Lake Michigan Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy: Measures of Nearshore Biodiversity Status
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)
Lake Michigan NEMO
July 23, 2013
Douglas R. Pearsall, The Nature Conservancy
Outline
Introduction
Developing Biodiversity Conservation Strategies:
Project Overview
Measuring Biodiversity
What is the biodiversity of Lake Michigan?
How do we assess its status?
– Nearshore Key Ecological Attributes and Indicators
Questions
Lake Michigan Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy:
“…working with a broad network…developing strategies for the
restoration and conservation of the native biodiversity and
ecosystem function… ”
“primary output… biodiversity conservation strategies that
will complement and be incorporated into the
Lakewide Action and Management
Plans (LAMPS)
Biodiversity of Lake Michigan
Second largest by volume
Dramatic N-S variability wide range of natural
communities and species
Major continental migration corridor
World’s most extensive freshwater dunes
Unique 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)
Defining
Your Project
Defining
· Your
ProjectProject
people
· Project scope & focal
targets
Using Results to
Adapt & Improve
· Analyze
actions &to
data
Using
Results
· Learn&
from
results
Adapt
Improve
· Adapt project
· Share findings
Conservation
Action
Planning
Implementing
Strategies & Measures
Implementing
· Develop
workplans
Strategies
&
· Implement
actions
Measures
· Implement measures
Developing
Strategies & Measures
·Developing
Target viability
· Critical threats
Strategies
&
· Measures
Situation analysis
· Objectives & actions
· Measures
Project Scope
Lake Michigan
Stratification Units
Reasons to Stratify:
• Reduce complexity
• Regional familiarity
5 Reporting Units
17 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 GLERL
Image credit: Engbretson Underwater
Photography
r
Ri
ve
iq
ue
ist
M
an
Conservation
Targets in the
Northern Basin
k
La
e
M
i
ig
ch
an
10
Miles
.
Lake Michigan - Northern
Basin Reporting Unit
Coastal Wetlands
Islands
Coastal Terrestrial
Nearshore
Offshore
!
Traverse
City
Coastal Wetlands - Great Lakes Coastal Wetland
Consortium (2004)
Islands - Great Lakes Project,The Nature Conserv ancy
and Nature Conserv ancy of Canada (2010)
Coastal Terrestrial - 2km inland
Nearshore - 30 meter in lake and 2km inland
Base Data - Esri (2011)
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
Nearshore Zone
Northern Central
Basin
Basin
Fair
Fair
Green Bay Mid-Lake
Plateau
Fair
Fair
Southern
Basin
Fair
Lakewide
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
Native Migratory Fish
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Offshore Benthic and Pelagic
Ecosystem
Overall Biodiversity Health
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
11 3
212
Lake
Huron
Escanaba
311
101
301
213
Overall Viability
Status of the
Nearshore
Zone
111
201
102
211
Traverse
City
eM
ich
i ga
n
Green
Bay
Oshkosh
11 2
Sheboygan
La
k
412
401
411 Muskegon
Milwaukee
Grand
Rapids
Racine
Lansing
Nearshore Zone
Overall Viability
501
Kalamazoo
Good
.
Fair
Chicago
512
511
20
Miles
South
Bend
Poor
Lake Michigan Assess ment U nits Mic higan and Great Lak es Chapter of The Nature
Conservancy (2011)
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
Condition
Condition
KEA
Community
architecture
Community
architecture
Indicator
Poor
Mean Dreissena
density
>1000 m-2
Native fish species
richness
<40% of fish
spp
anticipated
are collected
w/in 5-year
window
Fair
200-1000 m-
Good
Very Good
RS
2
50-200 m-2
<50 m-2
ER
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
RG
are collected
w/in 5-year
window
RU
AU
111
NB 112
113
211
CB 212
213
GB 311
411
MLP
412
511
SB
512
111
NB 112
113
211
CB 212
213
GB 311
411
MLP
412
511
SB
Current
value
(Source)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
Condition
Condition
KEA
Community
architecture
Food web
linkages
Indicator
Poor
Smallmouth bass
population relative
abundance
At least ¾ of
Less than ½
representative
½ to ¾ of
of
populations
representative
representative
meeting goals
populations
populations
for relative
meet goals for
meeting goals
abundance/
relative
for relative
CPUE &
abundance/
abundance/
remaining
CPUE
CPUE
populations at
>80% of goal
Each
representative
population
meeting goals EK
for relative
abundance/
CPUE
<40
300-200
Hexagenia mean
density in fine
sediments (3 yr
average)
Fair
100-40
Good
200-100
Very Good
RS
ER
AU
Current value
(Source)
111
112
113
212
213
(EK)
(EK)
(EK)
(RG)
(EK)
GB
311
(RG)
GB
311
<40 (RA)
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
512
133.41 (IA)
93.37 (IA)
4.67 (IA)
18.45 (IA)
4.2 (IA)
29.9 (IA)
72.52 (IA)
31.69 (IA)
32.89 (IA)
43.66 (IA)
328.58 (IA)
RU
NB
CB
NB
Condition
Soil / sediment
stability &
movement
Bed load traps and
groins (number of
>100
structures per 100 km
of shoreline)
CB
>50 - 100
>25 - 50
0 - 25
EK
GB
MLP
SB
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
RS
RU
NB
Condition
Spawning 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
CB
RG
GB
MLP
SB
NB
Landscape
Context
Coastal and
watershed
contribution
CB
Artificial Shoreline
Hardening Index
>40%
>30 - 40%
20 - 30%
<20%
EK
GB
MLP
SB
AU
Current value
(Source)
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
512
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
111
18.6 (IA)
112
10.6 (IA)
113
7.7 (IA)
211
17.6 (IA)
212
7.5 (IA)
213
23.2 (IA)
311
14.5 (IA)
411
26.4 (IA)
412
37.1 (IA)
511
35.3 (IA)
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
RS
RU
NB
Landscape
Context
Coastal and
watershed
contribution
Percent natural land
cover in watershed
CB
<40
40 - 60
<60 -80
>80
EK
GB
MLP
SB
NB
Landscape
Context
Coastal and
watershed
contribution
Percent natural land
cover within 2 km of
shoreline
CB
<25
25 - 50
>50 - 75
>75
EK
GB
MLP
SB
AU
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
Current value
(Source)
69.8 (IA)
70.3 (IA)
89.9 (IA)
83.2 (IA)
93.1 (IA)
41.5 (IA)
68.5 (IA)
47.8 (IA)
22.1 (IA)
32.3 (IA)
512 23.1 (NS)
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
59 (IA)
64 (IA)
93.7 (IA)
78.5 (IA)
88.9 (IA)
49.2 (IA)
65.4 (IA)
72.1 (IA)
412 28.9 (NS)
511 58.3 (IA)
512 13.5 (IA)
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
RS
RU
NB
CB
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
GB
MLP
SB
NB
<0.25 or >4.0
Landscape
Context
Water quality
5-year Average Spring
isothermal Chlorophylla concentration (µg/L) <3 or >14
0.25-0.5 or
3.0-4.0
0.5-1.0 or 2.01.0-2.0
3.0
CB
ER
3-4 or 12-14
0.25-0.5 or
<0.25 or >4.0
3.0-4.0
4-5 or 10-12
5-10
0.5-1.0 or 2.01.0-2.0
3.0
GB
MLP
SB
AU
Current value
(Source)
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
NA
NA
NA
(NS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
412 ~.260 (NS)
511
512
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
RS
RU
NB
>80
>30 - 80
15 - 30
<15
CB
AU
111
112
113
211
212
Current value
(Source)
NA
NA
NA
80% (IA)
NA
213 >80% (IA)
Landscape
Context
Water quality
Cladophora standing
>75%
crop (gDW/m2)during
late Summer (Aug-Sept)
50-75%
25-50%
<25%
GB
ER
MLP
311 NA
411 NA
412 >80% (IA)
511 71-94 (IA)
>80
>30 - 80
15 - 30
<15
SB
NB
Landscape
Context
Water quality
Total Phosphorus
concentrations (µg/L)
CB
>10
7 - 10
5-7
<5
ER
GB
MLP
SB
>80 around
Milwaukee; 12512
72 to the South
in IL (IA)
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
NA
(IA)
(IA)
(IA)
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
Landscape
Context
KEA
Water quality
Indicator
Poor
Upland Sediment
>0.125
Contributions (tons/ac/yr)
Fair
0.075-0.125
Good
0.025-0.075
Very Good
<0.025
RS
RU
AU
ER
NB
NB
NB
CB
CB
CB
GB
MLP
MLP
SB
SB
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
512
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
512
NB
Size
Population size & Average Diporeia
dynamics
densities number/m2
CB
<500
500 – 1500
>1500 - 3500
>3500
ER
GB
MLP
SB
Current value
(Source)
0.076 (IA)
0.099 (IA)
0.010 (IA)
0.040 (IA)
0.005 (IA)
0.078 (IA)
0.048 (IA)
0.055 (IA)
0.143 (IA)
0.100 (IA)
0.142 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
<<500 (IA)
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
RS
RU
NB
Size
Population size
& dynamics
Average Native
mussels richness per
site
CB
<1
1 - 2.9
3-9
>9
EK
GB
MLP
SB
NB
Size
Population size
& dynamics
Biomass of crustacean
zooplankton in early
summer (mg/L)
CB
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
GB
MLP
SB
AU
Current value
(Source)
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
512
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
512
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
RS
RU
NB
Size
Population size
& dynamics
Native mussel
abundance
CB
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
GB
MLP
SB
NB
Size
Population size
& dynamics
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
CB
ER
GB
MLP
SB
AU
Current value
(Source)
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
512
111
112
113
211
212
213
311
411
412
511
512
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Detailed Status of Nearshore Zone
Indicators
KEA Type
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
RS
RU
AU
Current value
(Source)
111 (NS)
NB
112 (NS)
113 (NS)
Size
Population size
& dynamics
Yellow perch
populations
well-below
Yellow perch population
historical
status
average, with
little
recruitment
211 (NS)
Yellow perch
populations
below
historical
average
Yellow perch
populations at
or above
historical
average
Yellow perch
populations
well above
historical
average
CB
212 (NS)
213 (NS)
GB
MLP
SB
311 (NS)
411 (NS)
412 (NS)
511 (NS)
512 (NS)
Questions/Discussion
dpearsall@tnc.org
517-316-2259
https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/michigan/Pages/lakemichigan.aspx