Duval et al fish habitat

Preview:

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

Thank You!

peter.jacobson@state.mn.usmichael.duval@state.mn.us

tom.jones@state.mn.us

Recommended