hydrogeomorphic classification for great lakes coastal ... · 1977, herdendorf et al.1981a,...

The College at Brockport: State University of New YorkDigital Commons @BrockportEnvironmental Science and Ecology FacultyPublications Environmental Science and Ecology

2005

Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Great LakesCoastal WetlandsDennis A. AlbertMichigan State University Extension, [email protected]

Douglas A. WilcoxThe College at Brockport, [email protected]

Joel IngramCanadian Wildlife Service

Todd A. ThompsonIndiana University - Bloomington, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/env_facpub

Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Science and Ecology at Digital Commons @Brockport. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Environmental Science and Ecology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @Brockport.For more information, please contact [email protected].

Repository CitationAlbert, Dennis A.; Wilcox, Douglas A.; Ingram, Joel; and Thompson, Todd A., "Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Great LakesCoastal Wetlands" (2005). Environmental Science and Ecology Faculty Publications. 50.https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/env_facpub/50

https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu?utm_source=digitalcommons.brockport.edu%2Fenv_facpub%2F50&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttps://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/env_facpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.brockport.edu%2Fenv_facpub%2F50&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttps://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/env_facpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.brockport.edu%2Fenv_facpub%2F50&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttps://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/envsci?utm_source=digitalcommons.brockport.edu%2Fenv_facpub%2F50&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttps://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/env_facpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.brockport.edu%2Fenv_facpub%2F50&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/167?utm_source=digitalcommons.brockport.edu%2Fenv_facpub%2F50&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttps://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/env_facpub/50?utm_source=digitalcommons.brockport.edu%2Fenv_facpub%2F50&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]

J. Great Lakes Res. 31 (Supplement 1):129–146Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 2005

Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands

Dennis A. Albert1,*, Douglas A. Wilcox2, Joel W. Ingram3, and Todd A. Thompson4

1Michigan Natural Features InventoryMichigan State University Extension

Mason Building, PO Box 30444Lansing, Michigan 48909-7944

2U.S. Geological SurveyGreat Lakes Science Center

1451 Green RoadAnn Arbor, Michigan 48105

3Canadian Wildlife ServiceEnvironment Canada-Ontario Region

4905 Dufferin StreetDownsview, Ontario M3H 5T4

4Indiana Geological SurveyIndiana University

611 N. Walnut GroveBloomington, Indiana 47405

ABSTRACT: A hydrogeomorphic classification scheme for Great Lakes coastal wetlands is presented.The classification is hierarchical and first divides the wetlands into three broad hydrogeomorphic sys-tems, lacustrine, riverine, and barrier-protected, each with unique hydrologic flow characteristics andresidence time. These systems are further subdivided into finer geomorphic types based on physical fea-tures and shoreline processes. Each hydrogeomorphic wetland type has associated plant and animalcommunities and specific physical attributes related to sediment type, wave energy, water quality, andhydrology.

INDEX WORDS: Classification, coastal wetlands, Great Lakes, geomorphology.

INTRODUCTION

There is a long-standing interest in classifyingGreat Lakes coastal wetlands to better understandwetland processes and biological composition, aswell as to improve management (Geis and Kee1977, Herdendorf et al. 1981a, Herdendorf 1988,Bowes 1989, Dodge and Kavetsky 1995, Edsall andCharlton 1997). Several other articles relevant toGreat Lakes wetland classification were containedin a 1992 book edited by Busch and Sly on aquaticclassification of lacustrine systems (Herdendorf etal. 1992; Leach and Herron 1992; McKee et al.1992; Sly and Busch 1992a and b). This classifica-

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

129

tion proposes finer distinctions between wetlandtypes than found in the previously published GreatLakes wetland classifications, as well as physicalattributes for each wetland type. In recent years, ahydrogeomorphic model (HGM) has been exploredas a framework for wetland classification over abroad range of geographic and geologic conditions(Smith et al. 1995, Brinson 1996). The HGM ap-proach to wetland classification was expanded toinclude Great Lakes coastal wetlands (Minc 1997,Chow-Fraser and Albert 1998, Keough et al. 1999,Albert and Minc 2001). It has also been observedthat the distribution of geomorphic types is oftenregional, with certain hydrogeomorphic types con-centrated on specific lakes or shoreline segments of

130 Albert et al.

lakes (Minc 1997, Chow-Fraser and Albert 1998,Albert and Minc 2004, Wei et al. 2004).

In 2002, a working group of Great Lakes wetlandbiologists, all members of the Great Lakes CoastalWetland Consortium, developed a hydrogeomor-phic wetland classification system that can be usedto consistently characterize and potentially map allof the coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Thispaper presents that hydrogeomorphic classification,along with oblique aerial photographs to illustratethe types and attribute tables developed from exist-ing wetland sampling studies (Albert et al. 1987,1988, 1989; Environment Canada and Central LakeOntario Conservation Authority 2004; Wilcox et al.2002; Wilcox 2005). The above-mentioned wetlandsampling studies were conducted in over 200 wet-lands within all of the Great Lakes. Classificationswere built with data collected from the U.S. GreatLakes (Minc 1997, Minc and Albert 1998, Albertand Minc 2004), but subsequent sampling was con-ducted in all of the Ontario Great Lakes, includingthe North Channel of Lake Huron and GeorgianBay.

A HYDROGEOMORPHIC CLASSIFICATIONFOR GREAT LAKES WETLANDS

Great Lakes coastal wetlands can be separatedinto three specific hydrogeomorphic systems, lacus-trine (L), riverine (R), and barrier-protected (B),based on geomorphic position, dominant hydrologicsource, and current hydrologic connectivity to thelake. In this classification, each wetland type isgiven a four character code (Fig. 1). The first char-acter (L, R, or B) is for the hydrologic system. Thesecond character (C, D, L, O, P, R, S) is for the geo-morphic type. The third and fourth characters arefurther geomorphic modifiers.

Lacustrine (L---) system wetlands are controlleddirectly by waters of the Great Lakes and arestrongly affected by lake-level fluctuations,nearshore currents, seiches, and ice scour. Geomor-phic features along the shoreline provide varyingdegrees of protection from coastal nearshoreprocesses. Lacustrine, as defined by the U.S. Na-tional Wetland Inventory (NWI), would also in-clude dammed river channels and topographicdepressions not related to Great Lakes. NWI doesnot consider wetlands with trees, shrubs, persistentemergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greaterthan 30% cover to be lacustrine; in contrast, in thisclassification these vegetation cover classes areconsidered to be lacustrine wetlands, focusing the

classification on the lacustrine formation process.In addition, NWI only considers wetlands largerthan 8 hectares to be lacustrine, while this classifi-cation includes smaller wetlands linked to the GreatLakes. NWI will include wetlands smaller than 8hectares if a) a wave-formed or bedrock featureforms part or all of the shoreline or, b) it has a low-water depth greater than 2 meters in the deepestpart of the basin.

Riverine (R---) system wetlands occur along andwithin rivers and creeks that flow into or betweenthe Great Lakes. The water quality, flow rate, andsediment input are controlled in large part by theirindividual drainages. However, water levels andfluvial processes in these wetlands are directly orindirectly influenced by coastal processes becauselake waters flood back into the lower portions ofthe drainage system. Protection from wave attack isprovided in the river channels by bars and channelmorphology. Riverine wetlands within the GreatLakes also include those wetlands found alonglarge connecting channels between the Great Lakes;these connecting channels have very different dy-namics than smaller tributary rivers and streams.NWI excludes palustrine wetlands, defined as dom-inated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, andemergent mosses or lichens, from riverine systems.In contrast, this classification includes all of thesetypes of vegetation within the riverine system if thewetlands or portions of wetlands are regularly influ-enced by riverine processes.

Barrier-Protected (B---) system wetlands origi-nate from either coastal or fluvial processes, butcoastal nearshore and onshore processes separatedthese wetlands from the Great Lakes by a barrierbeach or other barrier feature. The barriers may beactive or part of relict coastal systems abandonedalong the lake’s margin. These wetlands are pro-tected from wave action but may be connected di-rectly to the lake by a channel crossing the barrier.When open to the lake, water levels in these wet-lands are determined by lake levels, but the rate ofwater-level change in the wetlands is tempered bythe rate of flow through the connecting channel.During isolation from the lake, groundwater andsurface drainage to the basin of the individual wet-land provide the dominant source of water input, al-though the lake level may influence groundwaterflow and, hence, wetland water levels. Inlets to pro-tected wetlands may be permanent or ephemeral, asnearshore processes can close off connecting chan-nels. The frequency and duration of closures is re-lated to the rate of sediment supply to the shoreline,

HGM Classification for Great Lakes Wetlands 131

grain size and sorting of sediment, type and dura-tion of nearshore processes, lake-level elevationand rate of change, and discharge rate of water exit-ing through the inlet. Most of these wetlands wouldbe classified by NWI as palustrine, with smallwater bodies or streams within the wetland possiblybeing classified as inclusions of either lacustrine orriverine system.

Within these hydrologically based systems, GreatLakes coastal wetlands can be classified furtherbased on their geomorphic features and shorelineprocesses (Fig. 1).

Lacustrine System (L---)

Open Lacustrine (LO--)These lake-based wetlands are directly exposedto nearshore processes, with little or no physicalprotection by offshore geomorphic features (barsand spits). This exposure results in little accumu-lation of organic sediment and restricts vegeta-

tion development to relatively narrow nearshorebands. Exposure to nearshore processes also re-sults in a variable bathymetry, ranging from rela-tively steep profiles to more shallow slopingbeaches.

Open Shoreline. (LOS-) This wetland type istypically characterized by an erosion-resis-tant substrate of either rock or clay, with oc-casional patches of mobile substrate. Suchsystems are starved of detrital sediment. Theresultant expanse of shallow water serves todampen waves, and if littoral sediment isavailable may result in sand-bar develop-ment at some sites. There is almost no or-ganic sediment accumulation in this type ofenvironment. Vegetation development islimited to narrow fringes of emergent vege-tation extending offshore to the limits im-posed by wave climate. Some smaller

FIG. 1. Hydrogeomorphic classification for Great Lakes marshes.

132 Albert et al.

embayments also fit into this class due to ex-posure to prevailing winds; most of thesehave relatively narrow vegetation zones of100 meters or less. Examples includeEpoufette Bay (MI) on Lake Michigan andshoreline reaches in the Bay of Quinte (ON)on Lake Ontario. In past mapping effortsalong the Great Lakes, few open shorelinewetlands were identified by either Herden-dorf et al. (1981a–f) or NWI. Many openshorelines do not have large or denseenough areas of aquatic plants to be identi-fied from aerial photography.

Open Embayment. (LOE-) This wetland typecan occur on gravel, sand, and clay (fine)substrates (Fig.2). The embayments areoften quite large—large enough to be subjectto storm-generated waves and surges and tohave established nearshore circulation sys-tems. Most bays greater than three or fourkilometers in diameter fit into this class.These embayments typically support wet-lands that are 100 to 500 meters wide overbroad expanses of shoreline. Most of thesewetlands accumulate only shallow organicsediments near their shoreline edge. Largeparts of Saginaw and St. Martin bays (MI)

on Lake Huron, Little Bay de Noc (MI) andGreen Bay (WI) on Lake Michigan, LongPoint Bay (ON) on Lake Erie, and BlackRiver Bay (NY) on Lake Ontario all fit inthis category.

Protected Lacustrine (LP--)This wetland type is also a lake-based system;however, it is characterized by increased protec-tion by a sand-spit, offshore bar, or till- orbedrock-enclosed bay. Subsequently, this protec-tion results in increased mineral sediment accu-mulation, shallower off-shore profiles, and moreextensive aquatic vegetation development thanthe open lacustrine counterpart. Organic sedimentdevelopment is also more pronounced.

Protected Embayment. (LPP-) Many stretchesof bedrock or till-derived shorelines formsmall protected bays, typically less thanthree or four kilometers in width (Fig. 3).These bays can be completely vegetatedwith emergent or submergent vegetation. Atthe margins of the wetlands there is typically50 to 100 cm of organic accumulation be-neath wet meadow vegetation. Examples in-clude Duck Bay and Mackinac Bay in theLes Cheneaux Islands (MI) in Lake Huron,

FIG. 2. Lacustrine hydrologic system: Open embayment (LOE-), St. Martin Bay (MI),Lake Huron. Sand bars in the foreground are indicative of a high-energy coastal environ-ment.


FIG. 3. Lacustrine hydrologic system: Protected embayment (LPP-), Duck Bay (MI),northern Lake Huron.

FIG. 4. Lacustrine hydrologic system: Sand-spit embayment (LPS-), Pinconning Bay(MI) within Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron.

134 Albert et al.

Matchedash Bay (ON) in Lake Huron, andBayfield Bay (ON) on Wolfe Island in LakeOntario. A type of protected embayment en-countered along localized stretches of theGreat Lakes shoreline is the solution embay-ment (LPPS). These roughly circular inden-tations in the bedrock are formed by solutionprocesses in carbonate rock. These indenta-tions are occasionally open to the GreatLakes, forming a protected embayment. Thelatter wetland type occurs along the shore-line of northern Lakes Michigan, Huron, andOntario. One example is El Cajon Bay (MI)in northern Lake Huron.

Sand-Spit Embayment. (LPS-) Sand spits pro-jecting along the coast create and protectshallow embayments on their landward side(Fig. 4). Spits often occur along gently slop-ing and curving sections of shoreline wherethere is a positive supply of sediment andsand transport is not impeded by natural orman-made barriers. These wetlands are typi-cally quite shallow. Moderate levels of or-

ganic soils are typical, similar to those foundin other protected embayments. Examplesinclude Pinconning Marsh (MI) in SaginawBay, Dead Horse Bay (WI) in Green Bay,and Long Point (ON) in Lake Erie.

Riverine System (R---)

Drowned River-Mouth (RR--)The water chemistry of these wetlands can be af-fected by both the Great Lakes and river water,depending on Great Lakes water levels, season,and amount of precipitation (drainage discharge).These wetlands typically have deep organic soilsthat have accumulated due to deposition of wa-tershed-based silt loads and protection fromcoastal processes (waves, currents, seiche, etc.).The terms “estuarine” or “fresh-water estuarine”are used by some researchers (Herdendorf et al.1981a) as alternatives to drowned river-mouth.

Open Drowned River-Mouth. (RRO-) Somedrowned river-mouths do not have barriersat their mouth, nor do they have a lagoon or

FIG. 5. Riverine hydrologic system: Open drowned river-mouth (RRO-), Crooked Creek(NY), St. Lawrence River.


small lake present where they meet the shore(Fig. 5). The wetlands along these streamsoccur along the river banks, and their plantcommunities are growing on deep organicsoils. Examples include the West Twin Riveron the Wisconsin shore of Lake Michigan,the Kakagon River on the Wisconsin shoreof Lake Superior, and the Greater CataraquiRiver on the Ontario shore of Lake Ontario.

Barred Drowned River-Mouth. (RRB-) Moststreams that are considered drowned river-mouths actually have a barrier that constrictsthe stream flow as it enters the lake (Fig. 6).Very often, a lagoon forms behind the bar-rier. However unlike barrier beach wetlands,these wetlands maintain a relatively constant

connection to the lakes because of the largeprism of water that must exit through thebarrier. The lagoons seldom support largewetlands and vegetation is concentratedwhere the stream enters the lagoon (if pre-sent), but can extend several kilometers up-stream, typically forming a fringe ofemergent and submergent vegetation alongthe edges of the channel. Organic depositsare often greater than two meters thick.Barred drowned river-mouths include bothlarge rivers and small streams. The channelis seldom completely barred when the riversare large, while smaller streams are oftencompletely separated from the lake by asand barrier. Smaller streams are occasion-ally or frequently separated from the lakeuntil pressure from stream flow blows outthe sand barrier. Most large rivers now havedredged channels with jetties that are main-tained open for boat traffic year round. Ex-amples of barred, drowned river-mouths onlarge rivers include the Kalamazoo,Muskegon, and Manistee rivers (MI) in LakeMichigan. Small barred streams include theDead River (IL) in Lake Michigan, OldWoman Creek (OH) in Lake Erie, SixmileCreek (MI) in Lake Superior, and DuffinsCreek (ON) in Lake Ontario.

Connecting Channel (RC--) This wetland type includes the large connectingrivers between the Great Lakes; the St. Marys, St.Clair, Detroit, Niagara, and St. Lawrence rivers(Fig. 7). These wetlands are distinctive from theother large river wetlands (drowned river-mouth)by the general lack of deep organic soils and theoften strong currents. The St. Marys and St.Lawrence rivers contain some of the most exten-sive fringing shoreline and tributary drownedriver-mouth wetlands in the Great Lakes, whilethose along the Detroit and Niagara rivers havebeen largely eliminated or degraded. The DetroitRiver still has major beds of submergent aquaticplants.

Connecting channels are large enough to con-tain several types of wetlands, each with theirclassification. Recent mapping of the St. Marysand St. Lawrence rivers included 1000s ofhectares of open embayment (Connecting Chan-nel, open embayment (RCOE)), protected embay-ment (Connecting Channel, protected embayment(RCPP)), open drowned river-mouth (Connecting

FIG. 6. Riverine hydrologic system: Barreddrowned river-mouth (RRB-), Beaver Creek (ON),Lake Ontario.

136 Albert et al.

Channel, open drowned river-mouth (RCRO)),barred drowned river-mouth (Connecting Chan-nel, barred drowned river-mouth (RCRB)), (Con-necting Channel, barrier beach lagoon (RCBL)),(Connecting Channel, swale complexes (RCBS)),and deltaic wetlands (Connecting Channel, delta(RCD-)). Other subtypes were also representedalong the connecting channels, but with lessercoverage.

Delta (RD--)Deltas formed of both fine and coarse alluvialmaterials support extensive wetlands that extendout into the Great Lake or connecting river(Fig.8). These are extensive wetlands, typicallywith 30 to 100 cm of organic soils associatedwith their wet meadow zone, and often with deeporganics occupying abandoned distributary chan-nels and interdistributary bays. Both fluvialprocesses and wave action can contribute to themorphology of deltas along the Great Lakes. Ex-amples are the St. Clair River (MI and ON),Goulais River (ON), and the Munuscong River(MI) deltas. The Munuscong River delta (Fig. 8)enters into the much larger St. Marys River, a

connecting river between Lake Superior and LakeHuron. Fluvial processes are evident in the mor-phology of all three of these deltas, but the mor-phology of portions of the Goulais River delta arestrongly affected by wave action.

Barrier-Enclosed System (B---)

Barrier Beach Lagoon (BL--)These wetlands form behind a sand barrier (Fig.9). Because of the barrier, there is reduced mix-ing of Great Lakes waters and exclusion ofcoastal processes within the wetlands. Multiplelagoons can form and water discharge fromground water, upland areas, and incomingdrainages may all contribute significantly to thewater supply. These wetlands are common at theeast end of Lake Ontario and also on the BayfieldPeninsula (WI) in western Lake Superior. Thickorganic soils characterize these wetlands in LakeSuperior and in many, but not all, of the LakeOntario wetlands. Examples of barrier beach la-goon wetlands include Oshawa Second Marshand Big Sand Bay (ON), South Colwell Pond(NY), and Round Pond (NY) in Lake Ontario,

FIG. 7. Riverine hydrologic system: Connecting channel (RC--), St. Marys River (MI,ON).


FIG. 8. Riverine hydrologic system: Delta (RD--), Munuscong River (MI). Because theMunuscong River is a tributary of the St. Marys River, a connecting channel between LakeSuperior and Lake Huron, the Munuscong River delta would be coded RCRD.

FIG. 9. Barrier-enclosed hydrologic system: Barrier beach lagoon (BL--), Big Bay (WI),Lake Superior.

138 Albert et al.

and Bark Bay, Siskiwit Bay, and Allouez Bay (WI)in Lake Superior. Great Marsh (IN, IL) at the south-ern tip of Lake Michigan formed in a similar set-ting. In addition to barrier beach lagoons, tombolo(BLT-) are present in selected areas of the GreatLakes (Fig. 10). These are defined as islands at-tached to the mainland by barrier beaches, some ofwhich consist of one or two lagoons with deep or-ganic soils. Small swale complexes are sometimesincluded within a tombolo. Small barrier beach la-goons often are completely dominated by vegeta-tion, with no open water remaining. Suchcompletely vegetated barrier beach lagoons areclassified as Successional Barrier Beach Lagoons(BLS-).

Swale Complexes (BS--)There are two primary types of swale complexwetlands—those that occur between recurved fin-gers of sand spits and those that occur betweenrelict beach ridges (Fig. 11). These are known re-spectively as sand-spit swales (BSS-) and ridgeand swale complexes (BSR-) (also referred to asdune and swale or strandplain). The former arecommon within some of the larger sand spits ofthe Great Lakes, primarily Presque Isle (PA) andLong Point (ON) in Lake Erie and WhitefishPoint (MI) in Lake Superior. Numerous small

swales are separated from the Great Lakes, oftenbecoming shrub swamps with shallow organicsoils. Within these sand-spit formations, there areoften embayments which remain attached to theGreat Lakes, thus maintaining their herbaceousflora.

Ridge and swale complexes are composed of aseries of beach ridges separated by narrowswales. These systems commonly occur in em-bayments where there is an abundant supply ofsediment. More than 100 of these complexesoccur in the upper Great Lakes alone (Comer andAlbert 1991, Comer and Albert 1993, Baedke etal. 2004). The ridges are interpreted to haveformed in response to quasi-periodic fluctuationsin lake level that have occurred during the pastseveral thousand years (Thompson and Baedke1995, 1997; Baedke and Thompson 2000). Formany of these complexes, only the first couple ofswales are in direct hydrologic connection to thelake, but in some, like Pte. Aux Chenes (MI)along northern Lake Michigan, the connectioncontinues for several swales and hundreds of me-ters inland (Comer and Albert 1991). Organicsoil depths are quite variable, as is the vegetation,which ranges from herbaceous to swamp forest topeatland. Of particular importance to these typesof wetland systems is the amount of groundwater

FIG. 10. Barrier-enclosed hydrologic system: Tombolo (BLT-), Stockton Island (WI),Lake Superior.


supply that the embayment receives and the rela-tive importance of drainages. The former can en-hance groundwater discharge into the system,whereas the latter is instrumental in removinggroundwater and surface water. Other examplesof this wetland type include the Ipperwash Inter-dunal Wetlands Complex along southern LakeHuron (ON), the Grand Traverse embayment onthe Keweenaw Peninsula (MI) in Lake Superior,and the adjacent Manistique and Thompson em-bayments (MI) in northern Lake Michigan.

System Modifiers of Naturally Occurring Great Lakes Wetlands

The hydrology and/or geomorphology of allGreat Lakes coastal wetlands have been affected byhuman activities within the Great Lakes basin.These impacts are through whole-lake regulation,watershed alterations, or activities within the wet-land itself (i.e., diking, dredging, and in-filling). Di-rect modification of the hydrologic connection withthe lake results in different hydrologic and wetlandcommunity responses to Great Lake events (e.g.,

high/low water level) than would be observed inwetlands of the same classification. Identificationof human modifiers in naturally occurring coastalwetlands is important to understanding coastalprocesses and response to change and thus shouldbe noted when classification is undertaken. In thisGreat Lakes wetland classification, codes for sys-tem modifiers have not been developed for mappingpurposes.

DISCUSSION

Hydrologic Systems

The greatest physical and biological differencesbetween coastal wetlands are typically seen at theHydrologic System level, resulting from differencesin water-flow characteristics and residence time(Sly and Busch 1992a). Sly and Busch identifiedfour aquatic systems, lacustrine, connecting chan-nel, riverine, and estuarine. In this classification,aquatic systems are modified into three hydrologicsystems, lacustrine, riverine, and barrier-enclosed.The lacustrine class is identical for both classifica-tions, including all of the wetlands directly con-nected to the Great Lakes. Three of Sly and Busch’sclasses are joined, connecting channel, riverine, andestuarine, into a single “riverine” class, separatingthese flowing systems at a lower level in the classi-fication. All members of the riverine class are char-acterized by flowing water, with variable levels ofinfluence by the Great Lakes water chemistry andmovement. A third class of “barrier-enclosed” wet-lands is also added. These wetlands are nearly orcompletely separated from the open Great Lakes bya barrier created by wave or current deposition ofmineral sediment. The most common form of bar-rier is a sand-dune-capped beach ridge, but graveland cobble bars form where the coastal sediment iscoarse and wave action extreme. Separation by abarrier results in barrier-enclosed wetlands havinggreater levels of distinction from the connected la-custrine and riverine wetlands. In earlier classifica-tions, lacustrine and barrier-enclosed wetlands werejoined by some researchers (Minc 1997, Albert andMinc 2001) because both wetlands were formed bylacustrine processes.

This classification shares classes with that devel-oped by Keough et al. (1999), but further dividestheir hydrogeomorphic types into finer types. Thisfiner subdivision is based on wetland differencesobserved during sampling; some of these physicaldifferences result in major floristic differences. Forexample, protected embayments and sand-spit em-

FIG. 11. Barrier-enclosed hydrologic system:Ridge and swale complex (BSR-), Stockton Island(WI), Lake Superior.

140 Albert et al.

bayments are both protected lacustrine types, butthe slope gradient of most protected embayments isgreater than that of sand-spit embayments. Floristicchange in response to water-level fluctuations ismuch more rapid and dramatic in the shallow sand-spit embayments. Many sand-spit embayments be-come mudflats during low water levels, resulting inmassive seed production by emergent plants likestiff arrowhead (Sagittaria rigida), nodding beggar-ticks (Bidens cernuus), soft-stem bulrush (Schoeno-plectus tabernaemontani), bur-reeds (Sparganiumspp.), and nodding smartweed (Polygonum lapathi-folium). Another strong contract can be seen be-tween barrier beach lagoons and ridge-and-swalecomplexes, both barrier-protected wetland types.Barrier beach lagoons are typified by large areas ofopen water, while ridge-and-swale complexes areoften only flooded in one or two swales close to theshoreline. Such differences in water area result inmajor floral and faunal contrasts.

It should be noted that these systems are differentthan those defined by the United States Fish andWildlife Service in the National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the Ontario Min-istry of Natural Resources, Wetland Evaluation Sys-tem (WES) (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources1993). Both classifications define three systems orsite types, Lacustrine, Riverine, and Palustrine, withan additional Isolated type in the WES. Both sys-tems also have wetland classes or types (Aquaticbed or Emergent) that are included within this wet-land classification, which are identified based uponvegetative, hydrologic, and/or substrate attributes.This hydrogeomorphic classification is viewed pri-marily as a tool for better understanding the dynam-ics and biota of coastal wetlands, not as areplacement or substitute for NWI or WES. How-ever, it should also be noted that while participatingin a Great Lakes-wide wetland classification andmapping project, it has became clear that there is alack of consistence in NWI and WES coding ofGreat Lakes coastal wetlands, and many wetlandswere also not mapped by NWI.

The subdivisions of riverine wetlands by Sly andBusch (1992a) into connecting channel, riverine,and estuarine have been largely reworked in thisclassification, although connecting channels con-tinue to be recognized as a distinctive type. Theconnecting channels are limited to only five rivers,the St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara, and St.Lawrence, but these rivers and their wetlands aredistinctly different from other Great Lakes riverinewetlands. All of the channels are characterized pri-

marily by large flow from the upstream Great Lakerather than water flowing from adjacent uplands(Edsall et al.1988, Hudson et al. 1992). Some arelarge enough to support wetlands along their mar-gins that resemble lacustrine wetlands. All of theselarge rivers are channelized and modified to allowship traffic between the lakes. This classificationdivides tributary streams into two classes, delta anddrowned river-mouth. Delta wetlands form whereriver-borne sediments are deposited into the shal-low waters of the Great Lake. Where fluvialprocesses dominate, the delta is more bird’s-footshaped. Wave-dominated deltaic systems are morewedge- or triangle-shaped. In contrast, drownedriver-mouth wetlands form when Great Lakes waterlevels rise high enough to flood the lower reachesof a stream valley. Drowned river-mouths havebeen called estuaries or freshwater estuaries bysome (Herdendorf 1990, Sly and Busch 1992a, Al-bert and Minc 2001), but the term estuary continuesto be controversial in the freshwater environment ofthe Great Lakes.

Lacustrine Wetlands

The majority of the Great Lakes shoreline ischaracterized by high wave energy that does notallow for the development of coastal wetlands. Wet-land plants cannot establish in this environment, ei-ther because the sediment is too mobile for plants toroot or because plant tissues are destroyed by waveaction. A few emergent plants, primarily bulrushesor spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), can establish lo-cally in some open shore environments (Tables 1and 2). Bulrushes can survive by sending roots andrhizomes into underlying dense clay or by rapidlyexpanding roots into shifting sand. Stems of bul-rush are quite flexible, allowing survival in highwave-energy environments. The spike rushes in thisextreme environment are often annuals exploitingnew, open habitat. None of the plants in this habitatrequire accumulations of organic material.

Open embayments are also characterized by rela-tively high wave energy, but shallow water andmore stable sediments reduce the destructive effectsof wave action on the existing emergent plant com-munities (Tables 1 and 2). All of the open embay-ments studied by the authors were underlain byfine-textured (clay) soils, where much of the root-ing occurred. Even when the above-ground portionsof bulrushes were destroyed by wave action duringstorms, the rhizomes persisted. Thin accumulationsof sand, typically less than 30 cm in depth, are

HGM Classification for Great Lakes Wetlands 141T

AB

LE

1.A

ttri

bute

s of

Gre

at L

akes

hyd

roge

omor

phic

wet

lan

d ty

pes:

min

eral

sed

imen

t, or

gan

ic s

edim

ent,

wav

e en

ergy

, an

d h

ydro

-lo

gic

con

nec

tion

to la

ke.

Hyd

rolo

gic

Sys

tem

Geo

mor

phic

Typ

eM

iner

al S

edim

ent

Org

anic

Sed

imen

tW

ave

Ene

rgy

Hyd

rolo

gic

Con

nect

ion

to L

ake

Lac

ustr

ine

(L)

Ope

n sh

ore

(LO

S)

Var

iabl

e:

Non

e to

loc

aliz

edH

igh

Dir

ect

cobb

le-c

lay

Ope

n em

baym

ent

Var

iabl

e:

Thi

n (0

–10

cm)

Mod

erat

e- H

igh

Dir

ect

(LO

E)

cobb

le-c

lay

Pro

tect

ed

Var

iabl

e:

Mod

erat

e L

ow-

Mod

erat

eD

irec

t (l

ess

exch

ange

in

emba

ymen

t (L

PP

)sa

nd-c

lay

(10–

60 c

m)

shal

low

wat

er n

ear

shor

e)

San

d-sp

it

Spi

t se

dim

ents

: M

oder

ate

Low

- M

oder

ate

Dir

ect

(les

s ex

chan

ge i

n sh

allo

wem

baym

ent

(LP

S)

sand

-gra

vel.

Bay

(1

0–60

cm

)w

ater

nea

r sh

ore)

sedi

men

ts v

aria

ble:

sand

-cla

y

Riv

erin

e (R

)C

onne

ctin

g V

aria

ble:

san

d-cl

ayM

oder

ate

(10–

60 c

m)

Low

to

Hig

hD

irec

tch

anne

l (R

C)

Del

ta (

RD

)V

aria

ble:

M

oder

ate-

thic

kL

ow t

o H

igh

Dir

ect

on o

uter

edg

e. G

reat

ergr

avel

-cla

y(1

0 cm

to

> 1

m),

st

ream

inf

luen

ce i

n m

ain

chan

nel

laye

red

wit

h fi

ne t

o an

d di

stri

buta

ries

coar

se m

iner

al s

oil

Dro

wne

d ri

ver-

Var

iabl

e: g

rave

l-T

hick

(>

1m)

at

Low

Whe

n pe

riod

ical

ly b

arre

d, g

reat

erm

outh

, bar

red

clay

. San

d ba

rrie

rst

ream

mar

gins

and

in

flue

nce

from

str

eam

tha

n la

ke;

(RR

B)

sepa

rate

s la

ke.

ofte

n in

cha

nnel

as

wel

ltw

o-w

ay s

eepa

ge;

fluc

tuat

ions

of

lake

leve

l in

flue

nces

riv

er n

ear

lake

Dro

wne

d ri

ver-

Var

iabl

e: g

rave

l-T

hick

(>

1 m

) at

L

ow t

oD

irec

t; f

luct

uati

ons

of l

ake

can

mou

th, o

pen

(RR

O)

clay

stre

am m

argi

ns;

ofte

n M

oder

ate

infl

uenc

e ri

ver

seve

ral

kilo

met

ers

abse

nt i

n m

ain

chan

nel

upst

ream

Bar

rier

-enc

lose

d B

arri

er b

each

B

arri

er s

edim

ents

: T

hick

(>

1 m

);L

ow o

r no

neR

estr

icte

d: s

ome

indi

rect

see

page

(B)

lago

on (

BL

)C

obbl

e-sa

nd.

May

be

laye

red

thro

ugh

barr

ier;

pri

me

infl

uenc

esL

agoo

n se

dim

ents

:w

ith

sand

-cla

yst

ream

or

prec

ipit

atio

nsa

nd-c

lay

Sw

ale

com

plex

S

and

Thi

n to

thi

ck

Non

eR

estr

icte

d: s

ome

indi

rect

see

page

(BS

) (r

idge

and

(0

cm

to

>1m

);

thro

ugh

barr

ier;

pri

me

infl

uenc

e of

swal

e co

mpl

ex,

thic

knes

s de

pend

ent

stre

am, p

reci

pita

tion

, an

d sa

nd-s

pit

swal

es,

on l

ocal

to

regi

onal

gr

ound

wat

er f

ocus

ing

from

tom

bolo

)gr

ound

wat

er f

low

su

rrou

ndin

g up

land

ssy

stem

s

142 Albert et al.

TA

BL

E2.

Att

ribu

tes

of G

reat

Lak

es h

ydro

geom

orph

ic w

etla

nd

type

s: c

hem

ical

, tu

rbid

ity,

veg

etat

ion

, an

d fa

un

a.

Hyd

rolo

gic

Sys

tem

Geo

mor

phic

Typ

eC

hem

ical

1T

urbi

dity

Veg

etat

ion

Fau

na

Lac

ustr

ine

(L)

Ope

n sh

ore

(LO

S)

Lak

e co

ntro

lled

Lak

eT

hin-

stem

em

erge

nts

(bul

rush

es),

Low

div

ersi

ty o

f in

vert

ebra

tes,

cont

roll

edor

aqu

atic

veg

etat

ion

abse

nt

fish

, and

wat

erbi

rds

due

to h

igh

wav

e en

ergy

Ope

n em

baym

ent

Lak

e co

ntro

lled

Lak

e L

ow d

iver

sity

em

erge

nt z

one

Mod

erat

e di

vers

ity

of

(LO

E)

cont

roll

edad

apte

d to

hig

h w

ave

ener

gy a

ndin

vert

ebra

tes,

fis

h, a

nd w

ater

bird

sic

e sc

our,

nar

row

wet

mea

dow

tole

rant

of

high

wav

e en

ergy

Pro

tect

ed

Lak

e an

d L

ake

and

Bro

ad, h

igh

dive

rsit

y H

igh

dive

rsit

y of

inv

erte

brat

es a

ndem

baym

ent

(LP

P)

wat

ersh

ed

wat

ersh

ed

emer

gent

, wet

mea

dow

, fi

sh, w

ith

mod

erat

e di

vers

ity

ofco

ntro

lled

cont

roll

edan

d su

bmer

gent

zon

esw

ater

bird

s

San

d-sp

it

Lak

e an

d w

ater

-L

ake

and

Bro

ad, h

igh

dive

rsit

y em

erge

nt,

Hig

h di

vers

ity

of i

nver

tebr

ates

, em

baym

ent

(LP

S)

shed

con

trol

led,

w

ater

shed

w

et m

eado

w, a

nd s

ubm

erge

nt

fish

, and

wat

erbi

rds

shal

low

and

war

mco

ntro

lled

zone

s

Riv

erin

e (R

)C

onne

ctin

g L

ake

and

grou

nd-

Riv

er a

nd

Var

iabl

e; n

arro

w t

o br

oad

emer

gent

Var

iabl

e di

vers

ity

of i

nver

tebr

ates

,ch

anne

l (R

C)

wat

er c

ontr

olle

dla

ke

and

wet

mea

dow

zon

es, s

ubm

erge

ntfi

sh, a

nd w

ater

bird

sco

ntro

lled

zone

oft

en p

rese

nt

Del

ta (

RD

)R

iver

and

L

ake

and

Var

iabl

e; e

mer

gent

, sub

mer

gent

, H

igh

dive

rsit

y of

inv

erte

brat

es,

lake

con

trol

rive

ran

d w

et m

eado

w z

ones

all

fi

sh, a

nd w

ater

bird

sco

ntro

lled

typi

call

y pr

esen

t an

d br

oad;

wil

d ri

ce o

ften

com

mon

; pl

ants

to

lera

nt o

f sh

ort-

term

flo

odin

g

Dro

wne

d ri

ver-

R

iver

R

iver

Den

se e

mer

gent

and

sub

mer

gent

In

vert

ebra

tes

and

fish

tol

eran

t of

mou

th, b

arre

d co

ntro

lled

cont

roll

edzo

nes;

wil

d ri

ce o

ften

com

mon

. lo

w o

xyge

n le

vels

and

hig

h(R

RB

)P

eatl

and

vege

tati

on c

omm

on i

n te

mpe

ratu

res;

mod

erat

e di

vers

ity

wet

mea

dow

zon

e on

Lak

e S

uper

ior.

of w

ater

bird

s

Dro

wne

d ri

ver-

R

iver

and

R

iver

and

B

road

wet

mea

dow

and

em

erge

nt

Mod

erat

e di

vers

ity

of

mou

th, o

pen

(RR

O)

lake

con

trol

led

lake

zone

s. S

ubm

erge

nts

rest

rict

ed t

o in

vert

ebra

tes

and

fish

; m

oder

ate

cont

roll

edpo

rtio

ns o

f st

ream

wit

h lo

w

dive

rsit

y of

wat

erbi

rds

flow

con

diti

ons.

Bar

rier

-B

arri

er b

each

G

roun

d-w

ater

and

Lag

oon

Sub

mer

gent

, em

erge

nt, a

nd w

etIn

vert

ebra

tes

and

fish

tol

eran

t of

encl

osed

(B

)la

goon

(B

L)

prec

ipit

atio

n co

ntro

lled

mea

dow

zon

es c

an b

e pr

esen

t; a

lllo

w o

xyge

n le

vels

and

hig

hco

ntro

l, v

eget

atio

n w

ith

only

sp

ecie

s to

lera

nt o

f or

gani

c so

ils.

te

mpe

ratu

res;

hig

h di

vers

ity

ofan

d pr

ecip

itat

ion

min

or l

ake

On

Lak

e S

uper

ior,

Geo

rgia

n B

ay,

wat

erbi

rds

can

acid

ify

infl

uenc

e

and

east

ern

Lak

e O

ntar

io p

eatl

and

vege

tati

on o

ften

dom

inan

t.

Sw

ale

com

plex

Gro

und-

wat

er,

Lag

oon

or

Sha

llow

sys

tem

s of

ten

wit

h sh

rub,

Inve

rteb

rate

s an

d fi

sh t

oler

ant

of(B

S)

(rid

ge a

nd

prec

ipit

atio

n, a

nd

swal

e

emer

gent

, and

wet

mea

dow

zon

es;

low

oxy

gen

leve

ls a

nd h

igh

swal

e co

mpl

ex,

min

or l

ake

cont

rol;

cont

roll

ed w

ith

all

spec

ies

tole

rant

of

orga

nic

soil

s.te

mpe

ratu

res;

fis

h of

ten

abse

nt o

rsa

nd-s

pit

swal

es,

vege

tati

on a

nd

only

min

or

On

Lak

e S

uper

ior,

Geo

rgia

n B

ay,

quit

e lo

cali

zed;

mod

erat

eto

mbo

lo)

prec

ipit

atio

n ca

n la

ke i

nflu

ence

and

east

ern

Lak

e O

ntar

io p

eatl

and

dive

rsit

y of

wat

erbi

rds

acid

ify

vege

tati

on o

ften

dom

inan

t.1 A

ll o

f th

e G

reat

Lak

es h

ave

circ

umne

utra

l pH

, inc

ludi

ng L

ake

Sup

erio

r. A

lkal

init

y of

all

Gre

at L

akes

is

high

, wit

h th

e ex

cept

ion

of L

ake

Sup

erio

r.


common throughout the shallow marsh. The highwave energy results in little organic sediment accu-mulation and relatively low plant diversity, as mostemergent and submergent aquatic plants cannot tol-erate this high energy environment. Higher diver-sity could be found locally in shallow, nearshoreareas. In the shallowest open embayments, a strongchemical gradient develops between the outermarsh and the protected inner marsh, resulting indistinctly different invertebrate and fish fauna forthese marsh zones (Cardinale et al. 1998, Burton etal. 2002). Although the overall productivity of openembayments is typically low, the overall area of thewetlands can be large, making them quite signifi-cant as wildlife and fish habitat.

Protected embayments are typically muchsmaller than open embayments, creating a protectedenvironment where the emergent and submergentmarsh zones are broad and biologically diverse (Ta-bles 1 and 2). The wet meadow zone is also typi-cally broad and biologically diverse, withsignificant accumulations of organic material. Waveaction remains strong enough to limit the accumula-tion of organic material, but allows for a diverseflora of floating and submergent plants. Majorwater-level fluctuations of the Great Lakes do nottypically result in major changes in vegetation; thisis one of the most biologically stable wetland typesin the Great Lakes. Wave energy increases with thesize of protected embayments, resulting in greaterresponse to water level fluctuations. Basin mor-phology is diverse in this wetland type and deter-mines the range of plants found in a specificwetland.

Sand-spit embayments, a specialized type of pro-tected embayment, also have broad zones of wetmeadow, emergent, and submergent vegetation, butare subject to more severe erosion during GreatLakes high water conditions (Harris et al. 1977,1981; Albert, personal observation), when stormwaves can almost eliminate submergent and emer-gent vegetation (Tables 1 and 2). Small sand-spitembayments, such as those found in Saginaw Bay(MI) in Lake Huron and Green Bay (WI) in LakeMichigan, are typically shallow, often with waterless than 2 meters deep; vegetation often covers theentire bay in these smaller wetlands. Water depthcan be much greater and wave action much moresevere in the larger bays, such as those associatedwith Presque Isle (PA) and Long Point (ON) inLake Erie. These large embayments have vegetationmuch more similar to that found in open embay-ments. Sediment accumulation can be considerable

in the shallow sand-spit embayments, but these sed-iments can be redistributed to the larger lake duringhigh-water storm events. Inter-annual water-levelfluctuations result in some of the most dramaticvegetation changes encountered in the Great Lakes.The organic sediments of the sand-spit embaymentscontain a high diversity of seeds, with tremendouschanges in plant composition, coverage, and struc-ture sometimes occurring on an almost annualbasis.

Riverine Wetlands

The connecting channels are the riverine wet-lands most similar to the lacustrine wetlands. Por-tions of the channel shorelines are protected,allowing for broad, diverse wetlands to develop,with organic sediment accumulation reaching 50cm in the wet meadow zone (Tables 1 and 2). Otherportions of the channel are subject to ice scour andwave action, resulting in narrower zonation. GreatLakes water-level fluctuations can affect the vege-tation of large segments of some connecting rivers,such as the St. Marys. High water levels in 1987 re-sulted in erosion of extensive areas of cattail inMunuscong Bay on the St. Marys River, while thesame areas were being recolonized by a diversity ofplants under 1989 low-water conditions (Albert, un-published data).

Deltas occur on both tributary rivers and connect-ing channels. Main channels of these larger riversare generally open, with little or no submergentvegetation, while smaller distributary channels sup-port diverse beds of submergent vegetation. Vari-ability is perhaps the greatest in the deltas,providing habitat for a broad range of plants andanimals (Duffy et al. 1987, Edsall et al. 1988).Water flow and temperature variability allow bothwarm and cold-water fish to feed and spawn withinthe larger Great Lakes deltas. Sediment ranges frommineral to organic, depending on the differing flowrates within the wetland.

Drowned river-mouths are often separated fromtheir associated Great Lake by a dune or sand-spitbarrier, resulting in distinctive differences in waterchemistry between the two (Tables 1 and 2). Thebarrier and river channel also provide protectionfrom storm waves, resulting in accumulation ofdeep organic soils within the riverine wetland. Thelower reaches of the stream are often wide and deepenough to form small lakes behind a protective sandbarrier, and delta-like wetlands form where thestreams meet these small lakes. The majority of this

144 Albert et al.

wetland type is sedge-, grass-, or cattail-dominatedwet meadow growing on deep organic soils. Theopen channels on smaller, slower flowing streamsare typically rich in submergent vegetation, whilethe main channel of larger streams supports little orno submergent vegetation due to strong currentsand unstable sediment. Water-level fluctuations ofthe Great Lakes can result in major changes to thiswetland type, especially during low-water condi-tions. As water levels drop, exposed organic-richsediments along the stream margins are rapidly col-onized by annuals or short-lived perennials, such assoft-stem bulrush, cut grass (Leersia oryzoides),and nodding beggar-ticks. The wet meadow vegeta-tion can also change dramatically as the deep or-ganic soils are exposed, sometimes forming steepbanks above the level of the river. Urban develop-ment characterizes the watershed of many drownedriver-mouths, resulting in heavy nutrient and sedi-ment loading and highly turbid waters, often elimi-nating submergent vegetation.

Barrier-enclosed Wetlands

These wetlands, largely separated from the adja-cent Great Lake, often have water chemistry andtemperatures very different from the adjacent lake(Tables 1 and 2). Lake water may enter duringstorm overwash or seep through the porous sand orgravel barrier separating the two water bodies. Theprotective barrier also allows for accumulation ofthick organic sediments, especially in barrier beachlagoons. Succession to swamp forest, shrub swamp,or peatland is common in this wetland type. Barrier-enclosed wetlands are prevalent where there isabundant seasonal deposition of sand and wherebedrock or cobble form the shoreline. On Lake Su-perior’s rocky, steep shoreline, almost all wetlandsare protected behind a sand, gravel, or cobble bar-rier.

Barrier beach lagoons form where a barrier sepa-rates a bay from the larger lake. Decomposing veg-etation accumulates and often acidifies the lagoon,especially along Lake Superior, where alkalinity ofthe bedrock and water is low. As Sphagnum mossesestablish at the margins of the wetlands, conditionsbecome increasingly acidic, resulting in the domi-nance of peatland vegetation (Crum 1976, 1988).These peatlands are typically a stable wetland typethat can persist for thousands of years. The combi-nation of shallow, warm water and vegetation accu-mulation create an extreme environment that haslow invertebrate and fish diversity, as well as re-

duced waterbird diversity. In some of the moresouthern barrier beach lagoon systems, warmertemperatures and higher alkalinity result in less ac-cumulation of organic material. These more openlagoons support a greater diversity of plants andanimals.

Swale complexes are also isolated from the openlake (Tables 1 and 2). The upper portions of thesecomplexes are completely isolated from the lake,receiving their water from ground-water flow andprecipitation. These wetlands may be flooded onlyseasonally and are typically dominated by shrub ortreed swamp or peatlands in more northerly areas.The undisturbed accumulation of organic materialshas allowed stratigraphic documentation of the ageand historic vegetation of these wetlands (Thomp-son 1992, Thompson and Baedke 1995, Lichtner1998). Small streams flowing from the swale com-plexes allow small fish tolerant of low oxygen con-ditions to use portions of the wetland complex, andit is common to see raptors and other birds nestingin the wetland conifers. In the lower Great Lakes,hardwood swamps often dominate the swales.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank all of the members of the Great LakesCoastal Wetlands Consortium for assisting in thedevelopment of the Great Lakes wetland classifica-tion. We also thank Great Lakes Commission stafffor their assistance in administering and coordinat-ing the classification project. This article was par-tially funded by Contribution 1331 of the USGSGreat Lakes Science Center.

REFERENCESAlbert, D.A., and Minc, L.D. 2001. Abiotic and floristic

characterization of Laurentian Great Lakes’ coastalwetlands. Stuttgart, Germany. Verh. Internat. Verein.Limnol. 27:3413–3419.

———, and Minc, L.D. 2004. Plants as indicators forGreat Lakes coastal wetland health. Aquat. Ecosys.Health Manage. 7(2):233–247.

———, Reese, G., Crispin, S.R., Wilsmann, M.R., andOuwinga, S.J. 1987. A survey of Great Lakes marshesin Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Michigan NaturalFeatures Inventory, Lansing, MI.

———, Reese, G., Crispin, S.R., Penskar, M.R., Wils-mann, L.A., and Ouwinga, S.J. 1988. A survey ofGreat Lakes marshes in the southern half of Michi-gan’s Lower Peninsula. Michigan Natural FeaturesInventory, Lansing, MI.

———, Reese, G., Penskar, M.R., Wilsmann, L.A., andOuwinga, S.J. 1989. A survey of Great Lakes marshes


in the northern half of Michigan’s Lower Peninsulaand throughout Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Michi-gan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Baedke, S.J., and Thompson, T.A., 2000. A 4,700-yearrecord of lake level and isostasy for Lake Michigan. J.Great Lakes Res. 26:416–426.

———, Thompson, T.A., Johnston, J.W., and Wilcox,D.A., 2004. Reconstructing Paleo Lake Levels fromRelict Shorelines along the Upper Great Lakes. Spe-cial Issue on Lake Superior. Aquat. Ecosys. HealthManage. 7:435–449.

Bowes, M.A. 1989. Review of the geomorphologicaldiversity of the Great Lakes shore zone in Canada.University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. HeritageResources Centre Technical Paper No. 4.

Brinson, M.M. 1996. Assessing wetland functions usingHGM. National Wetlands Newsletter 18:10–16.

Burton, T.M., Stricker, C.A., and Uzarski, D.G. 2002.Effects of plant community composition and exposureto wave action on habitat use of invertebrate commu-nities of Lake Huron coastal wetlands. Lakes &Reservoirs: Research and Management 7:255–269.

Cardinale, B.J., Brady, V.J., and Burton, T.M. 1998.Changes in the abundance and diversity of coastalwetland fauna from the open water/macrophyte edgetowards shore. Wetland Ecology and Management6:59–68.

Chow-Fraser, P., and Albert, D.A. 1998. BiodiversityInvestment Areas: Coastal Wetland Ecosystems. Stateof the Great Lakes Ecosystem conference backgroundpaper. United States Environmental ProtectionAgency and Environment Canada, Buffalo, NY.

Comer, P.J., and Albert, D.A. 1991. A Survey of WoodedDune and Swale Complexes in the Northern Lowerand Eastern Upper Peninsulas of Michigan. MichiganNatural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

———, and Albert, D.A. 1993. A Survey of Wooded Duneand Swale Complexes in Michigan. Michigan NaturalFeatures Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., and LaRoe, E.T.1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habi-tats of the United States. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31.

Crum, H. 1976. Mosses of the Great Lakes Forest. AnnArbor, MI: University Herbarium, University ofMichigan.

———. 1988. A Focus on Peatlands and Peat Mosses.Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Dodge, D., and Kavetsky, R. 1995. Aquatic habitat andwetlands of the Great Lakes. State of the Great LakesEcosystem conference background paper. Environ-ment Canada and United States Environmental Pro-tection Agency. EPA 905-R-95-104.

Duffy, G.W., Batterson, T.R., and McNabb, C.D. 1987.The St. Marys River, Michigan: an Ecological Profile.U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol.Rep. 85 (7.10).

Edsall, T.A., and Charlton, M.N. 1997. NearshoreWaters of the Great Lakes. State of the Great LakesEcosystem conference background paper. EPA 905-R-97-015a Cat. No. En40-11/35-1-1997E.

———, Manny, B.A., and Raphael, C.N. 1988. The St.Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan: An Ecologi-cal Profile. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Washington,DC. Biol. Rep. 85 (7.3).

Environment Canada and Central Lake Ontario Conser-vation Authority. 2004. Durham Regional CoastalWetland Monitoring Project: Year 2 TechnicalReport. Downsview, ON: ECB-OR.

Geis, J.W., and Kee, J.L. 1977. Coastal wetlands alongLake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in JeffersonCounty, New York. SUNY College of EnvironmentalScience and Forestry. Syracuse, NY.

Harris, H.J., Bosley, T.R., and Rosnik, F.D. 1977. GreenBay’s coastal wetlands: A picture of dynamic change.In Wetlands, Ecology, Values, and Impacts: Proceed-ings of the Waubesa Conference on Wetlands, eds. C.B. DeWitt and E. Soloway, pp. 337–358. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin’s Institute of Environ-mental Studies.

———, Fewless, G., Milligan, M., and Johnson, W. 1981.Recovery processes and habitat quality in a freshwatercoastal marsh following a natural disturbance. InSelected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference onWetland Values and Management, ed. B. Richardson,pp. 363–379. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Water Plan-ning Board.

Herdendorf, C.E. 1988. Classification of geological fea-tures in Great Lakes nearshore and coastal areas.Protecting Great Lakes Nearshore and Coastal Diver-sity Project. International Joint Commission/TheNature Conservancy, Windsor, Ontario.

———. 1990. Great Lakes estuaries. Estuaries13:493–503.

———, Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981a.Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastalwetlands within the United States, Vol. 1: Overview.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.FWS/OBS-81/02-v1.

———, Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981b.Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastalwetlands within the United States, Vol. 2: LakeOntario. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v2.

———, Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981c.Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastalwetlands within the United States, Vol. 3: Lake Erie.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.FWS/OBS-81/02-v3.

———, Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981d.Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastalwetlands within the United States, Vol. 4: LakeHuron. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v4.

146 Albert et al.

———, Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981e.Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastalwetlands within the United States, Vol. 5: Lake Michi-gan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.FWS/OBS-81/02-v5.

———, Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981f.Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastalwetlands within the United States, Vol. 6: Lake Supe-rior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.FWS/OBS-81/02-v6.

———, Hakanson, L., Jude, D.J., and Sly, P.G. 1992. Areview of the physical and chemical components ofthe Great Lakes: a basis for classification and inven-tory of aquatic habitats. In The development of anaquatic habitat classification system for lakes. Eds.W.-D.N. Busch and P.G. Sly, pp. 109–160. AnnArbor, MI: CRC Press.

Hudson, P.L., Griffiths, R.W., and Wheaton, T.J. 1992.Review of habitat classification schemes appropriateto streams, rivers, and connecting channels in theGreat Lakes drainage basin. In The development of anaquatic habitat classification system for lakes. Eds.W.-D.N. Busch and P.G. Sly, pp. 73–108. Ann Arbor,MI: CRC Press.

Keough J.R., Thompson, T.A., Guntenspergen, G.R., andWilcox, D.A. 1999. Hydrogeomorphic factors andecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the GreatLakes. Wetlands 19:821–834.

Leach, J.H., and Herron, R.C. 1992. A review of lakehabitat classification. In The Development of anaquatic habitat classification system for lakes. Eds.W.-D.N. Busch and P.G. Sly, pp. 27–58. Ann Arbor,MI: CRC Press.

Lichtner, J. 1998. Primary succession and forest devel-opment on coastal Lake Michigan sand dunes. Eco-logical Monographs 68:487–510.

McKee, P.M., Batterson, T.R., Dahl, T.E., Glooshenko,V., Jaworski, E., Pearce, J.B., Raphael, C.N., Whillans,T.H., and LaRoe, E.T. 1992. Great Lakes aquatic habi-tat classification based on wetland classification sys-tems. In The development of an aquatic habitat classifi-cation system for lakes. Eds. W.-D.N. Busch and P.G.Sly, pp. 27–58. Ann Arbor, MI: CRC Press.

Minc, L.D. 1997. Great Lakes coastal wetlands: Anoverview of abiotic factors affecting their distribution,form, and species composition. Michigan Natural Fea-tures Inventory, Lansing, MI.

———, and Albert, D.A. 1998. Great Lakes coastal wet-lands: abiotic and floristic characterization. Michi-gan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. OntarioWetland Evaluation System, Southern Ontario Man-ual . 3rd Edition. Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, Peterborough, Ontario.

Sly, P.G., and Busch, W.-D.N. 1992a. Introduction to theprocess, procedure, and concepts used in the develop-ment of an aquatic habitat classification system forlakes. In The development of an aquatic habitat clas-sification system for lakes. Eds. W.-D.N. Busch andP.G. Sly, pp. 1–14. Ann Arbor, MI: CRC Press.

———, and Busch, W.-D. N. 1992b. A system for aquatichabitat classification of lakes. In The development ofan aquatic habitat classification system for lakes. Eds.W.-D.N. Busch and P.G. Sly, pp. 15–26. Ann Arbor,MI: CRC Press.

Smith, R.D., Ammann, A., Bartoldus, C., and Brinson,M.M. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland func-tions using hydrogeomorphic classification, referencewetlands and functional indices. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicks-burg, MS. Tech. Rpt. TR-WRP-DE-9.

Thompson, T.A. 1992. Beach-ridge development andlake-level variation in southern Lake Michigan. Sedi-mentary Geol. 80:305–318.

———, and Baedke, S.J. 1995. Beach-ridge developmentin Lake Michigan: shoreline behavior in response toquasi-periodic lake-level events. Marine Geol.129:163–174.

———, and Baedke, S.J., 1997. Strandplain evidence forlate Holocene lake-level variations in Lake Michigan.Geological Society of America Bulletin 109:666–682.

Wei, A., Chow-Fraser, P., and Albert, D. 2004. Influenceof shoreline features on fish distribution in the Lau-rentian Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.61(7):1113–1123.

Wilcox, D.A. 2005. Lake Michigan wetlands: classifica-tion, concerns, and management opportunities. InState of Lake Michigan, eds. M. Munawar and T.Edsall, (in press). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Eco-vision World Monograph Series, S.P.B. AcademicPublishing.

———, Meeker, J.E., Hudson, P.L., Armitage, B.J.,Black, M.G., and Uzarski, D.G. 2002. Hydrologicvariability and the application of index of bioticintegrity metrics to wetlands: a Great Lakes evalua-tion. Wetlands 22:588–615.

Submitted: 20 March 2004Accepted: 11 September 2005Editorial handling: John Janssen

The College at Brockport: State University of New YorkDigital Commons @Brockport2005

Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Great Lakes Coastal WetlandsDennis A. AlbertDouglas A. WilcoxJoel IngramTodd A. ThompsonRepository Citation

01 Seq 1-4

hydrogeomorphic classification for great lakes coastal ... · 1977, herdendorf et al.1981a,...

Documents