical for Economically
Important Species
Rare Habitat Features
Critical for Rare Species,
Rate Habitat Features
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, High
Connectivity
Critical for Economically
Important Species, High
Connectivity
Comments about Site
Saginaw Bay offers a huge variety of
habitat types such as very large stands of
emergent grass wetlands and nearshore
rocky bottom mat are highly productive and
which support a rich and diverse flora and
fauna.
Provides whitefish habitat.
Area offers extremely unique habitat of clay
troughs ranging from 5-6 foot in height in
water ranging from 15 to 30 ft. This differs
from the typical sand-bottom of the lake.
Deep coldwater lakes.
State Forest
Relatively undeveloped shoreline. At
least twenty miles of me upstream
watershed are protected.
Comments about Attributes of Site
Saginaw Bay supports a rich flora and fauna through
high rates of primary productivity and very protected
shallow waters along with emergent grasses. Saginaw
Bay and tributaries support extremely valuable sport
fisheries for a variety of species, principally yellow
perch and a recovering walleye population. The bay
also supports a commercial fishery for whitefish,
yellow perch and other species.
Ms. Ann Brindle
(Grey Sauble Conservation Authority)
Provides whitefish habitat.
This site supports many coldwater stenotherms.
The area south of Little Tail Point on Green Bay
consistently has the highest abundance of YOY yellow
perch in southern Green Bay.
Provides habitat for warm and cold water species.
Provides drinking water for communities.
This site provides critical linkage to Grand Traverse
Bay watershed.
Experts
Dr. Dave Fielder
(Michigan
Department of
Natural
Resources); Dr.
Russell Moll
(Michigan Sea
Grant); Mr, James
Baker (Michigan
Department of
Natural Resources)
Ms. Ann Brindle
(Grey Sauble
Conservation
Authority)
Mr. Janel Palla
(Indiana
Department of
Natural Resources)
Dr. Daniel Mazur
(U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency)
Mr. Brian
Belonger
(Wisconsin
Department of
Natural Resources)
Mr. Tom
Herschelman
58
Dr. Richard
Schorfhaar
(Michigan
Department of
Natural
Resources); Mr.
John McKinney
(Michigan Sea
Grant Program)
SOLEC 98 + BIAs - Aquatic Ecosystems-
39
-------
SIte#
60
35
61
27
42
12
24
14
Site Name
Hammond Marina
Little Bay de Noc
from the mouth of
the Whitefish
River to the mouth
of the Ford River
NIPSCODean
Mitchell
Generating
Station
St Joseph River
Thomberry, or
Crooked Creek
Wetland and
tributary stream
complex on the
western shore of
Green Bay in
Marinette, Oconto,
Brown and
Shawano counties
(Western Shore
Coastal Zone)
Wetland located
within the Illinois
Beach State Park.
Wolf River system
within the
Menominee Indian
Reserve
Watershed
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Location
Features
Embayment
Etnbayment
Nearshore Reef
Tributary
Tributary
Wetlands, Tributaries
Wetlands, Shorelands,
Beach
Tributary, Shorelands
Attributes
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Economically Important
Species
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity
High Biodiversity, Rare
Habitat Features
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species, Critical
for Endangered Species,
High Habitat Diversity,
Rare Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Rare Species, Critical for
Economically Important
Species, Critical for
Endangered Species, High
Habitat Diversity
Comments about Site
Marina protected by rip-rap shoreline.
L.B. de Noc is approx, 34000 acres. It has 3
large tributary rivers and 4 smaller streams.
It supports an important walleye sport
fishery and a commercial fishery for
whitefish. It is also an area of high
biodiversity.
Heated discharge outlet of Generating
station.
Site is a gravel-sand bottomed cool water
stream flowing into Green Bay. This unique
habitat supports one of the only inland
brook trout population in Brown County,
WI.
This area is a complex of interconnected
tributary streams and pooled wetlands. They
account for most of the wetlands associated
with the Green Bay aquatic ecosystem.
Range from inter-seichal to inland pooled
wetlands
This site is characterized by young done
swale topography of the sandy bed of
ancient glacial Lake Chicago along the
present shore of Lake Michigan.
The Wolf River is located within the
Menominee Reservation. Internationally
icnown for the productive sustained yeild
forest
Comments about Attributes of Site
Inside/outside (around marina) possess diverse/
productive fish populations such as smaltaouth bass;
largemouth bass; various sunfish species; rock bass;
carp; freshwater drum; johnny darters; shiners; alewife
(etc.) in addition to the trout, salmon and yellow perch.
Concentrate trout and salmon species during
winter/early spring months. Supports a great number of
other species throughout the year.
An extremely degraded but previously valuable
tributary.
Nursery area for self sustaining inland brook trout
population. Cooperative investigations between Oneida
nation and USFWS and USGS.
The entire western shore consists of wetland complexes
associated with uplands in some areas. Some specific
wetland systems produce in excess of 20,000 northern
pike/per acre.
Communities on the parallel ridges and swales illustrate
primary dune succession on progressively older, ancient
lakeshore line inward from Lake Michigan.
The Wolf River is listed as a wild and scenic river
within the Menominee Reservation.
Experts
Mr. Janel Palla
(Indiana
Department of
Natural Resources)
Mr. Dell Sites
(Michigan DNR)
Mr. Janel Palla
(Indiana
Department of
Natural Resources)
Mr. Al Smith
(Friends of the St.
Joe River
Association Inc.)
Mr. John Koss
(Oneida Nation)
Mr. Richard Rost
(Wisconsin
Departmetn of
Natural Resources)
Mr. Kirby Cottrell
(Illinois
Department of
Natural Resources)
Mr. Douglas Cox
(Menominee
Indian Tribe)
40
-Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
-------
Site#
43
32
33
5
51
52
2
15
50
25
8
Site Name
Klydel Wetland
Black River
draining into
Prince
Edward Bay
Cootes
Paradise and
Hamilton
Harbor
Credit River and
adjacent waters
of Lake Ontario
Oanaraska River
Greater Cataraqui
Marsh
Humber Bay
Marshes
Sandy Creek
Estuary
Wilmot Creek
Dickerson Island
St. Lawrence
River
Watershed
Niagara River
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
St. Lawrence
St. Lawrence
Location
Features
Wetlands
Tributary, Wetlands
Wetlands, Embayment
Tributary
Tributary, Wetlands,
Shorelands
Wetlands
Wetlands
Tributary, Wetlands,
Shorelands
Tributary, Wetlands,
Shorelands
Islands
Wetlands, Embayment,
Shorelands
Attributes
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Rare Habitat
Features, High
Connectivity
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, High
Connectivity
Critical for Rare Species,
Critical for Endangered
Species
High Productivity, Critical
for Rare Species, High
Habitat Diversity
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species
High Productivity, High
Habitat Diversity, High
Connectivity
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, High
Habitat Diversity
High Productivity, Critical
for Rare Species, High
Habitat Diversity
High Biodiversity, Rare
Habitat Features
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, Rare
Habitat Features
Comments about Site
This wetland was originally 102 acres
but only 60-70 acres remain. Desperately
needs protection from illegal development
and threatened development.
Lengthy low relief tributary with extensive
emergent/submergent vegetation. Somewhat
degraded due to agricultural land use.
Undergoing restoration. Surrounded by
urbanization and upstream agricultural
stresses.
Headwaters to Oak Ridges
moraine.Provides a diversity of habitat to
support productive fish populations
Large cattail marsh.
Well developed wetland in an urban setting.
Eastern Lake Ontario estuary complex.
Migratory route for economic important
species such as the american eel. It is also
growth habitat for eel.
Comments about Attributes of Site
Endangered wetland in urban setting. Wetland is
being used as a nature area for environmental education
on the 93 acres that is owned by North Tonawanda
School District. We're trying to save the rest.
Critical part of a sequence of connected streams,
wetland, bay, open lake, shore areas and open lake
pelagic.
OMNR project to restore the watershed, Atlantic
salmon are native to the stream.
Mrs. Heather Conroy
(Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority)
Important recreational and educational value. Active
feeding site for colonial waterbirds and wading birds.
There is a presence of fur bearing mammals and
seasonal fish spawning. Fish found in the area include
rainbow trout, rainbow smelt, white sucker, lake trout
and shad.
Justaposition of stream, marsh, dune, shoreland, forest
and agricultural crops.
Provides a diversity of fish habitat suitable for
many species, including atlantic salmon, supports large
rainbow trout population
Main nursery and migratory habitat for eels that are the
basis of a commercial fishery - also member of the
predatory fish community.
Experts
Mrs. Elizabeth
Kaszubski
(Citizens for a
Green North
Tonawanda)
Dr. Charles Minns
(Fisheries and
Oceans Canada)
Dr. Charles Minns
(Fisheries and
Oceans Canada)
Dr. David Noakes
(University of
Guelph)
Mr. Chip Weseloh
(Canadian Wildlife
Service)
Mr. C. Gonsalves
(Emery Creek
Environmental
Association)
Mr. R. Smardor
(Great Lakes
Research
Consortium)
Mrs. Heather
Conroy
{Ganaraska Region
Conservation
Authority)
Mr. Henry Lickers
(Mohawk Council
of Akwesashe)
Dr. Peter Hodson
(Queen's
University)
SOLEC 98 + BlAs - Aquofic Ecosystems-
41
-------
Site#
73
36
30
44
29
72
17
47
46
45
Site Name
St. Marys River
Allouez Bay
Wetland and
Kakagon/Bad
River Slough
Complex
Batchawana Bay
Big Bay Reef
Black Bay
Caribou Island
Reef Complex
Chequamegon
Bay South End
Eagle River
Shoals
toon Islands
rluron River Reef
Watershed
St Marys
Superior
Superior
Superior
Superior
SuperiorOffshor
eReef
Superior
Superior
Superior
Superior
Location
Features
Wetlands, Nearshore
Reef, Islands
Wetlands, Embayment,
Shorelands
Tributary, Wetlands,
Embayment
Nearshore Reef,
Offshore
Reef
Tributary, Wetlands,
Embayment
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, High
Habitat Diversity
Tributary, Wetlands,
Beach
Offshore Reef
Offshore Reef, Islands
Sfearshore Reef,
Shorelands
Attributes
High Biodiversity, High
Habitat Diversity, High
Connectivity
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Rare Species
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, Critical
for Endangered Species
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Economically Important
Species
The most variation in
depth of any area of Lake
Superior
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, High
Connectivity
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, Rare
Habitat Features
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, High
Habitat Diversity
High Productivity,
Critically for
Economically Important
Species, Rare Habitat
Features
Comments about Site
The St. Marys offers not only a variety of
habitat but also some unique environmental
conditions.
North shore of Lake Superior between
Thunder Bay and Nipigon Bay.
Community is pelagic and benthic with the
most
abundant populations of bumper and
siscowet lake trout in Lake Superior,
Associated species include sculpins, burbot,
and coregonines.
Groundwater upwelling.
4 mile long reef.
Small island complex surrounded by flats.
ylost productive spawning reef inside
Keweenaw Bay.
Comments about Attributes of Site
The river offers a blend of many habitat types.
Extensive fringing wetlands, much lost to shore-
line development, diverse aquatic community and
diverse shoreline habitat.
Most productive bay on Lake Superior, wide
range of species, extensive fringe wetlands.
Mr. James Peck
(Michigan Department Natural Resources)
Wetlands important for migratory birds and cool water
fishes. Ground water fed tributaries important for lake
trout and salmon.
This site contains critical whitefish and herring habitat
within management unit Ml-3.
One of only a few lake trout spawning reefs in
management unit Ml-4
Experts
Dr. Dave Fielder
(Michigan
Department
Natural Resources)
Mr. John Brazner
(U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency)
Mr. Ed Iwachewski
(Ontario Ministry
of Natural
Resources)
Mr. Mike Donofrio
(Keweenaw Bay
Indian
Community)
Mr. Ed Iwachewski
(Ontario Ministry
of Natural
Resources)
Mr. Thomas
Busjahn (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife
Service)
Mr. Mike Donofrio
(Keweenaw Bay
Indian
Community)
Mr. Mike Donofrio
(Keweenaw Bay
Indian
Community)
Mr. Mike Donofrio
(Keweenaw Bay
Indian
Community)
42
•Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs 4 SOLEC 98
-------
Site#
71
28
48
3
66
67
31
34
Site Name
Isle Royale,
Nearshore Waters
Kaministiquia
River
Manitou Island
Nipigon River/
Nipigon Bay
Otter Cove,
Pukaskwa National
Park
St. Louis River
Thunder Bay
Traverse Island
Reef
Watershed
Superior
Superior
Superior
Superior
Superior
Superior
Superior
Superior
Location
Features
Nearshore Reef,
Embayment, Islands
Tributary
Nearshore Reef, Islands
Tributary, Embayment
Tributary, Wetlands,
Embayment
Tributary, Wetlands,
Embayment
Tributary, Wetlands,
Nearshore Reef,
Embayment, Shorelands,
Pelagic
Offshore Reef
Attributes
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species, High
Habitat Diversity
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Critical for
Rare Species
Critical for Rare Species,
Critical for Economically
Important Species, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity, Critical
for Rare Species, Critical
for Economically
Important Species
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Rare Habitat
Features
High Productivity, Critical
for Rare Species, Critical
for Endangered Species
Rare Habitat Features,
High Biodiversity, Rare
Habitat Features
High Productivity, Critical
for Economically
Important Species, High
Habitat Diversity
Comments about Site
Location corresponds to boundaries of Isle
Royale National Park,
Flows through the city of Thunder Bay into
Lake Superior.
A large island surrounded by a shallow reef.
Cove of Lake Superior; rare feature on
North shore of Superior; wetland present
which is rare in this area.
Large commercial harbor; area of concern;
Ugh value habitat; largest US tributary to
Lake Superior.
Some of the last remaining Great Lakes
shoreline wetland habitat. Area has many
shipwrecks that provide habitat for fish.
1/2 mile long natural spawning reef for lake
trout.
Comments about Attributes of Site
This ABIA contains the only self-sustaining population
of coaster brook trout in Michigan waters. Nearshore
waters contain populations of humper, sisconet, and
lean lake trout unique to the Great Lakes.
47 km from lake up to first barrier, most diverse fish
community on Canadian side of Lake Superior, self
sustaining population of Lake Sturgeon.
This site contains spawning and nursery habitat critical
to lake trout, whitefish, and herring.
River has a high biodiversity of fish species and a
remnant population of brook trout This is the last
refuge for coaster brook trout. It also supports a
recovering lake sturgeon and walleye population. It is
the largest tributary to Lake Superior.
These wetlands are a very rare feature on north
shore of Superior.
Common tern nesting site; walleye spawning area for
western Lake Superior; sturgeon restoration; significant
remaining wetlands.
This site should be considered a marine sanctuary.
This site has a variety of clean boulder and rock habitat
in a pollution free zone, with little human activity.
Experts
Mr. James Peck
(Michigan
Department
Natural Resources)
Mr. Ed Iwachewski
(Ontario Ministry
of Natural
Resources); Mr.
Bob Thomson
(Ontario Ministry
of Natural
Resources)
Mr. Mike Donofrio
(Keweenaw Bay
Indian
Community)
Mr. Bob Thomson
(Ontario Ministry
of Natural
Resources); Mr. Ed
Iwachewski
(Ontario Ministry
of Natural
Resources)
Mr. Frank Burrows
(Canadian Heritage
Parks Canada)
Ms. Karen Plass
(St. Louis River
Citizens Action
Community)
Dr. Dave Fielder
(Michigan
Department of
Natural
Resources); Mr.
Alfred Beeton
(Great Lakes
Research
Laboratory)
Mr. Mike Jonofrio
(Keweenaw Bay
Indian
Community)
SOLEC 98 4- BIAs -Aquatic Ecosystems-
43
-------
Sitei
65
70
Site Name
White River,
Pukaskwa
National
Park
WhitUesey Creek
Watershed - Bad
River Watershed
Watershed
Superior
Superior
Location
Features
Tributary
Tributary, Wetlands
Attributes
High Biodiversity, High
Productivity, Rare
Habitat Features
High Biodiversity,
Critical for Rare Species,
Critical for
Economically Important
Species, Critical for
Endangered Species,
High Habitat Diversity,
Rare Habitat Features,
High Connectivity
Comments about Site
Very productive river for Lake Superior
region.
Comments about Attributes of Site
Rare river habitat for area.
Experts
Mr. Frank
Burrows
(Canadian
Heritage Parks
Canada)
Mrs. Laura Day
(National Wildlife
Federation)
44
•Aquatic Ecosystems - BIAs + SOLEC 98
------- |