Grantee Research Project Results
2001 Progress Report: Protocols for Selection of Classification System and Reference Conditions: A Comparison of Methods
EPA Grant Number: R828777Title: Protocols for Selection of Classification System and Reference Conditions: A Comparison of Methods
Investigators: Johnson, Lucinda , Richards, Carl , Schuldt, Jeffrey A. , Host, George E. , Ciborowski, Jan
Current Investigators: Johnson, Lucinda , Richards, Carl , Schuldt, Jeffrey A. , Host, George E. , Brady, Valerie J , Holland, Jeffrey L. , Hollenhorst, Thomas P. , Breneman, Dan , Ciborowski, Jan , Gathman, Joseph
Institution: University of Minnesota - Duluth
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: March 26, 2001 through March 25, 2004 (Extended to March 25, 2005)
Project Period Covered by this Report: March 26, 2001 through March 25, 2002
Project Amount: $707,404
RFA: Development of National Aquatic Ecosystem Classifications and Reference Conditions (2000) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Water , Aquatic Ecosystems
Objective:
The objectives of this research project are to: (1) apply an a priori classification system to Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystems; (2) quantitatively identify the least impacted sites within classification units using widely available spatial databases; (3) define reference biological conditions for classification units; (4) use biological data to test the efficacy of reference classifications; and (5) determine whether degraded biological conditions differ from reference conditions in a subset of classification units.
Progress Summary:
We used summaries of anthropogenic stress along the Great Lakes Shoreline to aid in the selection of study sites for this project. The first task was to develop both a strategy and a method for dividing the shoreline of the Great Lakes (U.S. side only) into segments that could be summarized with respect to the type of geomorphic unit on the shore, as well as the stressors influencing those segments. In conjunction with the Great Lakes Environmental Indicators project (EaGLe-GLEI), we delineated shoreline segments and "segment sheds." The shoreline was divided into units whose endpoints were midway between adjacent second order and higher streams. Topographic catchments were then defined for each shoreline segment. For riverine wetlands, the contributing basin includes the watershed plus the shoreline between the mouths of rivers. These basins were not appropriate for delineating stressors for areas close to the shoreline. As a result, stressors for high energy shorelines, embayments, coastal marshes, and protected wetlands were summarized using a sliding window analysis to capture information about a discrete area of shoreline. We conducted a sliding window analysis to summarize the stressors (see Table 1) for the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands, high energy shorelines, and protected wetlands. We used the ArcInfo Focalsum command to summarize stressor variables in a 1 km (33 x 33 m) window around each shoreline pixel. This command evaluated a 1 km area around each pixel, and assigned a calculated value (e.g., a count or average) to that pixel. Summaries of residential/commercial land use, agricultural land use, human population density, and distance to point sources were summarized for both segment sheds and shoreline areas along the Great Lakes Coastline.
Wetland Inventory. Significant effort has been expended to develop an inventory of Great Lakes Wetlands. Low altitude aerial photographs, digital orthophoto quadrangles, digital raster data, and several wetland inventories (e.g., National Wetland Inventory, Herdendorf, et al. (1981), Wisconsin Wetland Inventory) were assembled for the entire Great Lakes Shoreline of the United States. The shoreline was then inspected visually and classified as an embayment; or one of three classes of wetlands, including: coastal, riverine, or protected. These hydrogeomorphic classes were based on a classification by Keough, et al. (1999), accounting for degree of exposure to open waters of the Great Lakes. This inventory could prove to be one of the most useful products of the entire project, since a comprehensive list of coastal wetlands is lacking, and has been identified as a critical need by academic and agency scientists, and by resource managers.
Field Methods. One of the primary effects of anthropogenic stress on an ecosystem is habitat degradation. We have developed a habitat assessment methodology for wetlands that involves three scales of observations. Data obtained from aerial photographs and satellite images where available at an appropriate resolution summarizing the landscape context (e.g., surrounding topography, land use), shape (e.g., shoreline complexity), and hydrologic connectivity (connection to the Great Lakes, connection to the watershed). These data will be verified in the field. Field personnel records concerning bathymetry, sediment, and vegetation are observed at a relatively large number of locations throughout the unit. More intensive observations and measurements are then recorded at discrete locations where fish and benthic samples are obtained. We currently are testing these habitat assessment methods in the field to determine their feasibility and reproducibility.
References:
Herdendorf CE, Hartley SM, Barnes MD, eds. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands within the United States, Vol. 1: Overview. Report
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981a, FWS/OBS-81/02-v1.
Herdendorf CE, Hartley SM, Barnes MD, eds. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands within the United States, Vol. 2: Lake Ontario. Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981b, FWS/OBS-81/02-v2.
Herdendorf CE, Hartley SM, Barnes MD, eds. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands within the United States, Vol. 3: Lake Erie. Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981c, FWS/OBS-81/02-v3.
Herdendorf CE, Hartley SM, Barnes MD, eds. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands within the United States, Vol. 4: Lake Huron. Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981d, FWS/OBS-81/02-v4.
Herdendorf CE, Hartley SM, Barnes MD, eds. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands within the United States, Vol. 5: Lake Michigan. Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981e, FWS/OBS-81/02-v5.
Herdendorf CE, Hartley SM, Barnes MD, eds. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands within the United States, Vol. 6: Lake Superior. Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981f, FWS/OBS-81/02-v6.
Keough JR, Thompson TA, Guntenspergen GR, Wilcox DA. Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 1999;19(4):821-834.
Future Activities:
We currently are selecting sampling sites from the candidate list of "least impacted" derived by summarizing anthropogenic stressors. Field sampling will commence in late June, and will continue until September 2002.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 10 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
watersheds, water, ecological effects, aquatic, habitat, integrated assessment, biology, ecology, modeling, surveys, measurement methods, satellite, landsat, remote sensing, Great Lakes, Midwest, EPA Region 5, EPA Region 3, EPA Region 2., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Geographic Area, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Aquatic Ecosystems & Estuarine Research, Hydrology, Aquatic Ecosystem, Ecology and Ecosystems, Great Lakes, reference condition, coastal environments, anthropogenic impact, comparison of methods, environmental indicators, biological indicators, ecological classification, remotely sensed dataProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.