|
Great Lakes
Article:
Restoring America’s Estuaries –
A National Strategy to Restore Estuarine Habitat
CHAPTER IV – REGIONAL SUMMARIES OF
ESTUARINE HABITAT RESTORATION PLANNING
Part 6 – Great Lakes
Executive Summary
Estuarine Systems of the Great Lakes
Situated on the mid-western
border between the United States and Canada, the Great
Lakes is the world's largest system of fresh surface water,
containing nearly 95% of the United States' supply and
20% of the global supply. Covering a surface area of 94,250
square miles and having nearly 5,500 cubic miles of water,
the total U.S.-Canadian shoreline measures 10,210 miles,
including islands and connecting channels (excluding the
St. Lawrence River) (GLNPO, 1988). Of that figure, approximately
half of the Great Lakes shoreline occurs in Canada and
the other half in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.
For the purposes of this
discussion, the term estuary includes near coastal waters
and wetlands of the Great Lakes that are similar in form
and function to estuaries (Section 103(2) Estuary Restoration
Act of 2000). Great Lakes estuaries and coastal wetlands
play a critical role in the productivity of the lake system.
These habitats differ from inland wetlands due to the
influence of large-lake processes, including waves, wind-driven
tides (seiches), and especially the seasonal and long-term
fluctuations of Great Lakes water levels (Wilcox and Maynard,
1996).
Although activities on
both the Canadian and U.S. shorelines of the Great Lakes
influence coastal wetlands, and there are substantial
coastal wetland ecosystems on the Canadian side, this
discussion is limited to the U.S. shoreline of the Great
Lakes (Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario)
and their connecting waters (St. Mary’s River, St. Clair
River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, Niagara River, and
St. Lawrence River to the Quebec border).
Estuarine Habitats
Great Lakes estuarine systems support diverse
and highly productive wetland habitats, including: marshes,
shallow open water, mud flats, swamps, wet meadows, fens,
and bogs. Nearshore terrestrial ecosystems include alvars,
beach (with a variety of substrates ranging from rock
to cobble to sand), dune and swale complexes, and forests.
These ecologically significant habitats provide food,
shelter, and nursery areas for a variety of fish, invertebrates,
birds, reptiles, and mammals. Because of the unique formation
of these ecosystems (due to large freshwater lake influences),
many of these habitats are considered globally rare. Likewise,
they are host to a suite of rare, threatened, or endangered
species, including the bald eagle, northern copperbelly
water snake, piping plover, black tern, Pitcher’s thistle,
Houghton’s goldenrod, dwarf-lake iris, and the Lake Huron
locust.
Links to Our Communities
Estuarine systems served as the focal point
for settlement of the Great Lakes region by Native Americans
and Europeans. Historically, due to the ecological functions
they provide, estuaries have been preferred as human habitat,
and today they are linked inextricably to our economy
and our quality of life. The commercial success and the
economic importance to the country of cities like Duluth,
Green Bay, and Detroit relate directly to the ecological
functions that estuaries provide. Today, coastal wetland
systems contribute to residential, recreational, commercial,
agricultural, and industrial activities. Habitat and water-dependent
activities such as fishing, hunting, tourism, shipping,
energy production, and agriculture have affected the very
resources on which they depend. Throughout the Great Lakes
Basin, these human activities have resulted in the substantial
loss of coastal wetland habitats and the valuable ecological
functions they perform.
Loss of Habitat
In addition to the different geological and climatic
factors influencing each lake, unstable and unpredictable
natural processes such as fluctuating lake levels, storms,
ice, and sediment erosion and deposition influence wetland
formation and processes. However, because the flora and
fauna of Great Lakes estuaries have adapted to the dynamic
nature of the coastal ecosystem, long-term habitat loss
from natural forces have been minimal. In fact, stressors
such as fluctuating Great Lakes levels contribute to a
greater diversity and interspersion of habitats within
Great Lakes estuaries.
However, anthropogenic processes have resulted
in substantial losses of habitat. Filling, draining, and
development have resulted in the direct loss of coastal
wetland systems throughout the Great Lakes. Impacts have
been most severe where development and industrial activity
are greatest. For example, since European settlement of
Ohio’s portion of the Lake Erie watershed, over 90% of
coastal wetlands have been drained for agriculture, filled
for development, dredged for navigation, or converted
to some other use (Ohio Lake Erie Commission, 2000). In
the Michigan counties surrounding Detroit and in Saginaw
Bay, losses of marshland average 95% (Comer, 1996).
In addition to this historic loss of habitat,
coastal wetland systems continue to be degraded by ongoing
dredging and filling, mechanical removal of shoreland
vegetation, exotic species, toxic loading from past and
present industrial discharge, polluted stormwater runoff,
and accidental discharge of sewage from combined sewage
overflows. In addition to reduced populations of fish
and wildlife, this ongoing legacy of abuse results in
health advisories warning against eating contaminated
fish and numerous beach closings each summer.
Current Restoration Efforts
From the St. Louis River estuary on Lake
Superior’s west coast to the St. Lawrence coastal wetlands
on the northeast coast of Lake Ontario, planning and restoration
efforts are underway to protect and restore the health
of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. A variety of federal,
regional, and state plans address habitat restoration
issues, and local entities, including governments and
conservation organizations, are participating in successful
restoration planning efforts. Additionally, there are
many coastal wetland areas that have been researched and
inventoried, or identified as needing restoration, but
have yet to undergo formal restoration or management planning.
Among existing plans, common themes emerge
regarding the habitat, planning, and information needs
essential for effective restoration of coastal wetland
structure and function. Current approaches for restoring
Great Lakes coastal wetlands include hydrologic remediation
(restoration of hydrologic connections to fluctuating
lake levels and seiches), sedimentological remediation
(to restore natural littoral processes impacted by anthropogenic
shoreline modification), chemical remediation (to address
former and ongoing toxic loading), and biological remediation
(to curtail invasion by aggressive native and exotic species
and/or restore populations of native species) (Wilcox
and Whillans, 1999).
It is important to note that the Great Lakes
function as one ecosystem. Efforts on the Canadian side
to restore degraded wetlands have been significant and
not only serve as models for estuarine restoration, but
will help to address some of the ecosystem-wide perturbations
that have resulted from large-scale coastal wetland loss
and degradation.
Planning Needs
Certain elements of successful estuarine
restoration planning, consistent with RAE’s Principles
of Restoration document, are identified in almost
all of the Great Lakes coastal wetland planning efforts.
These include working at the watershed level, involving
a broad range of stakeholders (from citizens to the scientific
community) in the assessment and planning process, and
a realization that protecting existing habitat is critical
to the success of estuarine restoration.
Although there are some very good examples
of comprehensive planning efforts, it is important to
note that coastal wetland restoration planning across
the Great Lakes region as a whole is still in the beginning
stages. Most coastal wetland planning efforts are conducted
as part of broader ecological efforts. Many estuarine
systems have only recently been formally identified as
target areas for protection or restoration by agencies
or non-governmental organizations. The Pigeon River Estuary
in northern Minnesota is an excellent example of a site
identified but for which planning is only in the very
beginning stages. Furthermore, the science of wetland
restoration, as a branch of applied ecology, is still
in its infancy. Although this is true of all wetland systems,
it is perhaps especially true in Great Lakes coastal systems.
In order to fully realize the benefits of resources available
for restoration, there is a need to commit substantial
resources to restoration planning.
Introduction to the Great Lakes Region
Description
Situated on the mid-western border between
the United States and Canada, the Great Lakes is the world's
largest system of fresh surface water. These “Sweetwater
Seas” contain nearly 95% of the United States' supply
of fresh surface water and 20% of the global supply. The
Great Lakes extend approximately 850 miles east to west
and 700 miles north to south. Covering a surface area
of 94,250 square miles and having over 5,500 cubic miles
of water, the total U.S.-Canadian shoreline measures 10,210
miles, including islands and connecting channels. Of that
figure, approximately half of the Great Lakes shoreline
is in Canada and the remainder occurs in the states of
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York.
Although each of the Great Lakes has its
own separate characteristics, they are all part of one
massive integrated water system. The lakes act as their
respective drainage for their tributary waters. Lake Superior
drains to Lakes Huron and Michigan (which are at the same
level) through the St. Mary’s River. Lakes Huron and Michigan
drain to the south and east though the St. Clair River
into Lake St. Clair and then through the Detroit River
to Lake Erie. Lake Erie drains into Lake Ontario via the
Niagara River. Together, the lakes discharge 6.5 billion
gallons every hour into the St. Lawrence River at the
east end of Lake Ontario (EPA, 1980).
For the purposes of this discussion, the
term estuary includes near coastal waters and wetlands
of the Great Lakes that are similar in form and function
to estuaries (Section 103(2) Estuary Restoration Act of
2000). Great Lakes coastal wetlands differ from inland
[Insert Great Lakes Region Map Here]
wetlands due to the influence of large-lake
processes, including large waves, wind-driven tides (seiches),
and especially the seasonal and long-term fluctuations
of Great Lakes water levels (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Seiches with an amplitude of 20 to 30 cm
and period of 4 to 14 hours occur regularly on the Great
Lakes or within large embayments. Extreme seiches have
been recorded on Lake Erie with amplitudes as great as
5 meters. Great Lakes levels fluctuate annually, in periods
of 30 years, and periods of 150 years. Annually, high
lake levels occur in early summer and low lake levels
in early winter. The range between annual highs and lows
since 1918 to present varied from as little as 1.19 m
on Lake Superior to as much as 2.04 m on Lake St. Clair
(USACE 1999, in Wilcox and Whillans, 1999). During the
past 4,700 years, short-term fluctuations with a range
of .5 to .6 m occurred about every 30 years and longer-term
fluctuations occurred with a range of .8 to .9 m about
every 150 years (Wilcox and Whillans, 1999).
Although there are substantial estuarine
systems on the Canadian shore, and the ecosystem processes
that are influenced by the lakes do not respect political
boundaries, this discussion is limited to coastal wetlands
on the U.S. shoreline of the Great Lakes (Lakes Superior,
Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario) and their connecting
waters (St. Mary’s River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair,
Detroit River, Niagara River, and St. Lawrence River).
In 1981, Herdendorf et al., surveyed and mapped all
wetlands greater than one acre in size that occur wholly
or partially within 1,000 feet of the Great Lakes shoreline.
However, not all wetlands identified in this study are
directly influenced by Great Lakes water levels. Wilcox
and Maynard (1996) and Fraser and Albert (1999) have re-analyzed
Herdendorf as part of providing information for SOLEC
(State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference) conferences.
For the purposes of providing summary data for this report,
these studies, and additional data provided by Minnesota
and Wisconsin’s Coastal Zone Management Programs, were
combined. There are at least 883 different coastal wetland
ecosystems covering at least 393 square miles on the U.S.
side of the Great Lakes. It is important to note that
these numbers are approximate and that they more than
likely under report Great Lakes estuarine systems.
Key Habitats and Species
Great Lakes coastal wetlands include the
following basic wetland types: aquatic beds dominated
by floating-leaved and submergent macrophytes, emergent
marshes dominated by emergent macrophytes, beach strands
dominated by annual herbs, wet meadows and fens dominated
by sedges, dune and swale complexes, bogs dominated by
Sphagnum sp., and swamps forested by a variety
of lowland conifers and deciduous trees. Based on a review
of the existing information and restoration plans, the
natural occurrence and need for restoration varies somewhat
between each Great Lake (see Table 1).
Table 1. Estuarine Habitats in Need of Restoration
in the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels
|
Habitat
|
Lake Superior
|
Lake Michigan
|
Lake Huron
|
Lake Erie
|
Lake Ontario
|
|
aquatic beds
|
¸
|
|
|
|
|
|
emergent marshes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beach strands
|
¸
|
|
|
¸
|
¸
|
|
wet meadows and fens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dune and swale complexes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bogs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
swamps
|
|
|
|
|
|
KEY: = High Need
= Medium Need ¸= Low Need
Marshes are the most common type of coastal
wetland and are dominated by emergent macrophytes. This
vegetation type can tolerate the short- and long-term
fluctuations in water levels that occur in the Great Lakes.
In fact, they actually require these fluctuations to maintain
their species diversity (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Fen
communities in the coastal Great Lakes are characterized
by moderately decomposed peat, and have diverse plant
communities dominated by sedges. Swamps are found along
the upland margin of coastal wetlands, many of which are
influenced by the Great Lakes only during periods of high
water. Peatlands or bog communities usually occur towards
the landward margin of coastal wetlands and in some cases
form floating mats that adapt to lake-level changes (Wilcox
and Maynard, 1996).
Coastal wetlands occur along the Great Lakes
shorelines where erosive forces of ice and wave action
are low, allowing the formation of wetland plant communities.
They can occupy a wide variety of geomorphological settings
that can be grouped into three broad categories based
on their physical and hydrologic characteristics: open
coast, drowned river mouth/flooded delta, and protected.
A continuum exists between these categories, and given
the dynamic nature of the shorelines, many coastal wetlands
have systematically or episodically migrated along the
continuum (Keough et. al, 1999).
The Great Lakes coastal wetlands are critical
to the Great Lakes ecosystem as a whole. Coastal wetland
systems are the most productive aquatic systems in the
Great Lakes, and support diverse assemblages of invertebrates,
fish, reptile, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Whillans
(1987) determined that over 90 percent of the roughly
200 fish species in the Great Lakes are directly dependent
on coastal wetlands for some part of their life cycle.
In terms of waterfowl, 24 species of ducks, 4 species
of geese, and 3 species of swans are known to use Great
Lakes coastal wetlands. These areas are important as well
for many birds other than waterfowl, including shorebirds,
wading birds, and neotropical migrants (Wilcox and Maynard,
1996).
The Great Lakes coastal systems are important
regional and global reservoirs for biological diversity.
In a 1994 report on the conservation of biological diversity
in the Great Lakes region, The Nature Conservancy identified
131 natural heritage elements (species and natural ecological
community types) within the Great Lakes Basin that are
critically imperiled, imperiled, or rare on a global basis.
Of these, 91, or 70% of the occurrences, are associated
with coastal systems (TNC, 1994).
In addition to providing critical fish and
wildlife habitat, Great Lakes coastal wetlands perform
a variety of ecological functions important to the healthy
functioning of the Great Lakes ecosystem, including flood
storage, sediment control, water quality improvement,
shoreline erosion protection, food web production, and
nutrient export.
Habitat-Dependent Activities
Estuarine systems served as the focal point
for settlement of the Great Lakes region by Native Americans
and Europeans. Historically, due to the ecological functions
they provide, estuaries have been preferred as human habitat,
and today they are linked inextricably to our economy
and our quality of life. The commercial success and the
economic importance to the country of cities like Duluth,
Green Bay, and Detroit relate directly to the ecological
functions that estuaries provide. Today, coastal wetland
systems contribute to recreational, commercial, residential,
agricultural, and industrial activities.
Coastal marshes are great places for non-consumptive
recreational uses such as bird watching, nature study,
photography, and general tourism. Recreational fishing
is very important in coastal wetlands. The most sought-after
species that use these systems include northern pike,
muskellunge, large- and smallmouth bass, yellow perch,
white and black crappie, bluegill, channel catfish, black
and brown bullhead, carp, and bowfin (Wilcox and Maynard,
1996). In 1983, there was a total of 110,341,000 angler
days logged on the Great Lakes (GLNPO, 1988). Waterfowl
hunting provides the basis for the recreational hunting
industry in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Recreational
boating is very popular in the Great Lakes, with Michigan
sporting the largest number of registered boaters in the
country. Recreational fishing and hunting contribute to
local economies through the purchase of food, lodging,
equipment, and guide services. Although no aggregate numbers
of recreation and tourism revenue are available for the
Great Lakes Basin as a whole, tourism in Michigan alone
is a $10 billion per year industry.
Commercial fisheries associated with coastal
wetlands have operated in the Great Lakes for over 125
years. In addition to fish such as northern pike, bass,
and walleye taken for human consumption, various minnow
species are also caught in coastal wetlands as part of
an important bait fishery (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
However, not all commercial use of coastal wetlands has
been sustainable. Due to the steady supply of fresh water
and access to the Great Lakes for inexpensive shipping
of goods and services, many estuarine systems were developed
as industrial centers. For example, the Rouge River delta
(Detroit, MI) is the home of the Ford Motor Company’s
Rouge Plant. At one time this marsh habitat was used by
Native Americans to harvest wild rice, fish, and fur bearers.
Today the entire lower stretch of the Rouge has been channelized
and practically all wetlands have been filled (Stapp,
pers. com). Likewise, the river mouths of the Milwaukee
(Milwaukee, WI), Calumet (Gary, IN), Cuyahoga (Cleveland,
OH), and other rivers have been completely urbanized.
Coastal wetlands in Michigan and Ohio have
also suffered severe impacts from drainage for the purpose
of agriculture. Because the entire system is freshwater,
there are no problems with saltwater intrusion in coastal
agricultural fields. Drained wetlands are the most productive
agricultural lands in the Great Lakes Basin. Hundreds
of square miles of wetlands have been drained around Michigan’s
Saginaw Bay and in the Maumee Watershed (formerly known
as the Black Swamp). Despite the huge loss of wetlands
to agriculture, wetlands drained for agricultural purposes
that have not been filled or converted to other uses provide
the greatest potential for wetland restoration.
Because of the recreational opportunities
provided by Great Lakes estuaries, and their scenic beauty,
these areas are sought after for resort-residential or
second home development. Resorters, or “cottagers,” are
seasonal residents who provide a critical boost to local
economies but also put stress on coastal resources. Beyond
the direct loss of wetland as a result of filling for
development, improper stewardship by landowners can result
in additional stress on the coastal wetland habitats.
For example, many residents who develop in these areas
attempt to control the dynamic nature of the system by
removing vegetation to achieve an unfettered view during
periods of low water levels. When the lake levels again
rise and their shoreline erodes due to lack of wetland
vegetation, they then pressure state and federal agencies
to regulate water level fluctuations in the Lakes.
The various habitat-dependent activities
affect both the structure and function of the estuarine
resources on which they depend. Estuaries have experienced
some of the most severe human-caused degradation of any
habitat type on earth. Throughout the Great Lakes, estuarine
systems have been altered by many of the factors affecting
estuaries worldwide. As Great Lakes coastal areas continue
to increase in population and popularity, the human impacts
on estuarine resources can be expected to increase as
well.
Habitat Status and Trends
As noted above, there are approximately 883 different
coastal wetland ecosystems covering approximately 393
square miles on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes. The
extent of coastal wetlands (and our knowledge of them)
varies in each of the Great Lakes. Specific status and
trend data is noted in the discussions of each of the
Lakes below. Based on a review of available literature
and restoration plans, Table 2 offers a general summary
of key threats to estuary habitats in the Great Lakes
and connecting channels.
There are numerous natural and human-induced
factors that have impacted, and continue to impact, Great
Lakes coastal wetlands. Natural stressors include water
level fluctuations (both long- and short-term), damage
from ice and storms, sediment supply and transport, and
biological stressors such as invasive native species or
disease (Keough et al, 1999). It is important to note
that Great Lakes coastal wetland systems benefit from
natural stressors such as water level fluctuations. Sediment
supply and transport can be both a positive and a negative
for the health of a particular system. The formation of
barrier beaches or sand spits can protect macrophytes
from waves whereas their erosion can expose wetlands to
wave action.
Table 2. Key Threats to Estuary Habitats
in the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels.
General Threats
|
Specific Threats
|
Lake Superior
|
Lake Michigan
|
Lake Huron
|
Lake Erie
|
Lake Ontario
|
|
Direct Habitat Alteration
|
Coastal Development
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Dredging
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Filling
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Vegetation Removal
|
¸
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Shoreline Armoring and Modification
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Road Crossings
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hydrologic Modifications
|
Dams
|
¸
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Artificial Changes in Water Level
Regime
|
|
¸
|
¸
|
¸
|
|
| |
Drainage
|
¸
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Diking
|
¸
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonpoint Source Pollution
|
Urban Runoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Agricultural Runoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sewage/Septic
|
¸
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toxic Loading
|
Point Sources
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Atmospheric Deposition
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resource Extraction
|
Mining/Drilling
|
|
|
|
|
¸
|
| |
Forestry
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fisheries
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuisance, Exotic, and Invasive Species
|
Purple Loosestrife
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Phragmites australis
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Carp
|
¸
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Zebra Mussel
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Cattails (invasive hybrid)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Others (+130 exotics in Great Lakes)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Stressors
|
Water Level Changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sediment Supply and Transport
|
¸
|
¸
|
|
|
|
| |
Ice and Storms
|
|
¸
|
¸
|
|
|
| |
Natural Biological Stressors
|
¸
|
¸
|
¸
|
¸
|
¸
|
KEY: = High Concern = Medium Concern ¸=Low Concern
Human induced stressors include drainage,
filling, dredging, shoreline armoring and modification,
changes in water level regime, toxic and nutrient pollution,
fragmentation, urban runoff, exotic species invasion,
diking of wetlands, and global climate change (among others).
This range of stressors has resulted in the loss of coastal
wetland habitats and the degradation of the habitat that
remains.
It is important to note that these specific
threats seldom occur as discrete isolated events. There
is interaction between human and natural stressors (e.g.,
efforts to armor the shoreline during period of high water
or to plow shoreline vegetation during low water levels)
and substantial interactions among human-induced stressors
(e.g., coastal development is typically associated with
some sort of hydrologic alteration and always results
in nonpoint source pollution). The cumulative impacts
of multiple stressors operating in the same time and place
can have synergistic effects well beyond the sum of the
individual stressors.
Although no comprehensive studies have been
conducted to evaluate the coastal wetland loss rates for
the Great Lakes Basin as a whole, studies of specific
coastal wetland systems suggest that the losses have been
substantial. A study comparing current land use data in
Michigan with historical information gleaned from General
Land Office (GLO) Surveys conducted in Michigan prior
to widespread European settlement found that coastal communities
in southeast Michigan (along Saginaw Bay, the Detroit
River, and the western shore of Lake Erie) have lost between
90% and 97% of their original emergent wetlands (many
of which were associated with the Great Lakes coast) (Comer,
1996). Similar losses have been reported in southern Ontario.
For example, 83% of the original 9,367 acres of western
Lake Ontario coastal wetlands from Niagara River to Oshawa
have been lost, with some sections suffering 100% loss
due to filling.
The impacts of these losses have not been
comprehensively assessed. As noted above, there are numerous
species and ecological communities that are globally rare
or imperiled in the coastal zone of the Great Lakes. Although
the loss of coastal wetland habitats has slowed since
the heyday of dredging, draining, and filling wetlands,
losses in area and wetland function continue to occur.
Regional Planning Efforts
The unique qualities of the Great Lakes
and their importance to the U.S. and Canada--both ecologically
and economically--have made conservation and restoration
of coastal habitats a key objective for bi-national, federal,
state, and regional planning efforts. Regional efforts
of note are highlighted below.
LaMPs and RAPs
One of the most significant environmental
agreements in the history of the Great Lakes took place
with the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), between the United States and Canada. The agreement
committed the U.S. and Canada (the Parties) to address
water quality issues of the Great Lakes in a coordinated,
joint fashion. The GLWQA was amended in 1987 and the Parties
agreed to develop and implement, in consultation with
State and Provincial Governments, Lakewide Management
Plans (LaMPs) for lake basins, and Remedial Action
Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern (AOCs). LaMPs have been
developed for all of the Great Lakes except Lake Huron
and include specific objectives for coastal habitat restoration.
LaMPs for each lake are briefly described below. Forty-three
AOCs were identified: 26 located entirely within the United
States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and five shared
by both countries. Some RAPs have been completed and are
now in the implementation stages, others are still in
the development process. Many RAPs contain coastal wetland
restoration as a key component.
Lake Huron does not have a Lakewide Management
Plan. The Great Lakes Office of the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality, with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Environment Canada as partners,
has undertaken the development of the Lake Huron Initiative
Action Plan. One purpose of the Plan is to determine
priority issues and future efforts needed to ensure a
sustainable Lake Huron watershed. Immediate future efforts
focus on two key issues: critical pollutants/use impairments;
and critical habitat and diversity of fish and wildlife
populations.
TNC’s Ecoregional Planning
In 1996, The Nature Conservancy’s Great
Lakes Program launched a collaborative initiative to develop
an ecoregional plan that would identify high priority
biodiversity conservation sites in the Great Lakes Region.
In 1999, TNC completed a major portion of the plan; this
first iteration focussed primarily on selecting sites
important for target species and natural communities.
Published in 2000, Toward a New Conservation Vision
for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration expands
the plan to include sites that are important for aquatic
systems, reptiles, and amphibians. Through the ecoregional
planning process, The Nature Conservancy and partners
have identified 271 sites that represent the tremendous
biological diversity of the Great Lakes region. Of the
271 sites, 166 sites (over 60%) are irreplaceable–meaning
that these places represent the only opportunity to protect
certain species, natural communities, aquatic systems,
or assemblages of these targets in the Great Lakes region.
Over three-quarters of the sites will need attention within
the next 10 years, and over two-thirds of the sites need
more immediate action. Very few of the sites have completed
site conservation plans. Completed plans that contain
a restoration component have been included in the discussions
for each subregion below.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Great Lakes
Coastal Program
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Coastal
Program, which focuses resources on sensitive coastal
areas by applying funding and technical expertise to locally-led
projects, has expanded to include the Great Lakes. In
2000, its first year, the Great Lakes Coastal Program
projects focused on island habitat restoration, monitoring,
invasive species control, erosion prevention along tributaries,
and education. For 2001, 19 projects are planned in five
of the Great Lakes states.
NAWMP
The Upper Mississippi River & Great
Lakes Region Joint Venture Implementation Plan
establishes the region’s goals for the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). It identifies specific
habitat objectives for focus areas with the overall objective
of increasing populations of waterfowl and other wetland
wildlife by protecting, restoring and enhancing wetland
and associated upland habitats within the Joint Venture
region.
SOLEC
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) are hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Environment Canada on behalf of the two Countries
every two years in response to the binational Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. The conferences are intended
to provide a forum for exchange of information on the
ecological condition of the Great Lakes and surrounding
lands. Held in even-numbered years, the conferences are
the focal point of a process of gathering information
from a wide variety of sources and engaging a variety
of organizations in bringing it together. In the year
following each conference the Governments have prepared
a report on the state of the Lakes based in large part
upon the conference process.
SOLEC conferences are intended to focus
on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the major
factors impacting it. In addition to reporting on the
health of the living system, the conferences report on
the underlying conditions. This reflects the increased
recognition that the condition of the ecosystem is being
determined by three major factors: habitat loss, pollution,
and exotic species. In 1996, SOLEC began reporting on
ecological areas that hold unusual concentrations of biodiversity
identified as "Biodiversity Investment Areas (BIA)".
Contained in the paper on the land by the lakes, the concept
was expanded to coastal wetlands and aquatic areas in
1998. As the SOLEC conferences continue, planning for
the protection, enhancement and restoration of the BIAs
will evolve.
State Wetland Management Strategies
Through the EPA’s state wetland development
grant program, various states in the Great Lakes Basin
have developed statewide wetland management plans. These
plans provide information regarding the status of wetlands
in the state, regulatory frameworks, non-regulatory management
and protection efforts, and in some cases, recommendations
for restoration of the state’s wetland resources. State
Wetland Management Strategies have been completed for
Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and New
York. Brief summaries of four State Wetland Management
Strategies are included below:
Michigan’s Wetland Conservation
Strategy
Coordinated by Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) Land and Water Management Division (LWMD),
Michigan’s Wetland Conservation Strategy was developed
by Michigan’s Wetland Advisory Committee (MWAC) with intentions
of presenting a well-defined, workable, and broadly supported
document that provides a framework for effective protection
and management of Michigan’s unique wetland resources.
Provided within this document are MWAC’s recommendations
to meet short-term (increasing Michigan’s wetland base
by 50,000) and long-term (restore, create, and enhance
500,000 acres of wetlands) Wetland Reclamation Goals.
For example, a short-term recommendation states that wetland
restoration efforts should, to the extent feasible, focus
on geographic areas, including coastal areas, which have
lost the highest percent of wetlands and wetland function.
MWAC has provided these recommendations to MDEQ-LWMD for
consideration as the wetlands program is further developed.
Minnesota Wetlands Conservation
Plan
Development of the Minnesota Wetlands
Conservation Plan began when interested state and
federal agencies saw a need for an “umbrella” policy framework
to help link different responsibilities and provide more
guidance for administering wetlands programs, staff, and
budgets. Sponsoring state agencies include Minnesota’s
Board of Water & Soil Resources, Pollution Control
Agency, and Departments of Natural Resources, Transportation,
and Agriculture. The Plan was designed to start with wetlands
policies already in place and to present policy guidance
and enhanced information for decision-making. The Plan’s
regional management strategy defines 14 wetland ecological
units. Units 4, 5, and 6 include Minnesota’s Lake Superior
coastal wetlands and share the same primary management
focus of maintaining high quality wetland resources.
Indiana Wetlands Conservation
Plan
Although development of the Indiana Wetlands Conservation
Plan has been coordinated by the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources, the Plan is intended as a guide
for all wetlands conservation efforts in the state. Funded
through a grant from EPA, the Plan’s goal is to conserve
Indiana’s remaining wetland resources, as defined by acreage,
type, and function, and restore and create wetlands where
opportunities exist to increase the quality and quantity
of wetland resources. The Plan’s Hoosier Wetlands Conservation
Initiative provides the strategy for actions to be taken
to achieve the Plan’s goals and presents case studies
of completed work. The Plan discusses objectives and actions
for six strategic components such as increasing number
of focus area projects in Indiana and acquisition efforts
for high priority wetlands. Of Indiana’s 12 water management
basins, the Lake Michigan basin includes Indiana’s Great
Lakes shoreline.
Ohio Wetlands Task Force
The Task Force was convened by the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources and the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency and includes representatives of business, agriculture,
environmental and conservation groups, universities, and
federal, state and local government agencies. The Task
Force’s goal was to provide the framework in which the
State can actively preserve, protect, and enhance wetlands,
their functions and values, and encourage a gain in wetlands
acreage, in a manner that balances the ecological integrity
of wetlands with responsible economic development. The
Task Force established six objectives for their Wetlands
Strategy and described specific strategies for these objectives,
identifying each as short term (1-2 years), intermediate
term (2-6 years), and long term. Wetlands types and specific
locations are not identified.
Section 319 Plans
The Clean Water Act Section 319 - Nonpoint
Source Management Program has been used effectively
to restore water quality in many inland systems which
have an estuarine component at their outlet to the Great
Lakes. Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987
to establish the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management
Program because it recognized the need for greater federal
leadership to help focus state and local nonpoint source
efforts. Under Section 319, states, territories, and Indian
tribes receive grant money which support a wide variety
of activities including technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer,
demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success
of specific nonpoint source implementation projects. Although
water quality protection is the primary focus of the Section
319 planning and implementation, wetland restoration is
an important component of accomplishing these goals. Due
to the sheer number of individual 319 plans in each state,
individual plans were not discussed in the body of this
text.
State and Federal Public Land Management
There are numerous state game areas, federal
wildlife refuges, Forest Service land, and National Parks
and Lakeshores throughout the Great Lakes Basin. Due to
the ecological functions provided by coastal wetlands,
many wildlife management areas include substantial coastal
wetland systems. Many National Wildlife Refuges in the
coastal areas of the Great Lakes are managed as wilderness.
For many state wildlife areas, management plans focus
on recreation or manipulating the system to benefit certain
species or hunting opportunities. Wetland restoration
is a high priority in many state game areas. By way of
an example, selected wildlife management areas are briefly
described in the body of this text.
Great Lakes Subregions
In an overview of controlling abiotic factors,
Dr. Leah Minc divided the U.S. Great Lakes shoreline into
77 regions characterized by distinctive conditions for
coastal wetland development based on differences in climate,
bedrock geology, glacial geomorphology, shoreline configuration,
and soils, as well as land use and disturbance factors
(Minc, 1997). In an effort to simplify and to minimize
the number of subregions for the purposes of this report,
the Great Lakes Region has been divided into five subregions
based on geographic boundaries. Each subregion includes
the U.S. territory of one of the Great Lakes and the associated
downstream connecting channels. The Lake Superior Subregion
includes Lake Superior and the St. Mary’s River. The Lake
Michigan Subregion includes Lake Michigan to the Mackinac
Bridge. The Lake Huron Subregion encompasses Lake Huron,
St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit River.
The Lake Erie Subregion includes Lake Erie and the Niagara
River. The Lake Ontario Subregion encompasses Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence River downstream to the Quebec border.
Lake Superior
Subregion
Description
The Lake Superior Subregion includes Lake
Superior and the St. Mary’s River, which flows from the
southeast corner of Lake Superior into Lake Huron. Lake
Superior is the largest and coldest of the Great Lakes
and is the largest (by surface area) body of freshwater
on Earth. The lake itself is characterized as oligotrophic,
with low levels of nutrients, little plant life, high
levels of dissolved oxygen, and a long retention period
(191 years). Coastal wetland development is constrained
by large areas of bedrock at or near the surface, shallow
soils, and a northerly climate. This northern climate
is reflected in the more boreal nature of the wetlands
which are typically rich in bog or poor fen species (Minc,
1997). The St. Louis River Estuary and the Bad River and
Kakagon Sloughs are significant estuarine systems which
comprise a large proportion of the total coastal wetlands
in Lake Superior.
The St. Mary’s River extends 112 km, draining
Lake Superior into Lake Huron. The river drops 6.7 m along
its length, mostly at the 1.2 km-long St. Mary’s Rapids
in Sault Ste. Marie. The upper river above the St. Mary’s
Rapids has sandy and rocky shores, with emergent wetlands
occurring only in protected areas. The lower river is
bordered by extensive emergent marshes in shallow areas
of the large lakes, bays and islands (Wilcox and Maynard,
1996).
Habitat Issues
Status and Trends
There are no comprehensive estimates of
coastal wetland losses for Lake Superior. In highly developed
areas, such as Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin,
impacts to coastal wetlands have been severe. Because
the shoreline is sparsely populated and shoreline development
has been minimal, coastal wetlands along Lake Superior
are comparatively less affected by human stressors than
those of the other Great Lakes. However, due to the relative
rarity of wetlands in the Lake Superior system as a result
of abiotic factors, those estuarine systems that do exist
are particularly important to fish and wildlife populations.
(Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Species of management concern
include a variety of freshwater mussels, birds such as
the piping plover, peregrine falcon, bald eagle and many
rare neotropical passerines, and fish such as the lake
sturgeon.
Water level regulation is the most widespread
stressor and many other stressors affect wetlands on a
site‑specific basis. Water level regulation has
affected all coastal wetlands in Lake Superior. Water
levels on Lake Superior have been regulated for much of
the 20th century as a result of the locks at Sault Ste.
Marie (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Site‑specific stressors include shipping,
dredging, filling, harbor and marina development, shoreline
development, road construction, nutrient enrichment, logging,
and toxic contamination. Watershed runoff of sediments,
especially from logging activity, can dramatically increase
sediment inputs into tributaries which can also affect
coastal wetlands near river mouths, especially in western
Lake Superior where watersheds are dominated by fine clay
soils. There are three Areas of Concern (AOCs) on the
U.S. shoreline of Lake Superior. AOCs are defined as severely
degraded areas where beneficial uses are threatened or
impaired due to toxic contamination. The entire St. Mary’s
River has been designated an AOC due to elevated contaminants
in the water and the sediment.
Threats
Ongoing threats to estuarine systems vary
depending on the location of the shoreline. Remote areas
are seeing a growth in resort residential development
which results in additional pressure on the estuarine
resources. In more developed areas, such as Duluth, Minnesota,
and its sister city Superior, Wisconsin, the threats are
many and severe, including dredging and filling, polluted
runoff, resuspension of contaminated sediments, hydrological
manipulation, shipping, and exotic species invasion. At
the other end of the lake, the primary threats to the
St. Mary’s River system include resort and residential
development and commercial shipping. The passing of large
commercial vessels in the narrow reaches of shipping channels
causes increased current speed, greater wave action, more
erosion, and more turbidity in these coastal wetlands,
affecting plant rooting and growth, and associated invertebrates
and fauna (Manny et al, 1987 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Vessel speed controls the degree of damage caused by this
particular stressor. These threats were addressed by a
historic multi-party agreement placing permanent speed
limits and other conditions on vessel passage in 1998
(Kavetsky, pers. comm).
Restoration Plans
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), as amended in 1987, the U.S. and Canada agreed
“to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.”
To achieve this purpose, the Parties agreed to develop
and implement, in consultation with state and provincial
governments, Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP) for
open waters. The Lake Superior LaMP contains appropriate
funded and proposed (non-funded) actions for restoration
and protection to bring about improvement in the ecosystem.
Actions include commitments by the Parties, governments
and regulatory programs, as well as suggested voluntary
actions that could be taken by non-governmental partners.
Lake Superior habitat objectives include addressing nearshore,
shoreline and wetland habitats through identification,
protection and restoration of sites for reproduction and
rearing of fish, water birds, mammals, other wildlife
and plants.
Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program
Coordinated by the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, this program was designed to meet
the requirements for participation in the federal Coastal
Zone Management Program. The goal of this program is to
preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore
and enhance coastal resources for present and future generations.
It was developed to encourage greater cooperation, to
encourage simplification of governmental processes, and
to provide tools to implement existing policies, authorities
and programs within the area defined by the program boundary.
It is not another plan to implement but rather a new tool
to implement existing programs in the most efficient manner
and to provide funding for unique or under-funded opportunities.
Chequamegon Bay Watershed Site Conservation
Program
A program of The Nature Conservancy, the
Chequamegon Bay Watershed Site Conservation Program
encompasses two large and numerous small watersheds and
covers three counties in northern Wisconsin. Conservation
targets for the Program have been identified and include
the Kakagon and Bad River Sloughs. Considered Wisconsin’s
Everglades and covering 16,000 acres, the Slough system
is the largest undeveloped system in the upper Great Lakes.
Goals for the Slough include: maintaining the integrity
and diversity of natural communities; maintaining the
natural processes, including lake level fluctuations,
flooding, ground water recharge and water quality; controlling
aggressive exotic species; and increasing forest cover
within the watershed to reduce indirect stresses.
Habitat Plan for Lower St. Louis River
In 1987, the Lower St. Louis River was designated
by the International Joint Commission as one of 43 Areas
of Concern (AOC). Development of a Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) resulted in 43 recommendations. Published in 1995,
the RAP contains many habitat-related recommendations.
Recommendation #38 calls for the creation of The Habitat
Plan for Lower St. Louis River. The goal of the Habitat
Plan (which is currently being drafted) is to design and
implement a coordinated comprehensive plan for the protection
and furtherance of biodiversity and ecological diversity
within the Area of Concern, without seeking to restore
the estuary to its presettlement condition, through the
creation, restoration, reclamation, enhancement and management
of a desired mix of ecosystems and habitat. The Habitat
Plan, managed by the St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee,
will focus on the lower 21 miles of the river, a 12,000-acre
freshwater estuary from below Fon du Lac, MN, to its outlet
in Lake Superior.
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
(WCMP) was established in 1978 under the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act to protect, restore and enhance Wisconsin’s
Lake Michigan and Lake Superior coastal resources. The
WCMP is a voluntary program that works through a Governor-appointed
Council to award federal funds to local governments and
other entities for the implementation of coastal initiatives.
The program’s goal is to achieve a balance between natural
resource protection and coastal communities’ need for
sustainable economic development.
The WCMP provides grants to encourage the protection
and wise use of Wisconsin's coastal resources. One of
the four types of matching grants is wetlands protection.
“A Data Compilation and Assessment of Coastal Wetlands
of Wisconsin’s Great Lakes “ was funded in part through
this grant program. Goals of this project were to compile
existing information on coastal wetlands for Lakes Superior
and Michigan in Wisconsin, select ecologically significant
primary coastal wetland sites, and identify existing data
or inventory gaps. There are 28 primary sites in Wisconsin’s
Lake Superior coastal region. The report notes that there
are relatively few known information gaps in this coastal
zone but that recently some very rare species have been
found that need to be inventoried.
Michigan Upper Peninsula Coastal Wetland Project
A Ducks Unlimited proposal to the North American Wetlands
Conservation Council, the Michigan Upper Peninsula
Coastal Wetland Project is a multi-partner, multi-phase
landscape scale project to protect, restore, and manage
coastal wetlands and associated uplands within nine focus
areas in the Lake Superior and St. Mary’s watersheds in
Michigan. The peninsula has not seen the same great wetland
losses as lower Michigan, with the exception of the Rudyard
Clay Plain, and for this reason the project focuses on
preventing destruction of coastal wetland areas and associated
uplands with habitat restoration/enhancement as a secondary
objective. Phase I of the Project will protect and/or
restore 2,826 acres of wetlands and associated uplands
through land acquisition in seven focus areas, restoration
projects in three focus areas (such as constructing ditch
plugs, removing drain tile, and scraping basins in the
clay soils), and enhancement in four focus areas (such
as increasing food and habitat resources in a deteriorating
impoundment through drawdown and reflooding). Three additional
phases are anticipated.
Munuscong Wildlife Area Management Plan
The Munuscong Wildlife Area is adjacent to Munuscong
Lake and the St. Mary’s River in east-central Chippewa
County in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The management goal
for this area is to restore and maintain biotic communities
and public use opportunities through practices and improvements
that do not disturb existing unique features and which
complement, rather than combat, natural processes. Examples
of primary objectives are: “naturalize” a dysfunctional
dike and restore the open-system dynamics of the Munuscong
Bay coastal marsh while enhancing reproduction opportunities
for island-nesting wildlife; maintain upland grassland
communities for wildlife species currently using this
cover type and create “emergent-marsh” wetlands to enhance
grasslands for species dependent on grassland-wetland
complexes; and, acquire coastal wetlands, grasslands and
other tracts within the dedicated wildlife area boundary
and manage them as sustainable, naturally functioning
systems. Coastal wetland management strategies include
work on the dike system, prescribed burns, and control
measures for purple loosestrife.
Plan Element Summaries
Goals
Habitat goals for the Lake Superior Subregion
focus on preserving, protecting, and restoring coastal
wetlands, biodiversity, and ecosystem diversity by restoring
natural ecological processes and addressing the myriad
of natural and human induced threats to the system.
Methods
To achieve the subregion’s goals, both general
methods, such as creating partnerships and building networks,
and specific methods were discussed. Examples of specific
methods include restoring hardened shorelines and inactive
boat slips to natural habitats, eliminating sewer overflows
and failing septic systems, toxic remediation, working
with local zoning commissions to modify current zoning
regulations to ensure appropriate land uses within the
watershed, restoring hydrologic regimes, and facilitating
consolidation of coastal development including relocating
businesses, using existing versus constructing new facilities.
Elements of Success
All of the plans have evolved through, and
stress the need for, continued broad participation from
federal, state, local and tribal governments, non-profit
organizations, and citizens in order to succeed. Most
acknowledge the value of supplementing current efforts
versus duplicating or recreating existing plans. Site
specific measures of success include making measurable
progress toward the long-term abatement of critical threats
and the sustained maintenance or enhancement of conservation
target viability at identified sites.
Information Needs
All plans specify the need to identify highest priority
areas for restoration, continue the acquisition of information
through research, and secure additional funding sources.
The Habitat Plan for the Lower St. Louis River identifies
the need to fill data gaps, determine degree of degradation
at specific sites, and the need for unified compilation
of historical records and resources.
Lake Michigan Subregion
Description
The only Great Lake entirely within the
United States, Lake Michigan is the third largest Great
Lake, the sixth largest freshwater lake in the world,
and has a retention time of 99 years. The Lake Michigan
watershed includes part of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin,
and Michigan. The northern watershed is covered with forests,
sparsely populated, and economically dependent on natural
resources, while the southern portion is heavily populated
with intensive industrial development and rich agriculture
areas along the shores (Marine Advisory Service, 1985).
Lake Michigan contains 40% of the coastal wetland systems
along the U.S. Great Lakes shoreline (Lake Michigan Lakewide
Management Plan, 2000).
It could be said that Lake Michigan is the
most diverse of any of the Great Lakes. Its shoreline
changes from one major landform to another, with each
type extending for hundreds of kilometers. Given the Lake’s
north-south axis, climate plays a major role in determining
the community composition of the various wetland habitats
(Minc, 1997). It has lakeplains, high clay bluffs, low
erodible bluffs, vast dune fields, rocky cliffs, glacial
drift bluffs, sand ridge shores, and clay/pebble embayments
flanked by ancient ridges. Lake Michigan’s coastal wetlands
are equally diverse, including embayed, barrier beach,
lagoon, and riverine habitats. Deltaic formation occurs
in some Green Bay sites, but shore currents quickly carry
away alluvium or detrital accumulations in other areas
(Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Lake Michigan’s coastal systems
are host to a wide variety of plants, fish, and wildlife,
including several state and federally listed species such
as the Houghton’s goldenrod, dwarf lake iris, Pitcher’s
thistle, and the piping plover.
Habitat Issues
Status and Trends
Lake Michigan’s water quality and wetlands
have been severely degraded. There are ten AOCs in the
Lake Michigan Basin, more than any other Great Lake. The
Green Bay area has suffered severe losses and degradation
of its wetlands as a result of conversion to agriculture,
urbanization, and toxic contamination. Along the western
shore, from Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin to Chicago, Illinois,
urbanization has virtually eliminated former wetlands
that existed near river mouths. South of Chicago and around
the bottom of Lake Michigan are many smaller and remnant
wetlands and larger interdunal wetlands that survived
the heavy industrialization of the area. The drowned river
mouths of the Michigan shoreline have had their hydrology
altered by road crossings, thus increasing sediment deposition,
and have been affected by ditching, agricultural practices,
and colonization by invasive plant species. In the more
unpopulated, northern extent of Lake Michigan, many of
the estuarine systems remain intact.
Threats
In addition to the ongoing problems noted
above, current threats to Lake Michigan’s coastal wetlands
are primarily related to ever-increasing pressure to develop
the shoreline. Attracted by the rich recreational opportunities
and scenic beauty, the counties at the northern tip of
Michigan’s lower peninsula have the fastest growing populations
in the state. The vibrant tourist and resort economy puts
exceptional pressure on the coastal wetland ecosystems.
In addition to direct impact on wetlands through dredging
and filling for resort residential and marina development,
the additional inputs of polluted runoff threaten the
very resources that tourists and resorters are flocking
to the area to enjoy.
Restoration Plans
Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan 2000
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), as amended in 1987, the U.S. and Canada agreed
“to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.”
To achieve this purpose, the parties agreed to develop
and implement, in consultation with state and provincial
governments, Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP) for open
waters. The Lake Michigan LaMP contains appropriate
funded and proposed (non-funded) actions for restoration
and protection to bring about actual improvement in the
ecosystem. Fifteen recommended management actions and
activities have been developed to be completed in the
next fourteen years. Recommendation Management Action
4, Protect Habitat, addresses wetland restoration with
an emphasis on areas connecting to Lake Michigan.
Site Conservation Plan for the Red Banks
and Door Peninsula and Islands Landscape
The Northern Door Peninsula and Islands
Landscape site begins near the city of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
and covers the northern portion of Door County. This portion
of the Door Peninsula extends about 50 miles in a northeast
bearing, separating Green Bay from the larger body of
Lake Michigan. This Plan was developed by The Nature Conservancy
through a series of meetings with their conservation partners
including the Door County Land Trust, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Plan includes two planning units: Red Banks and the
Northern Door Peninsula and Islands Landscapes. The combined
acreage of the two sites is 190,000 acres; 2,000 and 188,000
respectively. Each planning unit has site conservation
targets with specified goals. Several of the sites, such
as Mink River Estuary, North Bay-Mud Lake-Ridges, and
Kangaroo Lake provide specific strategies to conserve
these important coastal wetland systems.
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
(WCMP) was established in 1978 under the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act to protect, restore and enhance Wisconsin’s
Lake Michigan and Lake Superior coastal resources. The
WCMP is a voluntary program that works through a Governor-appointed
Council to award federal funds to local governments and
other entities for the implementation of coastal initiatives.
The program’s goal is to achieve a balance between natural
resource protection, and coastal communities’ need for
sustainable economic development.
The WCMP provides grants to encourage the
protection and wise use of Wisconsin's coastal resources.
One of the four types of matching grants is wetlands protection.
A Data Compilation and Assessment of Coastal Wetlands
of Wisconsin’s Great Lakes was funded in part through
this grant program. Goals of this project were to compile
existing information on coastal wetlands for Lakes Superior
and Michigan in Wisconsin, select ecologically significant
primary coastal wetland sites, and identify existing data
or inventory gaps. There are 36 primary coastal wetland
sites in Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan coastal region. The
report identified several major gaps for this region including
outdated site descriptions, outdated or missing element
occurrence data, inventory of other coastal areas, bird
information and dams.
Indiana Dunes: Dunes Creek and the Great
Marsh
The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and
Indiana Dunes State Park protect a large portion of Dunes
Creek and what remains of the Great Marsh in northern
Indiana. Plans include enhancement of 4,600 acres of currently
degraded wetlands through the National Lakeshore’s efforts
to restore hydrology by plugging manmade ditches and tile
drainage and removing fill that obstructs surface water.
Specific sites for placement of the ditch plugs and road
fill cuts are based on a priority system as determined
by need and impact. The Indiana Dunes State Park is developing
a comprehensive resource management plan for the park.
The plan includes Dunes Creek and Dunes Nature Preserve.
In addition, Indiana is developing the Lake Michigan Coastal
Program in partnership with the federal Coastal Zone Management
Program. The Lake Michigan Coastal Program will work with
local governments and organizations to protect and restore
important tributaries and natural communities such as
Dunes Creek and the Great Marsh.
Lower Green Bay and Fox River Remedial Action
Plan (RAP)
The Lower Green Bay and Fox River RAP was
developed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
for the Lower Green Bay and Fox River Area of Concern,
consisting of the lower 11.2 km of the Fox River below
DePere Dam and 55 km2 of southern Green Bay
out to Point au Sable and Long Tail Point. The three-phase
plan includes a multi-stakeholder partnership with four
technical advisory committees and a citizens advisory
committee. Since the RAP was adopted in 1988, 38 of the
120 recommended remedial actions have been implemented.
Examples of actions taken to enhance fish, wildlife and
habitat include species reintroduction, creation of walleye
spawning habitat, construction of a permanent barrier
to sea lamprey at three Fox River sites, and acquisition
of 68 ha of wetlands along the West Shore Wildlife Area.
Muskegon State Game Area Master Plan
The Muskegon State Game Area is located
in west central Michigan along a 10-mile stretch of the
Muskegon River. It lies mostly in a flood plain which
is forested with lowland hardwood or open marsh and is
largely wetlands wildlife habitat. The major objective
of this plan is to maximize management efforts toward
waterfowl production, to encourage use of the area by
migrant waterfowl, and to provide a quality waterfowl
hunting area for sportsmen of Michigan. Wetland habitat
protection and restoration will be accomplished primarily
through land acquisition and water level control measures.
Plan Element Summaries
Goals
Plans in the Lake Michigan Subregion identify
both short-term and long-term actions and goals to protect
and preserve Lake Michigan coastal regions. The Lake Michigan
LaMP identifies 15 management actions for the next 14
years. Examples of these are developing standards or guidelines
for ballast water control, completing work on all Clean
Legacy Sites by 2005, determining a priority for habitat
preservation sites and filling in data gaps. For the Door
Peninsula, The Nature Conservancy sets specific goals
for each conservation target which correlate with strategies
for the ecoregional sites. For instance, goals for the
Hine’s emerald dragonfly include maintaining at least
two breeding areas within each sub-population on the Door
Peninsula, protecting all sub-populations regardless of
size, establishing a monitoring plan for each population,
and protecting the habitat and processes supporting the
species.
Methods
Several methods are suggested for achieving
the plans’ goals. For example, by 2005, the Lake Michigan
LaMP plans to identify and map critical habitats in the
watershed for all listed species, which will assist in
filling data gaps of coastal habitat. For priority conservation
sites in the Door Peninsula, The Nature Conservancy utilizes
acquisition and conservation easements to conserve and
protect habitat for species such as the Hine’s emerald
dragonfly.
Elements of Success
As with the other subregions, the ability
to build partnerships, link with existing planning efforts,
educate and involve the public, and secure continued funding
will contribute to the success of the plans. Progress
toward reaching tangible improvements (in wetland areas
or target species populations) are also key measures of
success.
Information Needs
The Site Conservation Plan for Red Banks
and the Door Peninsula provides a detailed matrix of research
and inventory needs for conservation targets and assigns
a priority to each of the needs. Determining the hydrologic
links in the Dolomite-sand-peat landscape, feasibility
of exotics control, and relationship of the matrix landscape
to the health of the identified targets, are a few examples.
The Lake Michigan LaMP identifies the need to fill in
gaps of information and verify that available information
is still current.
Lake Huron Subregion
Description
The Lake Huron Subregion includes Lake Huron,
the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit River.
At 59,600 square kilometers, Lake Huron is the second
largest of the Great Lakes (after Superior). Lake Huron
includes the two largest bays on the Great Lakes, Georgian
Bay (in Canada) and Saginaw Bay (Michigan Seagrant, 2000).
Lake Huron features a mix of bedrock and glaciated landforms.
Rocky shores associated with the Precambrian shield cover
the northern and eastern shores while limestone underlies
the Drummond Island-Manitoulin Island Group; glacial deposits
of till, gravel and sand predominate further south. The
diversity of the shoreline and landforms in this subregion
is reflected in the wetland habitats, which range from
and include sheltered bays and river mouths in Lake Huron
to the broad deltaic wetland systems in Lake St. Clair
(Minc, 1997). Along the U.S. shoreline, Saginaw Bay has
been identified as an AOC.
The St. Clair River, 64 km long, drains
Lake Huron into Lake St. Clair. It is located on the international
border between the U.S. and Canada and is a major shipping
channel. It forms a large bird-foot delta with many distribution
channels and wetlands where it meets Lake St. Clair. The
river above the delta is a uniform channel with few bends,
no cutoff channels or oxbow lakes and only two islands.
Most of the U.S. shoreline is now artificial and the lack
of shoreline complexity, along with the fast current,
depth of the river and wave forces generated by large
commercial vessels limit wetland development along the
banks of the river. The entire St. Clair River has been
declared an AOC.
Lake St. Clair is a shallow productive lake
located between the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers. Where
the St. Clair River meets Lake St. Clair, an expansive
bird-foot delta, the largest freshwater delta in the world,
has formed which has many distribution channels, islands
and wetlands. The entire U.S. shoreline of Lake St. Clair
consists of flat, clay lakeplain characterized by slopes
of less than 1% with wet loamy clayey soils prevalent
(Minc, 1998). At the time of European contact, the Lake
St. Clair shoreline was bordered by extensive swamp forests,
wet prairies, and wet meadows. Shallow water areas contained
a nearly continuous band of emergent marsh, while deeper
water supported large beds of Vallisneria americana,
an important food for waterfowl (Minc, 1997). The Clinton
River, a tributary to the lake, has been declared an AOC.
The Detroit River connects Lake St. Clair
to Lake Erie. It is 51 km long and drops only 0.9 m along
its length. The shoreline stretches 127 km on the U.S.
side and several islands occur in the river, with the
largest, Grosse Ile, near its mouth. Around 95% of the
total flow in the river enters from Lake St. Clair, and
the remainder flows from tributaries and sewer systems
which drain a watershed of 1,844 square kilometers. The
natural shoreline consists of clay banks, but 87% of the
U.S. shoreline is now artificial with revetments and other
shoreline hardening structures. Commercial traffic on
the river is heavy and Detroit is the busiest port on
the Great Lakes. The Detroit River and the Rouge River
(a tributary) have both been identified as Areas of Concern
(Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Habitat Issues
Status and Trends
No comprehensive estimates of coastal wetland
loss are available for this Subregion. Main causes for
wetland losses have been shoreline modification, road
construction, filling for urban and resort residential
development and dredging and channelization associated
with marina development. The Saginaw Bay area historically
contained some of Michigan’s most extensive coastal wetlands
but extensive drainage for agriculture and ongoing pumping
of diked wetlands for farming purposes have resulted in
substantial losses.
Some wetland loss appears to have occurred
along the shores of the St. Clair River above the delta,
but there is no comprehensive estimate of the extent of
loss. Almost all of the U.S. shoreline of the St. Clair
River consists of residential, recreational and industrial
developments and has been extensively modified. Wetland
loss in the river appears to be largely related to extensive
bulkheading, shoreline hardening, filling, channelization
and dredging along the shores of the river.
Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair Delta have
been extensively studied in terms of wetland loss. On
the Michigan side of the lake and delta, 4,375 ha or 51%
of the original wetlands were lost between 1873 and 1968.
These losses occurred mostly in the St. Clair Delta, along
Anchor Bay and near the mouth of the Clinton River. For
instance, the Clinton River had over 1,295 ha of wetlands
in 1868, but by 1973, it had been reduced to 221 ha (Edsall
et al., 1988 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Agriculture
and urban, residential, and recreational development (e.g.,
marinas) are the major causes of wetland loss.
From depth surveys of the Detroit River
in the 1870's, wetlands and large submergent macrophyte
beds were nearly continuous along the shores in historic
times. Emergent marshes extended inland from 0.3 m to
2.0 m in depth and were sometimes over 1 km wide, especially
near the mouths of tributaries such as the Rouge River.
Today, around 87% of the U.S. shoreline of the Detroit
River has been filled and bulkheaded (Manny and Kenaga,
1991 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Threats
Threats to the estuarine systems in this
Subregion become more severe in the southern portions
and connecting channels. The northern Lake Huron watershed
is still mostly forested, with the main impacts to coastal
wetlands resulting from recreational boating and marina
development, shoreline development, and mechanized vegetation
clearing in the coastal zone. Due to its larger population
relative to the northern half of Lake Huron, the stressors
on Saginaw Bay’s wetlands due to these factors are even
greater. In addition, toxic contamination due to resuspension
of contaminated sediment, continued drainage for agricultural
purposes, and exotic species such as zebra mussels, carp,
and purple loosestrife threaten the integrity of Saginaw
Bay wetlands.
On the St. Clair River, continued shoreline
hardening, filling, channelization and dredging along
the shores fragment the few remaining wetlands along the
river, and urban encroachment continues to cause wetland
loss and impairment. Ship wakes from large commercial
vessels are an important stressor to shoreline habitats,
including remnant coastal wetlands, by eroding the shoreline
and hampering the establishment of aquatic macrophytes
(Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Most of the U.S. shoreline of Lake St. Clair
and the St. Clair Delta is now developed with marinas,
urban, or residential developments. Urban, recreational
and agricultural encroachment continue to threaten existing
wetlands and make restoration very challenging. Another
major stress is the diking of wetlands. About half of
the wetlands in Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair Delta
have been diked and are managed mainly for waterfowl hunting
at the expense of other wetland functions. Diking isolates
these wetlands from the upland and lake environments,
and many wetland functions are impaired. Furthermore,
the diversity of wetland habitats are decreased since
water level controls are used to maintain particular vegetation
and environmental conditions. Other stressors to these
wetlands include sediment and nutrient loading from tributaries
and invasive species (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Many human stressors continue to impact
remaining wetlands on the Detroit River, including erosion
from shipping, shoreline modification, dredging and channelization,
excess nutrients, contamination of water and sediments
with toxic chemicals, agricultural and urban encroachment,
and invasive non‑indigenous species (Wilcox and
Maynard, 1996).
Restoration Plans
Lake Huron Initiative Plan
Initiated by the DEQ’s Michigan Office of
the Great Lakes with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Environment Canada as partners, The Lake
Huron Initiative Action Plan identifies issues of
importance to Lake Huron, actions that need to be taken
to protect and restore the Lake Huron ecosystem, and development
of partnerships to begin undertaking efforts that cannot
be accomplished by individual agencies alone. The Plan
identifies immediate future actions focusing on two key
issues: critical pollutants/use impairments, and fish
and wildlife populations (habitat and biodiversity).
Measures of Success: Addressing Environmental
Impairments in the
Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay
The Saginaw Bay Watershed, located along
Michigan’s east coast on Lake Huron is Michigan's largest
watershed and is the United States’ largest contiguous
freshwater coastal wetland system. The Measures of Success report was prepared and produced
under the guidance of the Partnership for the Saginaw
Bay Watershed and represents the collective thoughts of
technicians, public officials (federal, state, and local),
stakeholders and watershed citizens. It provides a brief
account of the historical practices responsible for impairments
identified in the Saginaw River/Bay Remedial Action Plan,
celebrates progress to date in addressing the problems,
and proposes measurable goals for the future. In regards
to wildlife and habitat, it identifies protecting the
ecological integrity of the remaining coastal marsh areas
for use by fish and wildlife as the single most important
goal in sustaining the diversity and abundance of species.
The area below the 585-foot contour within Saginaw Bay
and the lower portions of the Bay’s tributary streams
are identified as the critical coastal marsh areas in
need of protection and restoration.
Tobico Marsh Hydrologic Study
Tobico Marsh Hydrologic Study was completed by Resource Management Group, Inc. under
contract to Bay County utilizing funds provided by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources under the Saginaw
Bay National Watershed Initiative. The purpose of the
study was to determine the nature and extent of historic
changes within the Tobico Marsh watershed and determine
marsh management options for the future.
Crow Island State Game Area Master Plan
State ownership of the Crow Island State Game Area began
in 1953. The Game Area lies within the Saginaw Bay lakeplain,
formerly characterized by swamp forest, wet and wet-mesic
prairie and emergent marshes. The management plan was
developed for the purposes of providing recreation, protecting
biodiversity and improving waterfowl production. Examples
of habitat management objectives include restoring specified
areas, including prior converted wetlands, to functional
marshes through controlling water levels, plantings and
prescribed burns.
Nayanquing Point Wildlife Area Master Plan
The Nayanquing Point Wildlife Area is located
in the east central portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula,
lying along the west side of the Saginaw Bay. The Michigan
Department of Natural Resources’ overlying intent of management
at Nayanquing Point is based on providing suitable habitat
to enhance the welfare of the wildlife resource. Improved
habitat will serve the needs of local and migrant waterfowl,
shorebirds, and other wetland wildlife species. Specific
management goals and actions are outlined for species,
water level control, land acquisition, and a barrier beach
in the Wildlife Area.
Wigwam Bay Wildlife Area Management Plan
The Wigwam Bay Wildlife Area (WBWA) has
an east and west unit, both located in Michigan’s Arenac
County in the Saginaw Bay area. The Plan’s goals and objectives
were developed in response to the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources’ concern for the protection and propagation
of wildlife and enhancement of the associated habitat
types, as well as the public’s desire for the recreational
use of the area. The goal is to provide essential habitat
for migratory and resident wildlife and recreational opportunities
for hunting, trapping and wildlife viewing. Its objectives
are: to maintain viable populations of all plants and
animal species native to the area with an emphasis on
waterfowl and other wetland-related species; operate and
maintain facilities in a cost- effective manner with agricultural
practices (intensive management) not promoted; and, to
manage to insure specific recreational and species targets.
Land acquisition activities are noted as a primary management
consideration.
Quanicasse Wildlife Area Management Plan
The Quanicasse Wildlife Area is located
along the south shore of Lake Huron’s Saginaw Bay. This
part of the Saginaw Bay is a valuable marsh and wetland
wildlife habitat. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources’
primary management goal is to preserve this area for wildlife,
thereby preventing future residential or commercial development,
which would ultimately destroy wildlife values. As such,
the main objective relates to land acquisition with management
of the area consisting of preserving the marsh in its
natural condition.
Saginaw Bay Wetlands Initiative - Phase
II
A proposal prepared by Ducks Unlimited to
the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, the
Saginaw Bay Wetlands Initiative - Phase II continues
and broadens a successful multi-year multi-partner effort
to protect and restore wetlands and adjacent habitat on
public and private lands within Michigan’s Saginaw Bay
watershed. The focus of Phase II will be protection and
restoration of Great Lakes coastal marshes and their associated
habitats along Saginaw Bay, expansion of existing state
and federal wildlife areas with the restoration of newly
acquired lands where possible, and restoration and enhancement
of small wetlands and associated uplands important for
waterfowl production on private lands throughout the watershed.
St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area Master Plan
The St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area is located
in southeastern Michigan on the delta of the St. Clair
River as it enters Lake St. Clair and is managed by Michigan’s
Department of Natural Resources. Some of the primary objectives
are to preserve or improve wetland type habitat for game
and nongame species: provide a refuge and food supply
for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and wading birds;
and provide more hunting opportunities and improved quality
hunting experiences. Several work items are discussed
regarding wetland wildlife including vegetative control,
water level management, controlled burns, and land acquisition.
St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area Habitat Development
Plan
The St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area is located
in southeastern Michigan, along the northeastern shoreline
of Lake St. Clair’s Anchor Bay. The marsh makes up the
northern portion of the St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area.
The Habitat Development Plan’s goal is to preserve, protect,
and enhance existing marsh and upland habitats (3,000
acres), to meet the needs of breeding and migratory waterfowl,
along with other wildlife species, while providing practical
recreational opportunities for the benefit of all people.
To meet the Plan’s goal, the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources established 17 objectives with related action
items, such as installation of specified water level control
systems.
Plan Element Summaries
Goals
Goals in the Lake Huron Subregion focus
on restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters, tributaries, and nearshore
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This includes identifying
and protecting existing high-quality fish and wildlife
habitat sites as well as the ecosystem processes required
to sustain such areas. The Saginaw Bay’s Measures of
Success plan references the goal of creating 500 acres
of wetlands annually for the next 15 years.
Methods
The Lake Huron Initiative discusses many
actions needed to protect and restore habitat for the
short-term (1-3 years) and long-term (longer than 3 years).
Examples include identifying dams and other barriers that
are having major ecological impacts; pursuing long-term
remediation efforts; supporting development of upstream
fishways and downstream passage facilities; and developing
lakewide or shared policies on dams, dam removals, maintaining
run-of-the-river flows, and dam retirement funding approaches.
Elements of Success
In discussing key concepts for protecting and restoring
important habitats, the Lake Huron Plan identifies achieving
no net loss of productive capacity of habitats as a sign
of success. The Saginaw Bay’s Measure’s of Success
plan references the goal of creating 500 acres of wetlands
annually for the next 15 years and states that it is not
the physical limitations but rather the economic and social
implications of wetland restoration that may make this
goal difficult to achieve in the short term. The social
and economic cost of removing land from agricultural production
may be too high. For this reason, protecting the ecological
integrity of the remaining coastal marsh areas for fish
and wildlife is the most important single goal for successfully
sustaining the diversity and abundance of species in the
Saginaw Bay. As with the other subregions, involving stakeholders
and coordinating with other efforts are important to the
success of the plans.
Information Needs
There is a need for additional information
to better understand the natural processes that support
the estuarine systems and the ecology of species of concern
in order to ensure that conservation management is most
effective. Additional information regarding economic assessment
of wetlands and alternative ecologically sustainable economic
activities will also be very important.
Lake Erie Subregion
Description
The Lake Erie subregion includes Lake Erie
and the Niagara River. Lake Erie is the smallest of the
Great Lakes in water volume, as well as the most shallow,
and has a retention/replacement time of 2.7 years. Lake
Erie is the most southern of the Great Lakes, and its
more moderate climate is marked by the appearance of a
distinctively southern floristic component. In addition,
the shallow waters of Lake Erie respond rapidly to the
annual thermal heating and cooling cycle, creating a distinct
growing season environment. However its east-west orientation
parallel to the prevailing storm track makes Lake Erie
very susceptible to the passage of storms. Lake Erie is
noted for its severe storms, intense wave action, and
rapid water level changes (Herdendorf and Krieger 1989
in Minc, 1997).
A large number of coastal wetlands border
the low lying shorelines and estuaries of western Lake
Erie in Michigan and Ohio. Along the U.S. shoreline of
Lake Erie there are 87 wetlands, encompassing more than
7,937 ha (Herdendorf et al., 1981b in Minc, 1997). Wetlands
of Lake Erie are predominantly lagoon, embayed and drowned
river mouth emergent marshes. Many have barrier beaches,
but several have been diked for increased shoreline protection
and intensive wetland management (Wilcox and Maynard,
1996).
The coastal wetlands of Lake Erie support
the largest diversity of plant and wildlife species in
the Great Lakes. The moderate climate of Lake Erie and
its more southern latitude allow for many species not
found along the northern Great Lakes. As a result of this
diversity, coastal wetlands of Lake Erie provide habitat
for many rare species of plants and wildlife, such as
Pennsylvania smartweed, Jefferson’s salamander, spotted
gar, and king rail, and rare wetland communities such
as coastal meadow marsh (shoreline fen) occur at several
locations (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
The Niagara River drains Lake Erie into
Lake Ontario. It flows northerly from Lake Erie at Buffalo,
New York, to Lake Ontario, at Niagara-on-the-Lake. Over
the river’s 58 km course, it drops almost 100 m in elevation;
56 m occurring as the river cascades over the Niagara
Escarpment at Niagara Falls. The fast flow of the river
has historically precluded wetland development along some
reaches of the river (Minc, 1998), and many wetland areas
have been degraded or lost. A few wetlands and beds of
submergent macrophytes are present in the upper reaches
of the river associated with the low sandy shores of islands
(Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Habitat Issues
Status and Trends
Along the U.S. shore of Lake Erie, large
areas of coastal wetlands have been lost over the past
century and a half, especially in the western basin of
the lake. Prior to 1850, an extensive coastal marsh and
swamp system covered an area of approximately 122,000
ha between Vermilion, Ohio and the mouth of the Detroit
River, Michigan, and extending up the valley of the Maumee
River. This was part of the Black Swamp, a vast wetland
complex 160 km long and 40 km wide (Herdendorf, 1987 in
Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). As a result of the development
of Toledo at the mouth of the Maumee and the extensive
agricultural drainage throughout the watershed, this extensive
estuarine system has been nearly completely converted.
Today, only about 5,300 ha of western Lake Erie’s coastal
marshes remain (Bookhout et al., 1989 in Wilcox and Maynard,
1996). Site specific incremental loss is still occurring
from dredging and filling, especially near harbors, marinas
and waterfront developments.
There have been no specific studies on wetland
loss in the Niagara River, however many wetlands have
been reduced in size or lost and both the Niagara and
Buffalo Rivers have been declared AOCs. A large portion
of the U.S. shoreline is developed, especially in the
Buffalo area where extensive filling has occurred. For
instance, the Tifft Street area in Buffalo was formerly
the largest emergent marsh on the eastern end of Lake
Erie; it was fragmented and largely filled for industrial
and railroad development. Similarly, the marsh and submergent
macrophyte beds around Rattlesnake Island and in small
embayments in the Tonawanda Channel have been filled or
dredged for residential or marina developments (New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1994 in
Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Threats
The quality of many of Lake Erie’s remaining
wetlands has been and continues to be degraded by numerous
stressors, especially excessive loadings of sediments
and nutrients, contaminants, shoreline hardening, dredging,
filling, changes in sediment budgets, exotic species,
and diking of wetlands.
While excess loadings of phosphorus from
point and non‑point sources have reduced over the
last two decades due to control measures, nitrogen loadings
from non‑point sources, mainly agricultural runoff,
have increased in several watersheds (Richards and Baker,
1993 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Many stretches of the
U.S. shoreline in western Lake Erie have been modified
with dikes, revetments or other shoreline structures for
protection of built‑up areas and agricultural fields
against periodic high water levels and potential for flooding,
erosion and property damage. While diking allows for more
intensive management of waterfowl and other fauna, it
also isolates it from the open waters of the lake, thus
impairing many wetland functions.
The extensive use of revetments and other
structures has limited the supply of sediments in the
littoral drift in western Lake Erie. As a result, the
barrier beaches and sand spits that protect wetland plants
from wave action are no longer being replenished at a
rate equal to or greater than the rate of erosion. As
a result, these wetlands are becoming increasingly exposed
to wave erosion. Examples occur along Cedar Point in Ohio
and Woodtick Peninsula in Michigan. The restoration of
Metzger Marsh, a 300-ha wetland embayment protected from
waves by a barrier beach, involved the establishment of
a dike to mimic the protective function of the lost barrier
beach. Finally, one of the most common stressors in wetlands
along the shore of Lake Erie are invasive non‑indigenous
species including purple loosestrife, zebra mussels and
carp.
In addition to many of the stressors discussed
above, the Niagara River is also impacted by water withdrawal.
More than half of the flow of the Niagara River is diverted
for power production, causing dewatering of some marsh
areas. This is exacerbated in some areas by road crossings
of wetlands which restrict their hydrology (Wilcox and
Maynard, 1996).
Restoration Plans
Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), as amended in 1987, the U.S. and Canada agreed
“to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.”
To achieve this purpose, the parties agreed to develop
and implement, in consultation with state and provincial
governments, Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP) for open
waters and Remedial Action Plans (RAP) for Areas of Concern
(AOC). The Lake Erie LaMP is being developed by 20 federal
and state agencies along with the Lake Erie Binational
Public Forum, a group of Lake Erie citizens actively interested
in improving the lake. The LaMP contains appropriate funded
and proposed (non-funded) actions for restoration and
protection to bring about actual improvement in the ecosystem.
Actions include commitments by the Parties, governments
and regulatory programs, as well as suggested voluntary
actions that could be taken by non-governmental partners.
The Lake Erie LaMP has defined loss of habitat
as a major stressor and a beneficial use impairment. Several
habitat projects have been completed over the years and
a number of others are underway or proposed. Additionally,
it proposes a foundation for developing a Lake Erie habitat
restoration and protection plan and outlines screening
criteria to assist in selecting and highlighting habitat
projects that will most strongly support the goals of
the Lake Erie LaMP.
Management Plan for Old Woman Creek National
Estuarine Research Reserve
and State Nature Preserve (OWC NERR &
SNP)
Designated by NOAA in 1980 as a National
Estuarine Research Reserve, this freshwater estuary is
located on the south-central shore of Lake Erie at the
mouth of Old Woman Creek, about 3 miles east of Huron,
Ohio in Erie County. The management plan, first approved
in 1981, establishes policies that will protect the natural
resources and ecological integrity of the Reserve. Revised
in 1999, the Plan’s five year goals call for refining
the OWC NERR Program, particularly in the area of research
and monitoring; encouraging community stewardship of the
estuary, watershed and nearshore Lake Erie coast through
expanded outreach program; protecting the core estuarine
area, through buffer land acquisition, conservation easements,
or cooperative agreements; and, improving the transfer
of estuarine information between programs inside and outside
the reserve.
Erie Marsh Restoration Project
The Erie Marsh Restoration Project is a proposed project of The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
Erie Marsh, located 15 miles southwest of Monroe, Michigan,
is composed of 1,100 acres of diked marshland and 1,068
acres of open water. The area sited for restoration, Widgeon
Hole, is 83 acres near the center of the marsh. The area
will be managed for Phragmites australis control.
Necessary steps include draining the Widgeon Hole, prescribed
burning to remove biomass, and herbiciding the Phragmites
followed by flooding. The site will be managed to promote
native plant species and attract waterfowl by recreating
marsh habitat. The restoration will serve as a pilot project
to determine whether Great Lakes marsh habitat can be
restored within a system that is controlled by dikes.
It will be monitored by TNC to determine the success of
invasive species removal, viability of native seed bank
versus manual seeding of the site, and locations and abundance
of the state threatened Eastern fox snake.
Lake St. Clair/Western Lake Erie Watershed
Project
A Ducks Unlimited proposal to the North
American Wetlands Conservation Council, the Lake St.
Clair/Western Lake Erie Watershed Project will continue
and broaden existing efforts to protect and restore wetlands
and adjacent habitat on public and private lands within
the Lake St. Clair and western Lake Erie watershed including
the Detroit River. The focus of the project will be on
protection and restoration of Great Lakes coastal marshes
and their associated habitats, expansion of existing state
and federal wildlife areas, and restoration and enhancement
of small wetlands and associated uplands important for
waterfowl production on private lands throughout the watershed.
Erie State Game Area Master Plan
Michigan Department of Natural Resources’
Erie State Game Area is located in the extreme southeastern
corner of Michigan’s Monroe County on Maumee Bay, an estuary
of Lake Erie. The primary objectives of the master plan
are to preserve and maintain wetland habitat for game
and non-game species; to restore and create up to 2,000
acres of marsh; to provide increased nesting cover, food,
and resting area for migrating waterfowl; to provide increased
recreational hunting opportunity near a heavily populated
area in Michigan, and to provide for public uses such
as wildlife viewing, photography and trapping. The plan
proposes a barrier island be constructed to prevent further
erosion and installation of water control structures and
pumps.
Lake Erie Marshes Focus Plan
A flagship project under the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan’s Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence
Basin Joint Venture, the Lake Erie Marshes Focus Plan
encompasses the Ohio counties of Lucas, Wood, Ottawa,
Sandusky, and Erie. Managed by the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources’ Division of Wildlife in cooperation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Project’s
goal is to provide at least 17,540 additional acres of
high quality wetland habitat in the Lake Erie Marsh (Great
Black Swamp) region. To meet this goal, two major habitat
objectives have been identified: 1) wetland habitat protection;
and 2) wetland habitat restoration and enhancement. Wetland
habitat protection is defined in a broad sense and includes
any legal arrangement that results in habitat protection
and/or requires an expenditure of time or money to bring
about. The protection goal is 10,764 acres, with 7,639
in fee title acquisition. The wetland habitat restoration
and enhancement goal is 6,776 acres on federal, state,
and private lands.
Pointe Mouillee State Game Area Master Plan
The Pointe Mouillee State Game Area is located
on the Lake Erie shoreline in the southeast corner of
Michigan between Detroit and Toledo. Phase 1 of the project
called for restoration of 1,900 acres of marsh through
construction of dikes and installation of water control
structures, duplicating the former creeks and channels
that existed within the marsh in the early 1950s. Phase
II of the plan involves basic marsh management (no construction)
such as de-watering the lake bottom between the barrier
island and dikes by pumping and establishing emergent
plant communities on the exposed mud flats. The restored
marsh will be maintained in as natural a condition as
possible with free flow of waters from Lake Erie. Changes
in this basic plan will take place only where changes
in Lake Erie water levels or other factors cause a deterioration
in the optimum growth of emergent and submergent aquatic
plant communities. Management practices including de-watering
(drawdown), or flooding by pumping or gravity flow, may
be necessary to assist nature in maintaining the desired
balance.
Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan
The Lake Erie Protection and Restoration
Plan (Plan) was produced by the Ohio Lake Erie
Commission (Commission), a State of Ohio Agency comprised
of the directors of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and the Departments
of Agriculture, Development, Health, and Transportation.
In 1998, the Commission released the Lake Erie Quality
Index, which evaluated 10 separate indicators of Lake
Erie quality, including Habitat. The evaluation of indicators
showed positive trends, as well as areas with little progress
towards mitigating impacts of past practices. The Quality
Index set environmental, recreational and economic goals
and objectives. The Plan identifies 84 specific recommendations
to accomplish these goals and objectives and includes
protection and restoration of valuable coastal properties.
Strawberry Island/Motor Island Shallows Restoration
Plan
The Strawberry Island/Motor Island Shallows is located
near the southern tip of Grand Island where it has been
endangered due to gravel dredging and the erosive forces
of the Niagara River's strong currents and ice flows.
Strawberry Island, the upstream sentinel of the complex,
once totaled more than 200 acres of wetland habitat and
forest but now consists of only five acres. The New York
State Department of State officially designated this area
a "significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat."
A $1 million restoration project is underway to protect
shorelines and restore the endangered aquatic habitat.
The project is jointly sponsored by a variety of federal,
state, and local government and natural resource management
organizations and funded by the New York State Clean Water/Clean
Air Bond Act and State Department of Transportation funds.
Plan Element Summaries
Goals
Goals in lakewide plans that benefit wetlands
are general, including coordination of management efforts,
protection of existing estuarine systems, reducing contaminant
loading, managing phosphorus, managing changes in land
use, controlling exploitation by sport and commercial
harvest, and creating and restoring natural landscapes.
Methods
Methods include reducing toxic and sediment
loads, permanent land protection (through purchase or
easement), expanding research, coordinating management
among various agencies, controlling exotic species through
herbicide use and prescribed burning, managing recreation,
reestablishing native vegetation, restoring natural littoral
processes, restoring natural lake level fluctuations,
and expanding education and outreach.
Elements of Success
Key elements of success include public education
and involvement, cooperation and coordination of a wide
range of stakeholders, and achieving progress on measurable
indicators of success related to the particular estuarine
system to be restored (e.g., increase in target species
population, expansion of vegetated areas, etc.)
Information Needs
The plans acknowledge the need for additional
information to apply sufficient understanding of the natural
processes that support the estuarine systems and the ecology
of species of concern in order to ensure that conservation
management is most effective. The response of target species
to the restoration activities will be monitored, and this
information will be used to modify future restoration
efforts.
Lake Ontario Subregion
Description
The Lake Ontario Subregion includes Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River to the Quebec border.
Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes in surface
area (18,960 square kilometers) but is relatively deep,
with an average depth second only to Lake Superior. Water
levels in the lake are controlled by dams and locks in
the St. Lawrence River, and natural lake level fluctuations
have been dampened significantly (Minc, 1997).
Along the U.S. side, Lake Ontario is bordered
by low glacial till bluffs. As a result, most of Lake
Ontario’s shoreline (85%) is characterized by regular
shorelines sloping rapidly into deep waters which preclude
extensive wetland development (Minc, 1997). In the U.S.,
a total of 168 wetlands covering 5,529 ha are present
(Herdendorf et al., 1981a in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Wetlands are most abundant along the eastern end of the
lake owing to sand accumulation in the form of barrier
beaches. Dominant wetland types include barrier-beach
lagoons and partially barred lacustrine estuaries (Minc,
1997). In addition to these emergent and submergent marsh
communities, there are also some swamps and a few rare
shoreline fen communities. These coastal wetland systems
provide important fish and wildlife habitat for the entire
lake ecosystem.
The St. Lawrence River is the sole outlet
of the entire Great Lakes. From its origin near Wolf Island,
it flows northeast between New York and Ontario for 182
km before entering the Province of Quebec. Water level
and flows for this section of the St. Lawrence River have
been regulated since the construction of the St. Lawrence
Seaway in 1959. Since then, dams and water control structures
have greatly changed the character of the river and its
wetlands. The Thousand Islands section lies in the uppermost
reach of the river. It has a rocky shoreline and many
islands, bays, and shoals with extensive wetlands. Downstream
from the Thousand Islands, the St. Lawrence River goes
from a single deep and wide channel with fast currents
and a relatively uniform shoreline to a lacustrine-like
system (created as a result of dam construction for the
Seaway) with extensive wetlands located at creek mouths,
in embayments, and surrounding islands (Grant, 1995 in
Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).
Habitat Issues
Status and Trends
Along the entire U.S. shore, Lake Ontario
wetland losses have been estimated to be near 60% (Busch
et al., 1993 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Most of the
losses are associated with the heavily populated areas
surrounding Oswego and Rochester, but losses have also
occurred as a result of resort residential and marina
development, especially around large barrier beaches.
Three Areas of Concern are located in the Lake Ontario
Subregion including Eighteen Mile Creek, Rochester, and
Oswego in New York.
Water levels in Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River have been regulated in the lake since construction
of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959. Prior to regulation,
the range of water level fluctuations during the 20th
century was about 2 m (6.5 ft). Following regulation,
this range was reduced slightly between 1960 and 1976
and was reduced to about 0.9 m (2.9 ft) after 1976. The
lack of alternating flooded and dewatered conditions at
the upper and lower edges of the wetlands decreased wetland
area and the diversity of plant and wildlife communities
(Busch et al., 1990; Wilcox et al., 1993 in Wilcox and
Whillans, 1999.). Upland species became more prevalent
along the upper edges of the wetlands, emergent communities
declined in area, aquatic macrophyte beds increased, and
invasive plants began to dominate wetland communities.
Extensive stands of cattail are now established in these
wetlands, and many areas are dominated by purple loosestrife,
reed canary grass, and various shrubs.
The St. Lawrence River has experienced a
wide variety of environmental disturbances since the channel
was modified for shipping purposes. The largest disturbance
was associated with the construction and operation of
the St. Lawrence Seaway. Impacts include inundation from
dams, regulation and stabilization of water flows, and
direct impacts from dredging and filling. The St. Lawrence
is a focal point for a strong resort residential and tourist
economy. Like other parts of the Great Lakes system this
has brought with it shoreline development, road construction,
and dredging and filling associated with marina development
and operation.
Threats
The remaining wetlands in Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River are affected by several human stressors,
including manipulation of lake levels, toxic contaminants,
high sediment loads, excess turbidity related to urban
and agricultural runoff, excess nutrients, shoreline modification,
dikes and revetments. Small‑scale wetland loss continues
as a result of shoreline development, especially around
large barrier beaches and near larger cities, and dredging
and filling associated with harbors, marinas and waterfront
developments.
Restoration Plans
Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan 2000
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), as amended in 1987, the U.S. and Canada agreed
“to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.”
To achieve this purpose, the parties agreed to develop
and implement, in consultation with state and provincial
governments, Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP) for open
waters. The Lake Ontario LaMP contains appropriate
funded and proposed (non-funded) actions for restoration
and protection to bring about actual improvement in the
ecosystem.
Eastern Lake Ontario Megasite Site Conservation
Plan
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has prepared
a Site Conservation Plan for the Eastern Lake Ontario
Dune/Wetland Complex, which includes a core of 16,000
acres, along 17 miles of Lake Ontario shoreline in Oswego
and Jefferson Counties, New York. The plan identifies
long-term conservation goals and describes a proposed
five-prong approach to conservation and restoration of
ecoregional targets. Targets include Great Lakes dunes
and the coastal marsh ecosystems, and species such as
the Champlain beachgrass, bog buckmouth, and bog turtle.
The plan also identifies the following declining and vulnerable
bird targets: black tern, American bittern, sedge wren,
and migratory stopover habitat for landbirds, shorebirds,
raptors, and waterbrids.
Eastern Great Lakes Lowlands Program Area
Strategic Plan
Ducks Unlimited’s Eastern Great Lakes
Lowlands Program Area Strategic Plan covers 32,500
miles of low-lying lake plain habitats in New York, Pennsylvania,
and Ohio. The Plan establishes focus areas, with some
addressing coastal wetlands such as the St. Lawrence Valley
and Northwest Counties (PA) focus areas. The Plan sets
five-year goals, objectives, and strategies which include
protecting 5,000 acres of wetland and associated upland
habitat through acquisition and conservation easements,
restoring and enhancing 9,000 acres of wetland habitat,
and reducing sediment, nutrient and toxic loading into
Lakes Erie and Ontario.
French Creek Wildlife Management Project
The French Creek Wildlife Management Area
is located in the Town of Clayton in Jefferson County,
20 miles north of Watertown, NY. It consists of 2,265
acres of small streams, cattail marshes, open meadows,
and upland hardwood forest that provide habitat for endangered,
threatened and species of concern including the American
bald eagle, osprey, black tern, Blandings turtle, pugnose
and blackshin shiners, and a variety of migratory waterfowl
and fur-bearing species. In order to mitigate the negative
effects of the St. Lawrence Seaway System's hydrology,
the restoration project involves design and construction
of an earthen dam and innovative gate water level control
system. The system provides the flexibility for current
and future biodiversity management needs with the ability
to adjust water levels while allowing fish passage.
Plan Element Summaries
Goals
Goals in these plans range from the very
broad (e.g., we as a society shall conduct our activities
with responsible stewardship for the Lake Ontario basin)
to more specific. Specific goals include long-term maintenance
of functioning dune/bluff barrier systems, managing recreation
on undeveloped portions of the barrier dune/beach systems,
and maintaining a mosaic of healthy wetlands to support
populations of the vast assemblage of rare and common
plants and animals.
Methods
Methods include reducing toxic and sediment
loads, land protection through conservation easement or
purchase, expanding research and the application of scientific
information, coordinating management among various agencies,
controlling exotic species, managing recreation, reestablishing
native vegetation, restoring natural lake level fluctuations,
and expanding education and outreach.
Elements of Success
Key elements of success include public education
and involvement, cooperation and coordination of a wide
range of stakeholders, and achieving progress on measurable
indicators of success.
Information Needs
The plans acknowledge the need for additional
information to apply sufficient understanding of the natural
processes that support the estuarine systems and the ecology
of species of concern in order to ensure that conservation
management is most effective.
Bibliography
Chow-Fraser, P., and D. Albert. 1999. Biodiversity
Investment Areas Coastal Wetland Ecosystems: Version 3:
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998.
Comer, P. J. 1996. Wetland Trends in Michigan
Since 1800: a preliminary assessment.
Ducks Unlimited. 1999. Michigan Upper Peninsula
Coastal Wetland Project.
Ducks Unlimited. 2000. Eastern Great Lakes
Lowlands Program Area Strategic Plan.
Ducks Unlimited. 2000. Saginaw Bay Wetland
Initiative - Phase II.
Ducks Unlimited. 2001. Lake St. Clair/Western
Lake Erie Watershed Project.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Great
Lakes America.
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
of Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. The Great Lakes:
An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
1996. Indiana Wetlands Conservation Plan.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program. 2001. Indiana Dunes:
Dunes Creek and the Great Marsh.
Kavetsky, Robert. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Lansing, Michigan. Personal Communications.
Keough, J. R., T. A. Thompson, G. R. Guntenspergen,
and D. Wilcox. 1999. Hydrogeomorphic Factors and Ecosystem
Responses in Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands,
Vol. 9, No. 4., Journal of the Society of Wetland Scientists.
Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan Work
Group. 2000. Lake Erie LaMP 2000.
Lake Michigan Technical Committee. 2000.
Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan.
Lake Superior Binational Program. 2000.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan.
Marine Advisory Service, The. 1985. Lake
Michigan. Extension Bulletin E-1867.
Merryfield, N., E. Epstein, A. Galvin, E.
Judziewicz, W. Smith. 2000. A Data Compilation and Assessment
of Coastal Wetlands of Wisconsin’s Great Lakes.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
Office of the Great Lakes. March 2000. Lake Huron Initiative
Action Plan.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1977. Erie State Game Area Master Plan 1977-1987.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1977. Muskegon State Game Area Master Plan 1977-1987.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1977. Nayanquing Point Wildlife Area Master
Plan 1977-1987.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1977. Quanicassee Wildlife Area Master Plan
1977-1987.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1977. St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area Master Plan
1977-1987.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1977. Wildfowl Bay State Game Area 10-Year Management
Plan 1977-1987.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1991. St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area Habitat
Development Plan 1991-2000.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1992. Tobico Marsh State Game Area Master Plan.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1994. Wigwam Bay Wildlife Area Management Plan.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1995. Munuscong Wildlife Area Management Plan:
An Ecosystem Conservation and User Accommodation Approach.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. 1996. Crow Island State Game Area 5-Year Master
Plan.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife
Division. Point Mouillee State Game Area Master Plan.
Michigan Sea Grant, and Michigan State Extension.
2000. The Great Lakes Basin.
Michigan Wetland Advisory Committee. 1997.
Michigan’s Wetland Conservation Strategy.
Minc, L. D. 1997. Vegetative Response in
Michigan’s Coastal Wetlands to Great Lakes Water-Level
Fluctuations: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Minc, L. D. 1998. Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands:
An Overview of Controlling Abiotic Factors, Regional Distribution,
and Species Composition: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Minc, L. D., and D. A. Albert. 1998. Great
Lakes Coastal Wetlands: Abiotic and Floristic Characterization:
Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources,
and
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
1997. Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
1999. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. April 1995. The St. Louis
River System Remedial Action Plan Progress Report.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division
of Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Lake
Erie Marshes Focus Area Plan.
Ohio Lake Erie Commission. 2000. Lake Erie
Protection and Restoration Plan.
Ohio Wetlands Task Force. 1994. Report &
Recommendations.
Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research
Reserve. 1999. Management Plan for Old Woman Creek National
Estuarine Research Reserve and State Nature Preserve.
Public Sector Consultants Inc. 2000. Measures
of Success: Addressing Environmental Impairments in the
Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay.
Resource Management Group. 1995. Tobico
Marsh Hydrologic Study.
St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee.
2001. Draft Habitat Plan for the Lower St. Louis River.
Stapp, William B. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan. Personal Communications.
The Nature Conservancy. 1994. The Conservation
of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Ecosystem:
Issues and Opportunities.
The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Chequamegon
Bay Watershed Site Conservation Plan.
The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Eastern Lake
Ontario Megasite Site Conservation Plan.
The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Site Conservation
Plan for Red Banks and the Door Peninsula and Islands
Landscape Sites.
The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Toward a New
Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second
Iteration.
The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Erie Marsh
Restoration.
Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes
Region Joint Venture. 1998. Implementation Plan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment
Canada, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1998. Lakewide
Management Plan for Lake Ontario.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes
Coastal Program. 2001. 2001 Planned Activities.
Wilcox, D., and L. Maynard. 1996. Coastal
Wetlands: State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996.
Wilcox, D., and T. Whillans. 1999. Techniques
for Restoration of Disturbed Coastal Wetlands of the Great
Lakes. Wetlands, Vol. 9, No. 4., Journal of the Society
of Wetland Scientists.
|