[ Back to Contents ]
Actions to restore, protect, conserve, and prevent ecosystem perturbation in the Great Lakes basin are the result, primarily, of response to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as amended by the 1987 Protocol, the Great Lakes Fisheries Convention, and memoranda of intent among governments. The responsibility for action from these acts and agreements is shared among all sectors of society. Objectives set in response to agreements such as those above provide both broad and specific desired future results of management actions (White 1991).
Purpose is provided by objectives. End points or targets identify quantifiable conditions that signal success and progress toward achieving objectives. Through Annex 1 of the 1987 Protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Canadian and United States federal governments, in cooperation with the state and provincial governments, agreed to develop lake-specific ecosystem objectives to maintain and restore physical, chemical, and biological integrity. Ecosystem objectives currently exist for Lake Superior (Lake Superior Work Group, November 1993) and are in different stages of development for the other Great Lakes made under the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Fish community objectives and implied environmental objectives have been developed for Lakes Superior and Erie (Busiahn 1990; Koonce 1994) and a process has been developed and is being applied to ensure compatibility and integration among objectives (Hartig 1993; Koonce 1994). The evolved, cooperative process in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem provides some assurance that the focus is upon objectives, upon the needs which are defined to direct management actions, upon results, and thus the tendency to focus upon techniques is avoided.
However, once objectives and end points have been developed and the appropriate degree of consensus achieved, a suite of ecosystem management options which can provide progress to end points are available. Restoration, rehabilitation, conservation, mitigation, and protection of habitat are among the array of management options. Integration of management actions for habitat with other environmental and resource management options is ultimately required. Accumulating the array of techniques for habitat restoration and rehabilitation is an early step required in the development of action plans centering around habitat. This manual of methods for modifying habitat to benefit aquatic ecosystems provides a partial array of habitat alterations which can contribute to restoration objectives in the Great Lakes.
This resource document summarizes a range of available (1 February 1995) methods for rehabilitating, restoring, enhancing, mitigating, or preserving habitat in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The information on habitat modification methods is intended to make individuals and organizations aware of the range of habitat rehabilitation and conservation techniques in use, provide summary information about projects to aid the methods selection process of future initiatives, and provide contact persons for follow-up. In addition, this document is intended to promote consistent and thoughtful application of habitat rehabilitation and conservation methods throughout the Great Lakes basin. However, we emphasize that the selection and use of habitat "tools" must be done through objectives setting, end point definition, and an option selection process.
The intended audience for this manual of "methods" includes: managers of fish and wildlife programs; fishery and wildlife biologists from resource management agencies; lakewide management plan (LAMP) coordinators; remedial action plan (RAP) coordinators; public interest groups and nongovernmental organizations; conservation authorities and watershed councils; municipal planners; consultants and engineers.
Each description of habitat modification methods is concise in order to present an overview of the diversity of habitat projects. Each description of habitat methods follows a standard format, i.e., Title, Contacts, Agencies Involved, Goal, Project Type, Background and Rationale, Regulatory Considerations, Criteria, Project Design, Implementation, Degree of Environmental Intervention, Cost, Biological Assessment, Measures of Success, and Key References. Each habitat project is rated according to the following system: (1) assessment incomplete, (2) action was deleterious, (3) no change or inconclusive, (4) successful, or (5) exceeded goals. Success is rated by the proponent of the habitat modification initiative. A successful project may be simply one where construction is complete. Each description of habitat modification methods includes addresses and telephone, fax, and E-mail numbers of contact persons to encourage interaction of persons interested in rehabilitating and restoring habitat with those having practical experience.
It is important to clarify what this document will not do. This manual does not provide:
The term ecosystem is broadly applied herein. Modifications to habitat will affect ecosystems; however, the methods described may have been developed and used solely in aid of fisheries management. Therefore, the contribution of a habitat modification to the ecosystem is probably understated. This manual assumes that habitat modification is required for one of the following three reasons:
to achieve ecosystem-based objectives established within the Great Lakes institutional framework, e.g., habitat modification will lead to progress toward specified, ecosystem-based end points made under the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, LAMPS;
to restore lost or damaged habitat as called for in Annex 2 of the 1987 Protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Canadian Fisheries Act, etc.; or
to rehabilitate habitat or mitigate the effects of habitat degradation in order to improve or enhance ecosystem structure or function.
Recognition of the need for habitat rehabilitation and conservation has been increasing, particularly over the past decade. For example, Table 1 presents the change in the number of Great Lakes Areas of Concern which identified degraded fish and wildlife populations and loss of fish and wildlife habitat as use impairments between 1989 and 1994. In fact, 77% of the methods described in this manual are the result of initiatives at Great Lakes Areas of Concern (see Figure 1). There was a 50% increase in the number of Areas of Concern that acknowledged loss of habitat between 1989 and 1994. Similar trends in increasing recognition of the need to rehabilitate and conserve habitat are evident in Great Lakes LAMPs and in the committees established under the auspices of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to develop fish community objectives called for in the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries.
Table 1. Status of degradation of fish populations and
loss of fish habitat in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (1989, 1991,
1994).
In response to the increased focus on habitat, this manual was assembled to aid implementation of remedial and preventive actions. It may be important to distinguish among restoration, remediation, and modification (Table 2) to understand the basis for habitat modification. The goal or need which initiated the habitat modification is provided, but the method should not be viewed as appropriate only to the stated goal.
Table 2. The differences among restoration, remediation,
and modification pertaining to the use of this manual.
The descriptions of methods to modify habitat presented in this manual reflect the array of habitat restoration and rehabilitation projects in the Great Lakes basin (1 February 1995). Locations of habitat modification projects are presented in Figure 1. The array of technologies which might be applicable to actions in the Great Lakes basin is, however, incomplete. Design and construction are detailed generally. Measurements used to assess success are provided, but more and better assessment will benefit future users of similar methods. Additional methods will be developed as programs in the Great Lakes basin shift from problem definition to action; therefore, this manual is formatted to accommodate iterations as present methods for habitat modification are applied and evaluated, and new approaches are developed.
Figure 1. Map of Project Locations
Tools of Ecosystem Remediation
Methods for ecosystem remediation may be grouped into functional management classes of action (Table 3) relating to:
1) modifications to flow or water quantity;
2) water quality management;
3) habitat management;
4) biological intervention in aquatic or terrestrial environments; or
5) controls on human activities.
Methods for modifying or manipulating habitat were sought by a request to cooperators in the 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern, members of the Habitat Advisory Board of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, resource management agencies in the eight Great Lakes states, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. National Biological Service and Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund which provides resources to cooperating groups at Canadian Areas of Concern, the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and participants at the November 1994 HabCARES Workshop. All submitted project descriptions are included, although some may provide greater benefit to water quality, may affect flow or water quantity, may involve biological manipulation, or may affect human activity in the watershed.
Table 4 summarizes the status and what is known of the effectiveness of the habitat modification methods presented in this manual. Of the 47 projects, 12 are in initial stages of implementation and have an assessment component planned, 13 have been implemented yet post-project monitoring is insufficient to quantify change in ecosystem structure and function, and 20 have been implemented and post-project monitoring has quantified in some way change in ecosystem structure and function.
Based on this classification, we recommend that greater emphasis
be placed on adequate project assessment to quantify effectiveness
in changing ecosystem function and to provide for application
of successful methods in other parts of the Great Lakes basin
and elsewhere. Selection of effective methods is particularly
important in light of the number, cost and diversity of habitat
projects underway in the Great Lake basin (Tables 3, 4, and 5)
and the planning processes underway (RAPs, LAMPs,
fisheries restoration and remediation objectives, fish community
goals).
Undertaking remedial action is an admission that environmental quality has deteriorated. When damage to ecosystems occurs, it is reassuring to have a method for repair, but avoiding damage in the first place would have been better. Selection of habitat modification and conservation methods consequently will not be a simple task. Careless application of habitat modification can add to ecosystem damage by enhancing erosion, changing nutrient and energy delivery, favouring undesirable or exotic species and the like. Some of the major factors which must be appreciated in a process leading to selection of a method or methods to modify habitat include:
consensus about ecosystem objectives, endpoints or targets;
understanding how physical and chemical habitat features might affect ecosystem structure and function;
whether habitat was lost or affected and is implicated as a cause of ecosystem change;
Table 3. Organization of the 47 methods of modifying habitat
by type or class of management action.
Table 4. The status and effectiveness assumed by the project
proponent of 47 habitat modification initiatives in the Great
Lakes Basin.
Table 5. Organization of 47 methods to modify habitat by technique
of intervention.
Commission for the decade of the 1990's; or
rehabilitating habitat or mitigating the effects of habitat degradation in order to improve or enhance ecosystem structure and function;
then the process framework presented in Figure 2 can be used to help select methods to modify habitat. If habitat modification is not required, then the process can be curtailed and efforts for preservation and conservation continue. If habitat modification is required, it is important to identify stakeholders and secure partnerships early in the process. Experience has shown that if agreement on a clear, measureable problem definition is not achieved, the problem usually remains unresolved.
Having agreement on quantitative targets or end points, identifying appropriate methods for modifying habitat requires:
If objectives, targets or endpoints are not met, the causes of failure and other options need to be analyzed, and the evaluation of management options re-examined (Figure 2). If unintended negative effects arise, the evaluation of management options will require re-examination. If the limiting factor(s) is unknown and the need for habitat modification is not urgent, protection is appropriate, and evaluation of perturbations affecting ecosystem function is required. Each of these situations appears as a loop in the decision making process and any framework for remediation or management must allow for mid-course correction.
Adequate assessment is critical if effectiveness in achieving objectives is to be determined. More importantly, predictive capabilities in ecology are often constrained so habitat modification, when conducted with good scientific method, can strengthen theoretical and applied ecology. Therefore, despite the benefit of making advances in ecology, adequate assessment will indicate when the next priority in habitat modification should be implemented. Testing hypotheses in ecology and evaluating progress toward ecosystem objectives are complementary and reinforcing activities.
This manual of methods for modifying habitat makes available techniques used or planned for use in the Great Lakes watershed. The methods are less important than the communication that we hope will occur in efforts to select approaches for achieving remediation objectives and goals for ecosystem components. In our view, restoration and remediation initiatives must include determining the objectives and endpoints that guide management, establishing the framework within which
Figure 2. Flochart of Decision Making Process.
management actions are addressed, and recognize that restoration ecology, an emerging scientific discipline (Jordan 1988), requires an assessment of effectiveness of the initiatives. Bradshaw (in press) suggests that restoration is a serious test of our ecological understanding. Restoration is likely not only a test for ecology, restoration is an acid test for the strength of partnerships which propose to achieve ecosystem objectives and the logic of frameworks which select management options, as well as the science of ecology.
Continued emphasis must be placed upon merging the scientific, engineering, and socio-economic knowledge needed to advance rehabilitation and sustainability of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Sound assessment programs which value effectiveness of habitat modification therefore must incorporate contributions to ecology (e.g., hypothesis testing, predictive capability), engineering (e.g., tests of design, performance), and socio-economics (e.g., cost-effectiveness, sustainable development). This merger of knowledge and approaches is broadly manifested in the ecosystem approach (Great Lakes Research Advisory Board 1978) and at least the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Strategic Vision of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the decade of the 1990's. Broad, multi-stakeholder partnerships benefit from strong commitments, but benefits to partners also must be present.
Because 55% of the projects to modify habitat available in this manual are incomplete in implementation or assessment, we suggest that re-assessment every 2 years is appropriate. The Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (Supplement 1) 1996 will contain an array of papers which review the science and management for habitat conservation and restoration strategies (proceedings of the HabCARES, Nov. 1994, workshop). The methods outlined in this manual and the workshop proceedings reflect our current status and knowledge related to conservation and restoration in the Great Lakes basin. Like the framework proposed for selecting appropriate methods of modifying habitat (Figure 2), continued assessment of the process, progress and problems ensures achieving the most effective program for maintaining ecosystem form and function.
The agencies and individuals reflected in the 47 projects of this manual deserve recognition for their insight in designing the projects and their industry in implementing the ideas. C. Wooley, A. Behm, K. Fuller, H. Shear, D. Dodge (members of the Habitat Advisory Board), and J. Shaw (Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund) have been particularly helpful in identifying contributors for this manual. Susan Stoddart and Lisa O'Connor helped us contact contributors and electronically organize submissions.
The "Conceptual Framework" and Figure 2 were adapted from the efforts of a working group at the HabCARES workshop and will be published as a perspectives paper in the Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (Suppl.1) 1996.
L. Newman, S. Metikosh, D. Dodge, R. Steedman, K. Minns, C. Wooley, and H. Shear provided helpful reviews and advice during important stages of compiling this manual.
References
Bradshaw, A.D. 1996. Underlying principles of restoration. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53(Suppl.1) (in press).
Busiahn, T.R. [editor]. 1990. Fish community objectives for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 90-1: 23p.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1988. Restoration ecology: the new frontier. In J. Cairns, Jr. [editor]. Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems. Vol. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 192p.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1993. Ecological restoration: replenishing our national and global ecological capital. p.193-208. In D.A. Saunders, R.J. Hobbs, and P.R. Ehrlich [editors]. Natur. Conservation 3. Reconstruction of fragmented ecosystems. Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Great Lakes Research Advisory Board. 1978. The Ecosystem approach. Spec. Rep. to the Int. Joint Comm. 41p.
Hartig, J.H. 1993. Toward integrating remedial-action and fishery-management planning in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. 34p.
Hartig, J.H., and Law, N.L. [editors]. 1994. Progress in Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans. Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. 210p.
International Joint Commission (IJC). 1989. Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Windsor, Ont. 128p.
International Joint Commission (IJC). 1991. Review and evaluation of the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan Program. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Windsor, Ont. 47p.
Jordan, W.R. 1988. Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. In J. Cairns, Jr. [editor]. Rehabilitation damaged ecosystems. Vol.1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 192p.
Koonce, J.F. 1994. Workshop on environmental objectives: summary of proceedings. Habitat Advisory Board, Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 18p.
White, R.J. 1991. Objectives should dictate methods in managing stream habitat for fish. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 10: 44-52.
No. Title Location AOC/Non-AOC
1 Rehabilitation of the Native Aurora Trout Lakes Whirligig and White Pine Lakes Non-AOC
-Temagami
2 Neebing-McIntyre Floodway Habitat Restoration Neebing-McIntyre Rivers AOC
-Thunder Bay
3 Current River Estuary Walleye Spawning Habitat Current River AOC
4 Construction of Self-Cleaning Spawning Substrate theoretical N/A
5 McVicar Creek Mouth Island Creation McVicar Creek AOC
6 McVicar Creek Rehabilitation McVicar Creek AOC
7 Use of Reefrafts to Create Habitat for Birds and Fish Metro Toronto Waterfront AOC
8 Metro Toronto Waterfront - Restoration of Metro Toronto Waterfront AOC
Natural Habitat Structure
9 Mitigation of Low pH in Salmonid Streams Fifteen Mile Brook - Nova Scotia Non-AOC
10 Lower Don River Demonstration Wetland Habitat Lower Don River AOC
11 Creating Upwellings as Habitat for Incubation of Grand Portage Streams, Non-AOC
Eyed Stage Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Eggs Lake Superior
12 Transplanting Aquatic Vegetation in Collingwood Harbour AOC
Collingwood Harbour
13 Soil Bioengineering for Streambank Protection Collingwood Harbour AOC
and Fish Habitat Enhancement
14 Restoring Breeding Ospreys in the Upper Upper St. Lawrence River AOC
St. Lawrence River - A Case Study
15 McKellar River Habitat Creation Project McKeller River AOC
16 Severn Sound Tributary Rehabilitation and Severn Sound Tributaries AOC
Erosion Control Program
17 Underwater Fish Reef Creation Project Within Metro Toronto Waterfront AOC
Ashbridge's Bay Park, City of Toronto
18 Col. Samuel Smith Waterfront Park Bass Metro Toronto Waterfront AOC
Spawning Area
19 Wetland Plantings Within the Mimico Creek Estuary, Metro Toronto Waterfront AOC
Humber Bay Park, City of Etobicoke
20 Toronto Islands Northern Pike Spawning Habitat Metro Toronto Waterfront AOC
21 Metzger Marsh Coastal Wetland Restoration Project Metzeger Marsh - SW basin AOC
of Lake Erie
22 Urban Stream Stabilization Efforts Which Increase Waukegan River AOC
Instream Habitat While Controlling Bank Erosion
23 Ruwe Marsh Protection Project - Phase 1 Ruwe Marsh, Detriot River AOC
24 Windsor Salt Riverfront Rehabilitation Project Detroit River AOC
25 MacDonald Park Habitat Enhancement St. Clair River AOC
Demonstration Project
26 Bear Creek Wetland Creation Project St. Clair River AOC
27 Stag Island Habitat Rehabilitation Project St. Clair River AOC
28 D'Arcy McKeough Floodway Habitat Sydenham, St. Clair Rivers AOC
Enhancement Project
29 Aquatic Macrophyte Establishment in McKellar McKellar River - Thunder Bay AOC
River Embayments at Thunder Bay, Ontario
30 Lake Orion Water Quality - Habitat Lake Orion - Paint Creek, MI AOC
Improvement Project
31 Belle Isle Canal Rehabilitation Belle Isle Detriot R. AOC
32 Lake Erie Biological Criteria and Habitat L. Erie Biological Criteria Survey Non-AOC
Evaluation Project
33 Sawquin Creek Marsh Channel Creation Project Sawquin Creek Marsh-Bay of Quinte AOC
34 Strawberry Island (Niagara River) Shoreline Strawberry Isl.- Niagara River AOC
Habitat Restoration and Protection Project
35 Sand Creek Bank and Channel Restoration Sand Creek- Kalamazoo River AOC
36 Early Life History of Northern Pike In Artificial Lake Conesus, NY AOC
Wetlands of Conesus Lake, New York
37 Wayne County Detroit Metropolitan Airport Wayne County Detroit Marsh Wetland AOC
Crosswinds Marsh Wetland Mitigation Project
38 Artificial Reefs in Lake Erie: A Habitat Lorain Harbour, Cleveland Harbour AOC
Enhancement Tool
39 Burns Harbor Major Rehabilitation - submerged Burns Harbour Non-AOC
breakwater reefs
40 Pere Marquette River Rehabilitation Project Pere Marquette River Non-AOC
41 Effects of Beach Nourishment on the Nearshore Lexington Harbor, L. Huron, MI Non-AOC
Environment, Lexington Harbor, Lake Huron
42 Ecological Effects of Rubble-Mound Breakwater West Harbor, Western L. Erie Non-AOC
Construction and Channel Dredging at West
Harbor, Ohio (Western Lake Erie)
43 Evaluation of Tawas Artificial Reef as Fish Tawas Bay, MI Non-AOC
Spawning Habitat
44 Fox River Walleye Habitat Improvement Fox River AOC
45 Peterson Wetland Restoration Project Peterson Wetland, Clinton County, MI Non-AOC
46 Paint Creek Habitat Improvement Paint Creek, MI AOC
(Southeast Michigan)
47 Big Island Wetland, Sandusky Bay , Ohio Big Island Wetland, Non-AOC
Sandusky Bay, Ohio