Funding Partners:Wisconsin Coastal Management ProgramWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Wisconsin - Extension
Sue O’Halloran UW-ExtensionAmy Eliot, Lake Superior Research Institute
University of Wisconsin - Superior
Lake Superior Citizen Monitoring Projects
Goals of Project:
• Provide training and support for citizen volunteers • Increase the quality of data collected by citizen volunteers• Increase collaboration between scientists and volunteers
• Provide training and support
• Statewide monitoring program
• Same parameters measured by all monitoring groups
• Easy to measure
• Representative of stream health over time
Marsh Monitoring Program slide information
Variable Method Frequency
Temperature Thermometer Monthly
Water clarity Turbidity tube Monthly
Dissolved oxygen Hach Chemistry kit Monthly
Biotic Index(macroinvertebrates)
D-net sampling Twice a year (spring/fall)
Habitat Site assessment Once a year
Stream flow Float method Monthly
• Provide training and support
Field Training in WAV Methods
WAV Plus
Scientists and volunteers collect stream invertebrate samples at the same time and place
Samples collected 2X per season: spring and fall
Comparisons can be made – between Biotic Index values calculated from data collected by volunteers and scientists
• Increase quality of volunteer data
Lost
18 WAV (2006-2007)
11 WAV Plus (2007-2010)
WI Lake Superior Basin LSRI Volunteer
Monitoring Sites
West Fork Montreal
Pokegama
BarkFlag
SiouxLittle Pokegama
BluffBear
East Fork Flag
Black
Upper Tamarack
Middle
Brickyard
Bay City
Dubois Amnicon
Siskiwit
Professional HBI Volunteer HBIBear Creek Downstream 6.17: Fair 6.79: Fairly PoorLost Creek
Mid-stream 3.51: Very Good 3.10: Excellent
Downstream 5.07: Good 5.02: GoodSioux RiverDownstream 2.18: Excellent 1.73: Excellent
4.82: Good 4.66: GoodUpstream 2.14: Excellent 2.22: Excellent
5.13: Good 5.03: Good
Comparison of Stream Biotic Index Values
Comparison of Professional and Citizen Volunteer DataWater quality and HBI’s for Lake Superior tributaries
58.6%
54.9%
50.9%
55.7%
• Use Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium indicators to evaluate wetland plant and invertebrate community health
•Land cover analysis to determine amount of forested and open lands in each subwatersheds
• Identify subwatersheds where land cover is approaching 60% or greater open lands
• Prioritize these areas for best management practices
Lake Superior Coastal Watershed Assessment
13.9%
20.5%
Monitoring data is needed in order to provide information on the relationship between open land cover and water
quality in streams and coastal wetlands
Lake Superior Coastal Watershed Assessment
MMARSH ARSH MMONITORING ONITORING PPROGRAMROGRAMMMARSH ARSH MMONITORING ONITORING PPROGRAMROGRAM
1.1. Monitor breeding marsh birds and amphibians in the Great Lakes
2.2. Investigate habitat associations of marsh species
3.3. Support wetland conservation efforts
4.4. Increase public awareness of theimportance of wetlands to the Great Lakes
Marsh Monitoring Program in the St. Louis River Area of Concern
Lessons Learned
• Volunteers are interested in collecting meaningful data about the water resources in their community
• Credible data can be generated by citizen volunteers
• Stable funding source(s) should be identified to provide the consistency and level of coordinated effort needed to build and support citizen volunteer programs
Great Lakes Coastal Wetland ConsortiumCommunity Indicators
Monitoring Conducted During 2007-08
• Invertebrate community• Water quality
Added in 2008-09: Plant Community
Sampling Schedule
Plant, invertebrate and water quality samples were collected during mid-summer
Invertebrate and water quality samples were collected from each of the inundated plant zones (wet meadow, emergent and submergent)
Lost Creek Bog Overall IBI: 95Mildly ImpactedWetland community is beginning to show signs indicative of anthropogenic disturbance.
Sioux River Slough Overall IBI: 115Mildly ImpactedWetland community is beginning to show signs indicative of anthropogenic disturbance.
Allouez Bay Overall IBI: 88Moderately ImpactedWetland shows few but obvious signs indicative of anthropogenic disturbance.
Extremely Degraded
Degraded Moderately Degraded
Moderately Impacted
Mildly Impacted
Reference Condition
31 182Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium Index of Biotic Integrity
Coastal Estuary Results 2007-08
Estuary Name River or Stream GLCWC Hydrogeomorphic Class
County
Allouez Bay Bear Creek Lacustrine, sand-spit embayment
Lacustrine, Open embayment
Douglas
Flag River Estuary Flag River Barred drowned river mouth; Barrier-Protected beach lagoon.
Bayfield
Bark Bay Slough Bark River Barrier-Protected beach lagoon Bayfield
Lost Creek Bog Lost Creek No. 1 Riverine: open, drowned river-mouth
Bayfield
Sioux River Slough Sioux River Barrier-Protected beach lagoon Bayfield
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY INDICATOR SCORES Lake Superior Estuaries in Wisconsin
ALLOUEZ BAY BARK BAY FLAG
RIVERLOST
CREEKSIOUX RIVER
Invasive Cover (Entire Site) 3 5 3 5 3
Invasive Freq. (Entire Site) 3 5 3 5 3
Mean C (Entire Site) 5 5 5 5 5
Invasive Cover (Wet Meadow) 3 5 3 5 3
Invasive Freq. (Wet Meadow) 1 5 3 5 3
Mean C (Wet Meadow) 5 5 5 5 5
Invasive Cover (Submergents) 3 5 5 5 3
Invasive Freq. (Submergents) 3 5 5 5 1
Mean C (Submergents) 3 5 5 5 5
SAV Tolerance 5 5 3 5 5
TOTAL SCORE 34 50 40 50 36
COMBINED NUMERIC
SCORE
COMBINED DESCRIPTIVE
SCORES
0-5 VERY LOW
6-20 LOW
21-40 MEDIUM
41-50 HIGH
Estuary Plant Community Analysis 2008-09
Allouez BayLacustrine, ProtectedSand-spit embayment
Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Classifications
Lost Creek WetlandRiverine SystemBarred, drowned river mouthSuccessional Barrier Beach Lagoon
Sioux River wetlandRiverine SystemBarred, drowned river mouthSuccessional Barrier Beach Lagoon