Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Strategic Aquatic Habitat Conservation Opportunities for Minnesota Lakes
Michael DuvalPeter JacobsonTom Jones
Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources
MN Association of Conservation ProfessionalsCamp Ripley, MN March 2, 2012 Photo courtesy of Bill Lindner Photography
Primary Categories of Fish Habitat in Lakes
Physical Structure Water QualityProperties• vegetation• woody habitat• substrate
Properties• sedimentation• epiphytic algae• hypolimnetic oxygen• regime shifts
Primary Disturbance DriversShoreline disturbance from development
Watershed disturbance from urbanization and agriculture
Photo: Eric Engbretson
Courtesy UW – Green Bay
IBI
Forest> 60%
Forest Ag/For Ag/For/Urb
AgUrban
20
40
60
80
100
120
140 aab
bbc
bcc
Interaction of water quality with fish species
Drake and Pereira 2002. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1105-1123.
Interaction of water quality with physical habitats
Scheffer et al. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596.
Photo: Eric Engbretson
LOW HIGH
LOW
HIGH
Shoreline Disturbance
Wat
ersh
ed D
istu
rban
ce Restore watershed
Protect shoreline
Protect watershed
Protect shoreline
Restore watershed
Restore shoreline
Protect watershed
Restore shoreline
^Threshold
Thre
shol
d
>
Land disturbance predicts WQ
Estimated land
disturbance in local lake catchments
Estimated statewide
disturbance in lake
watersheds
Primary Categories of Fish Habitat in Lakes
Physical Structure Water QualityProperties• vegetation• woody habitat• substrate
Properties• sedimentation• epiphytic algae• hypolimnetic oxygen• regime shifts
Primary Disturbance DriversShoreline disturbance from development
Watershed disturbance from urbanization and agriculture
100 Lakes: GIS30 Lakes: fish and habitat sites12 Lakes: whole lake habitat
Lake Selection• Northern Lakes & Forests• Mesotrophic, TP 12-30 ppb• High in watershed
Cumulative effects of shoreline development on fish habitat in northern Minnesota lakes
DNR U of M Donna Dustin Bruce Vondracek Cindy Tomcko Jen Keville
Jessie Lepore
GOALS• Analyze shoreline development on 100
lakes• Determine and model local habitat impacts• Develop and test model to predict effects of
shoreline development on fish
Interim estimated riparian
lake habitat condition
Preliminary analyses provided by Donna Dustin, Fisheries Research
LOW HIGH
LOW
HIGH
Shoreline Disturbance
Wat
ersh
ed D
istu
rban
ce Restore watershed
Protect shoreline
Protect watershed
Protect shoreline
Restore watershed
Restore shoreline
Protect watershed
Restore shoreline
^Threshold
Thre
shol
d
>
Lake Habitat Condition Assessment
Minnesota Lakes Fish Habitat Condition
Shoreline Disturbance (% developed within 75m)
Wat
ersh
ed D
istu
rban
ce (
% d
istu
rbed
land
use
)
0 0.5 1 5 10 50 100
025
5075
100
Habitat Condition Assessment
Minnesota Lakes Fish Habitat Condition
Shoreline Disturbance (% developed within 75m)
Wat
ersh
ed D
istu
rban
ce (
% d
istu
rbed
land
use
)
0 0.5 1 5 10 50 100
025
5075
100
Visualizing risk of WQ
habitat degradation
0 20 40 60 80 100
02
04
06
08
01
00
Watershed Disturbance (% disturbed land use)
Pe
rce
nt
of
Wa
ters
he
d P
rote
cte
d
Owner Acres %
County 7,106 27.9
State 5,342 20.9
Federal 6,154 24.1
Private 6,907 27.1
Total 25,510
Ten Mile Lake Watershed
$400,000 for 530 acres of private forest conservation easements @$750/acre would protect 75% of the total watershed
Protection example of reducingWQ risk
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Perc
ent P
rote
cted
Percent Disturbed
2010, added 270 acre SNA
2009
PROTECTION RESTORATION
PARTIALRESTORATION
2011, added 1,000 acre SRA
Photo: Kristi Coughlin
What do we mean by partial restoration?
Photos courtesy of Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
Restoration example of reducing nearshore disturbance
Minnesota Lakes Fish Habitat Condition
Shoreline Disturbance (% developed within 75m)
Wat
ersh
ed D
istu
rban
ce (
% d
istu
rbed
land
use
)
0 0.5 1 5 10 50 100
025
5075
100
Proposed Allocation of ResourcesSection of Fisheries
60% Protection
40% Restoration
