lake michigan biodiversity conservation strategy: measures of nearshore biodiversity status lake...

Lake Michigan Biodiversity Conservation Strategy: Measures of Nearshore Biodiversity Status

Lake Michigan NEMOJuly 23, 2013Douglas R. Pearsall, The Nature Conservancy

From upper left – going around clockwise: Green Bay (Mark Godfrey, TNC); Green Bay (Mark Godfrey,TNC), Ice Shoves, Lake Michigan (TNC); Rocky Island (Chris Cantway); Wilderness State Park (Ron Leonetti); Green Bay shore (Mark Godfrey, TNC). Center: Saugatuck Dunes (Melissa Soule)

Outline

IntroductionDeveloping Biodiversity Conservation Strategies:

Project Overview

Measuring BiodiversityWhat is the biodiversity of Lake Michigan?How do we assess its status?

– Nearshore Key Ecological Attributes and Indicators

Questions

Lake Michigan Biodiversity Conservation Strategy:

“primary output… biodiversity conservation strategies that will complement and be incorporated into the

Lakewide Action and Management Plans (LAMPS)

“…working with a broad network…developing strategies for the restoration and conservation of the native biodiversity and

ecosystem function… ”

Biodiversity of Lake Michigan

Second largest by volumeDramatic N-S variability wide range of natural

communities and speciesMajor continental migration corridorWorld’s most extensive freshwater dunesUnique embayments (Green Bay, Grand Traverse Bay)

Project Goal

Develop multi-partner Biodiversity Conservation Strategies for Lakes Michigan and Erie that:

• highlight the conservation features (e.g., species, systems, processes, functions)

• represent the biodiversity of the lakes, • identify the key threats to these features, and • articulate long-term actions to conserve them as

functioning systems.

Conservation Action Planning (CAP)

Developing Strategies &

Measures

Implementing Strategies &

Measures

Using Results to Adapt & Improve

Defining Your Project

ConservationAction

Planning

Defining Your Project

· Project people· Project scope & focal

targets

Developing Strategies & Measures

· Target viability· Critical threats· Situation analysis· Objectives & actions· Measures

ImplementingStrategies & Measures

· Develop workplans· Implement actions· Implement measures

Using Results toAdapt & Improve

· Analyze actions & data· Learn from results· Adapt project· Share findings

Project Scope

Lake Michigan Stratification Units

Reasons to Stratify:• Reduce complexity• Regional familiarity

5 Reporting Units17 Assessment Units

Aquatic Biodiversity Targets

– Open Water Benthic and Pelagic Ecosystem– Nearshore Zone– Native Migratory Fish– Coastal Wetlands

Terrestrial Biodiversity Targets

–Islands–Coastal Terrestrial Systems–Aerial Migrants

Aquatic Biodiversity Targets

Nearshore Zone: – Submerged lands and water column of Lake Michigan

starting at 0 meters (shoreline) and extending to 30 meters in depth, including nearshore zones of islands, freshwater estuaries and excluding areas upstream from river mouths and riverine coastal wetlands.

Image credit: grahamowengallery.com Image credit: NOAA GLERLImage credit: Engbretson Underwater Photography

!

TraverseCity

Lake Michigan - NorthernBasin Reporting Unit

Coastal Wetlands - Great Lakes Coastal WetlandConsortium (2004)Islands - Great Lakes Project ,The Nature Conservancyand Nature Conservancy of Canada (2010)Coastal Terrestrial - 2km inlandNearshore - 30 meter in lake and 2km inlandBase Data - Esri (2011)

Coastal Wetlands

Islands

Coastal Terrestrial

Nearshore

Offshore

Man

istiq

ue R

iver

Lake Michig

an

.10

Miles

Conservation Targets in the Northern Basin

What is our best estimate of how the biodiversity we care about is doing?

Burbot photo © Engbretson Underwater Photography

Assessing Viability: Key Ecological Attributes and Indicators

• KEA: an aspect of a target's biology or ecology that, if missing or altered, would lead to the loss of that target over time.• Landscape Context• Condition• Size

• Nearshore KEAs:• Community Architecture• Food Web Linkages

Assessing Viability: Key Ecological Attributes and Indicators

Indicators: specific measures to keep track of the status of a KEA

Indicator Ratings:

Assessing Viability: Aggregating KEAs and Indicators

Overall Viability Status of Lake Michigan

Target Northern Basin

Central Basin

Green Bay Mid-Lake Plateau

Southern Basin

Lakewide

Nearshore Zone Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair

Aerial Migrants Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair

Coastal Terrestrial Systems Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair

Coastal Wetlands Good Good Good Fair Fair Good

Islands Good Good Good Good Good Good

Native Migratory Fish Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair

Offshore Benthic and Pelagic Ecosystem

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair

Overall Biodiversity Health Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair

Sheboygan

TraverseCity

Muskegon

Kalamazoo

Escanaba

Oshkosh

Racine

Milwaukee

GreenBay

GrandRapids

Lansing

Chicago

SouthBend

201

511

512

301101

111

112

102

401

211

411

412

501

213

113

311

212

Nearshore ZoneOverall Viability

Lake Michigan Assessment U nits - Michigan and Great Lakes Chapter of The NatureConservancy (2011)

Good

Fair

Poor

Lake

Mic

hig

an

LakeHuron

20Miles

.

Overall Viability Status of the Nearshore Zone

Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone Indicators

KEA Type KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good RS RU AUCurrent value (Source)

Condition Community architecture

Mean Dreissena density >1000 m-2 200-1000 m-

2 50-200 m-2 <50 m-2 ER

NB111 (IA)112 (IA)113 (IA)

CB211 (IA)212 (IA)213 (IA)

GB 311 (IA)

MLP 411 (IA)412 (IA)

SB 511 (IA)512 (IA)


Native fish species richness

<40% of fish spp anticipated are collected w/in 5-year window

40-60% of fish spp anticipated are collected w/in 5-year window

>60-80% of fish spp anticipated are collected w/in 5-year window

>80% of fish spp anticipated are collected w/in 5-year window

RG

NB111 NA112 NA113 NA

CB211 NA212 NA213 NA

GB 311 NA

MLP 411 NA412 NA

SB 511 NA512 NA


KEA Type KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good RS RU AU Current value (Source)


Smallmouth bass population relative abundance

Less than ½ of representative populations meeting goals for relative abundance/ CPUE

½ to ¾ of representative populations meet goals for relative abundance/ CPUE

At least ¾ of representative populations meeting goals for relative abundance/ CPUE & remaining populations at >80% of goal

Each representative population meeting goals for relative abundance/ CPUE

EK

NB111 (EK)112 (EK)113 (EK)

CB212 (RG)213 (EK)

GB 311 (RG)

Condition Food web linkages

Hexagenia mean density in fine sediments (3 yr average)

<40 100-40 200-100 300-200 ER GB 311 <40 (RA)

ConditionSoil / sediment stability & movement

Bed load traps and groins (number of structures per 100 km of shoreline)

>100 >50 - 100 >25 - 50 0 - 25 EK

NB111 133.41 (IA)112 93.37 (IA)113 4.67 (IA)

CB211 18.45 (IA)212 4.2 (IA)213 29.9 (IA)

GB 311 72.52 (IA)

MLP411 31.69 (IA)412 32.89 (IA)

SB511 43.66 (IA)512 328.58 (IA)



ConditionSpawning habitat quality and accessibility

Percentage of historic spawning reefs available as quality spawning habitat

<25% available and high quality

25-50% available and high quality

50-75% available and high quality

>75% available and high quality

RG



GB 311 NA

MLP411 NA412 NA

SB511 NA512 NA

Landscape Context

Coastal and watershed contribution

Artificial Shoreline Hardening Index >40% >30 - 40% 20 - 30% <20% EK

NB

111 18.6 (IA)

112 10.6 (IA)

113 7.7 (IA)

CB

211 17.6 (IA)

212 7.5 (IA)

213 23.2 (IA)

GB 311 14.5 (IA)

MLP411 26.4 (IA)

412 37.1 (IA)

SB511 35.3 (IA)

512 59.3 (IA)



Landscape Context


Percent natural land cover in watershed <40 40 - 60 <60 -80 >80 EK

NB111 69.8 (IA)112 70.3 (IA)113 89.9 (IA)

CB211 83.2 (IA)212 93.1 (IA)213 41.5 (IA)

GB 311 68.5 (IA)

MLP411 47.8 (IA)412 22.1 (IA)

SB511 32.3 (IA)512 23.1 (NS)

Landscape Context


Percent natural land cover within 2 km of shoreline

<25 25 - 50 >50 - 75 >75 EK

NB111 59 (IA)112 64 (IA)113 93.7 (IA)

CB211 78.5 (IA)212 88.9 (IA)213 49.2 (IA)

GB 311 65.4 (IA)

MLP411 72.1 (IA)412 28.9 (NS)

SB511 58.3 (IA)512 13.5 (IA)



Landscape Context Water chemistry Soluble Reactive

Phosphorus >0.7 μgP/l >0.4- 0.7 μgP/l 0.2-0.4 μgP/l <0.2 μgP/l ER


CB211 (NS)212 NA213 NA

GB 311 NA

MLP

411 NA

412 ~.260 (NS)

SB 511 NA512 NA

Landscape Context Water quality

5-year Average Spring isothermal Chlorophyll-a concentration (µg/L)

<0.25 or >4.0 0.25-0.5 or 3.0-4.0

0.5-1.0 or 2.0-3.0 1.0-2.0

ER



<3 or >14 3-4 or 12-14 4-5 or 10-12 5-10 GB 311 NA

<0.25 or >4.0 0.25-0.5 or 3.0-4.0

0.5-1.0 or 2.0-3.0 1.0-2.0

MLP 411 NA412 NA

SB 511 NA512 NA



Landscape Context Water quality

Cladophora standing crop (gDW/m2)during late Summer (Aug-Sept)

>80 >30 - 80 15 - 30 <15

ER


CB211 80% (IA)212 NA213 >80% (IA)

>75% 50-75% 25-50% <25% GB 311 NA

>80 >30 - 80 15 - 30 <15

MLP411 NA412 >80% (IA)

SB

511 71-94 (IA)

512

>80 around Milwaukee; 12-72 to the South in IL (IA)

Landscape Context Water quality Total Phosphorus

concentrations (µg/L) >10 7 - 10 5 - 7 <5 ER

NB111 (IA)112 (IA)113 (IA)

CB211 (IA)212 (IA)213 (IA)

GB 311 NA

MLP 411 (IA)412 (IA)

SB 511 (IA)512 (IA)



Landscape Context Water quality Upland Sediment

Contributions (tons/ac/yr) >0.125 0.075-0.125 0.025-0.075 <0.025 ER

NB 111 0.076 (IA)NB 112 0.099 (IA)NB 113 0.010 (IA)CB 211 0.040 (IA)CB 212 0.005 (IA)CB 213 0.078 (IA)GB 311 0.048 (IA)MLP 411 0.055 (IA)MLP 412 0.143 (IA)SB 511 0.100 (IA)SB 512 0.142 (IA)

Size Population size & dynamics

Average Diporeia densities number/m2 <500 500 – 1500 >1500 - 3500 >3500 ER

NB111 <<500 (IA)112 <<500 (IA)113 <<500 (IA)

CB211 <<500 (IA)212 <<500 (IA)213 <<500 (IA)

GB 311 <<500 (IA)

MLP 411 <<500 (IA)412 <<500 (IA)

SB 511 <<500 (IA)512 <<500 (IA)




Average Native mussels richness per site

<1 1 - 2.9 3 - 9 >9 EK



GB 311 NA

MLP 411 NA412 NA

SB 511 NA512 NA


Biomass of crustacean zooplankton in early summer (mg/L)

TBD TBD TBD TBD



GB 311 NA

MLP 411 NA412 NA

SB 511 NA512 NA




Native mussel abundance TBD TBD TBD TBD



GB 311 NA

MLP 411 NA412 NA

SB 511 NA512 NA


Yellow perch (annual biomass)

Lakewide annual yield <0.5 M kg

Lakewide annual yield of 0.5-0.9 M kg

Lakewide annual yield of 0.9-1.8 M kg

Lakewide annual yield of >1.8 M kg

ER



GB 311 NA

MLP 411 NA412 NA

SB 511 NA512 NA




Yellow perch population status

Yellow perch populations well-below historical average, with little recruitment

Yellow perch populations below historical average

Yellow perch populations at or above historical average

Yellow perch populations well above historical average

NB

111 (NS)

112 (NS)

113 (NS)

CB

211 (NS)

212 (NS)

213 (NS)

GB 311 (NS)

MLP411 (NS)

412 (NS)

SB511 (NS)

512 (NS)

Questions/Discussion

[email protected] 517-316-2259https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/michigan/Pages/lakemichigan.aspx

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/michigan/Pages/lakemichigan.aspx

https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/michigan/Pages/lakemichigan.aspx

lake michigan biodiversity conservation strategy: measures of nearshore biodiversity status lake...

Documents

biodiversity of lake

native biodiversity

conservation targets

project scope slide

ecosystem function slide

conservation features

northern basin slide

grand traverse bay slide