Leveraging a Landscape-Level Monitoring and Assessment Program for Developing Resilient Shorelines throughout the Laurentian Great Lakes.

Traditionally, ecosystem monitoring, conservation, and restoration have been conducted in a piecemeal manner at the local scale without regional landscape context. However, scientifically driven conservation and restoration decisions benefit greatly when they are based on regionally determined benchmarks and goals. Unfortunately, required data sets rarely exist for regionally important ecosystems. Because of early recognition of the extreme ecological importance of Laurentian Great Lakes coastal wetlands, and the extensive degradation that had already occurred, significant investments in coastal wetland research, protection, and restoration have been made in recent decades and continue today. Continued and refined assessment of wetland condition and trends, and the evaluation of restoration practices are all essential to ensuring the success of these investments. To provide wetland managers and decision makers throughout the Laurentian Great Lakes basin with the optimal tools and data needed to make scientifically-based decisions, our regional team of Great Lakes wetland scientists developed standardized methods and indicators used for assessing wetland condition. From a landscape perspective, at the Laurentian Great Lakes ecosystem scale, we established a stratified random-site-selection process to monitor birds, anurans, fish, macroinvertebrates, vegetation, and physicochemical conditions of coastal wetlands in the US and Canada. Monitoring of approximately 200 wetlands per year began in 2011 as the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Monitoring Program. In this paper, we describe the development, delivery, and expected results of this ongoing international, multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder, landscape-scale monitoring program as a case example of successful application of landscape conservation design.

Assessing watershed transport of atrazine and nitrate to evaluate conservation practice effects and advise future monitoring strategies.

Continued public support for U.S. taxpayer funded programs aimed at reducing agricultural pollutants depends on clear demonstrations of water quality improvements. The objective of this research was to determine if implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in the Goodwater Creek Experimental Watershed (GCEW) resulted in changes to atrazine and nitrate (NO(3)-N) loads during storm events. An additional objective was to estimate future monitoring periods necessary to detect a 5, 10, 20, and 25% reduction in atrazine and NO(3)-N event load. The GCEW is a 73 km(2) watershed located in northcentral Missouri, USA. Linear regressions and Akaike Information Criteria were used to determine if reductions in atrazine and NO(3)-N event loads occurred as BMPs were implemented. No effects due to any BMP type were indicated for the period of record. Further investigation of event sampling from the long-term GCEW monitoring program indicated errors in atrazine load calculations may be possible due to pre-existing minimum threshold levels used to trigger autosampling and sample compositing. Variation of event loads was better explained by linear regressions for NO(3)-N than for atrazine. Decommissioning of upstream monitoring stations during the study period represented a missed opportunity to further explain variation of event loads at the watershed outlet. Atrazine requires approximately twice the monitoring period relative to NO(3)-N to detect future reductions in event load. Appropriate matching of pollutant transport mechanisms with autosampling protocols remains a critical information need when setting up or adapting watershed monitoring networks aimed at detecting watershed-scale BMP effects.

Evaluating success criteria and project monitoring in river enhancement within an adaptive management framework.

Objective setting, performance measures, and accountability are important components of an adaptive-management approach to river-enhancement programs. Few lessons learned by river-enhancement practitioners in the United States have been documented and disseminated relative to the number of projects implemented. We conducted scripted telephone surveys with river-enhancement project managers and practitioners within the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) to determine the extent of setting project success criteria, monitoring, evaluation of monitoring data, and data dissemination. Investigation of these elements enabled a determination of those that inhibited adaptive management. Seventy river enhancement projects were surveyed. Only 34% of projects surveyed incorporated a quantified measure of project success. Managers most often relied on geophysical attributes of rivers when setting project success criteria, followed by biological communities. Ninety-one percent of projects that performed monitoring included biologic variables, but the lack of data collection before and after project completion and lack of field-based reference or control sites will make future assessments of ecologic success difficult. Twenty percent of projects that performed monitoring evaluated >or=1 variable but did not disseminate their evaluations outside their organization. Results suggest greater incentives may be required to advance the science of river enhancement. Future river-enhancement programs within the UMRB and elsewhere can increase knowledge gained from individual projects by offering better guidance on setting success criteria before project initiation and evaluation through established monitoring protocols.