Coastal wetland indicators report to the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium ASSESSMENT OF 2002 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS INDICATOR DATA Presented to The Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium By Marci Meixler Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 [email protected] With assistance from Mark Bain, Joel Ingram, Don Uzarski, Ferenc de Szalay, Steve Timmermans, and Doug Wilcox November 2005 1 Coastal wetland indicators report to the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 6 Objectives............................................................................................................ 7 DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................ 8 Site selection ....................................................................................................... 8 Indicator sampling............................................................................................... 9 IBI development................................................................................................ 12 INDICATOR EVALUATION................................................................................ 14 Cost.................................................................................................................... 15 Measurability..................................................................................................... 20 Availability of complementary existing research or data.................................. 34 Indicator sensitivity to wetland condition changes ........................................... 40 Ability to set endpoint or attainment levels ......................................................49 OVERALL INDICATOR SCORING AND OPTIMIZATION SCENARIOS ........... 52 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................... 55 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 57 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. 58 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 59 APPENDICES.................................................................................................... 66 Appendix A. Name, location and wetland classification of 60 Great Lakes coastal wetland sites.......................................................................................... 67 Appendix B. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) ....................................... 69 Appendix C. The use of snapping turtle eggs as an indicator of contaminant exposure in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence basin.......... 108 2 Coastal wetland indicators report to the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Sampling locations for the six project teams.................................................. 9 3 Coastal wetland indicators report to the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Project codes and sampling location information for six project teams........... 8 TABLE 2. Indicators sampled by project teams during summer 2002............................ 11 TABLE 3. Expense ($US), effort (person-hours), and labor (number of personnel) estimates from 2002 sampling of indicators in Great Lakes wetlands. Expense estimates are on a per wetland basis; effort and labor estimates are on a per net/transect/visit basis. Expenses for CALO and CALE were converted to US dollars. Travel time not included............................................................................... 18 TABLE 4. Scoring of indicators for cost. Higher scores indicate lower labor, effort, and expense requirements. ............................................................................................... 19 TABLE 5. Scoring of indicators for measurability. Higher scores indicate greater measurability. ............................................................................................................ 28 TABLE 6. Scoring of indicators for basin-wide applicability of sampling by wetland type. Higher scores indicate greater applicability. ................................................... 33 TABLE 7. Scoring of indicators for availability of complementary data. Higher scores indicate more availability of complementary data. ................................................... 39 TABLE 8. Scoring of indicator sensitivity to wetland condition changes. Higher scores indicate greater sensitivity......................................................................................... 48 TABLE 9. Scoring of ability to set endpoint or attainment levels. Higher scores indicate increased ability to set endpoints. ............................................................................. 51 TABLE 10. Overall scores for each indicator. Higher scores are more desirable. ......... 52 TABLE 11. Optimization scenarios for cost, time, and indicator sensitivity. Higher scores indicate better optimization............................................................................ 54 4 Coastal wetland indicators report to the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The overall goal of the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium (GLCWC) is to develop a basin-wide biological monitoring program for Great Lakes coastal wetlands that can report on wetland health as it pertains to anthropogenic disturbance. This initiative evolved from State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) and the recognized need for bi-national reporting on Great Lakes ecosystem health. In an effort to begin evaluation of indicators of wetland degradation, six teams of investigators collected data on fish, macroinvertebrates, birds, amphibians, vegetation, water chemistry, and landscape attributes in 2002. All investigators agreed to collect the same flora, fauna, physical, and landscape level data using standardized protocols. This report furthers the development of a long-term, bi-national coastal wetland monitoring program by compiling the results of the six teams and evaluating the degree to which each of the indicators can be used to diagnose wetlands status across the basin. Each indicator was evaluated in terms of: cost, measurability, basin-wide applicability of sampling by wetland type, availability of complementary existing research or data, indicator sensitivity to wetland condition changes, and ability to set endpoint or attainment levels. Three combinations of indicators were recommended based on cost, time, and sensitivity optimization. Based on overall indicator evaluation, we recommend that monitoring programs sample water chemistry, fish, macroinvertebrates, and landscape attributes as these indicators have the highest degree of sensitivity, applicability, measurability and complementary data availability for the lowest cost. If only biological monitoring is to be completed, we recommend fish and macroinvertebrates be considered for inclusion in a bio-monitoring program. 5 Coastal wetland indicators report to the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium INTRODUCTION Wetlands are important, highly productive natural systems in the Great Lakes basin as they serve a variety of valuable functions including flood control (Thibodeau and Ostro 1981, Maynard and Wilcox 1997), groundwater filtering and recharge (Maynard and Wilcox 1997), nutrient uptake (Mitsch et al. 1979, Whigham et al. 1988, Johnston 1991), shoreline stabilization (Wang et al. 1997), water quality improvement (Maynard and Wilcox 1997), structural habitat diversity (Jude and Pappas 1992, Brazner and Beals 1997), food chain production (Maynard and Wilcox 1997), and erosion control (Maynard and Wilcox 1997). Further, wetlands exhibit exceptional biodiversity due to their varied structural habitats (Jude and Pappas 1992, Randall et al. 1996, Brazner and Beals 1997). Hundreds of species of common and rare macroinvertebrates, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals inhabit coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes. Additionally, wetlands provide important breeding habitat for macroinvertebrates (Batzer et al.1999), fish (Feierabend and Zelazny 1987), amphibians, birds (Wharton et al. 1982, Gibbs 1993) and mammals (Gibbs 1993). As sites of natural integrity and ecosystem function, wetlands are inherently valuable components of the region’s landscape (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Despite the benefits wetlands provide, Great Lakes coastal wetlands continue to be threatened (Maynard and Wilcox 1997). Currently coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes are estimated to cover an area of approximately 1200 km2 (Herdendorf et al. 1981, Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). This reflects a 60-80% loss in wetland area since European settlement due largely to agricultural practices, land filling, and residential/industrial development (Whillans 1982, Jude and Pappas 1992, Comer et al. 1995). Further, no current system is in place to consistently measure or monitor the status of coastal wetlands either in terms of wetland loss or degradation. Concerned