Great Lakes Connec.vity Project Pete McIntyre, Patrick Doran, Ma8 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Nov 14, 2023 23 likes •260 views

Great Lakes Connec.vity Project Pete McIntyre, Patrick Doran, Ma8 Diebel, Michael Ferris, Tom Neeson, Allison Moody, Margaret Guye8e, Aus.n Milt, Steph Januchowski-Hartley, Jesse OHanley, Ma8 Herbert, Mary Khoury, Eugene Yacobson, Steve

SLIDE 1

Great Lakes Connec.vity Project

Pete McIntyre, Patrick Doran, Ma8 Diebel, Michael Ferris, Tom Neeson, Allison Moody, Margaret Guye8e, Aus.n Milt, Steph Januchowski-Hartley, Jesse O’Hanley, Ma8 Herbert, Mary Khoury, Eugene Yacobson, Steve Wangen, Jeff Dischler

University of Wisconsin—Madison The Nature Conservancy—Great Lakes Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources University of Kent

SLIDE 2

GLCP Partnerships

People: Dave Allan (GLEAM), Mark Holey & Jessica Barber & Stewart Cogswell (USFWS), Mark Fedora (USFS), Dale BurkeF & Pete Hrodey & Ted Treska (GLFC), Dana Infante (NFHAP, NABD), Lucinda Johnson (GLEI), Catherine Riseng (GLAHF), Sara Strassman (Am. Rivers) Funding:

SLIDE 3

Great Lakes migratory fishes

16,900 km

shoreline

>1000

watersheds

53 fish species
19 families
10 exoZc spp.
7 semelparous
10 fall-winter

migrants

SLIDE 4

Challenge #1: Migratory fish diversity

SLIDE 5

Biogeographic data for 45 migratory 3ishes

SLIDE 6

Species-speci3ic barrier analyses

SLIDE 7

Species-speci3ic barrier analyses

SLIDE 8

Challenge #2: Barrier mapping

SLIDE 9

Challenge #2: Barrier mapping

100K road crossings 4K dams

Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2013 Fron%ers in Ecology & Environment

SLIDE 10

Neeson et al. 2015 PNAS

Challenge #3: QuanZfying connecZvity

Impassible: 75% Semi-passable: 20% Fully passable: 5%

Cumula/ve passability: mulZply raZngs of all downstream barriers

SLIDE 11

Challenge #4: Porbolio opZmizaZon

$40,000 1 km $100,000 3 km $30,000 10 km 0.8 0.4

Budget Habitat gain $100,000 ???

$70,000 1.5 km $200,000 2 km $80,000 5 km 0.5 0.3 6 5 2 3 1 4 0% 0% 30% 30% 15% 15% 0% 12% 100%

Porbolios address:

CumulaZve passability
ConZngencies among removals
SoluZons are not nested by budget

SLIDE 12

Challenge #5: JurisdicZonal scalability

Neeson et al. 2015 PNAS

SLIDE 13

Challenge #6: LimiZng species invasions

NaZves can benefit even when invaders are controlled

White sucker Round goby Sea lamprey Lake sturgeon

SLIDE 14

Next Steps: invasive species

1) OpZmizaZons that compare control strategies (caps, poison, selecZve passage) 2) Explore tradeoffs between naZve and invasive species 3) Test benefits of coordinated budgeZng for barrier removal and invader control

SLIDE 15

Online decision support tool

¡ visualize barriers ¡ user-submitted edits ¡ optimization of barrier removal

www.greatlakesconnectivity.org

SLIDE 16

Scenario 1

¡ You are a project manager for the

Menominee watershed.

¡ Compare the results of spending

$500,000, $1 million, and $2 million on barrier removal projects.

SLIDE 17

Scenario 1

SLIDE 18

Scenario 2

¡ In the Pentwater River, Barrier 43 is a

critical barrier for sea lamprey control and cannot be removed.

¡ What are the consequences for fish

passage in the watershed?

SLIDE 19

Scenario 2

SLIDE 20

Scenario 2

SLIDE 21

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Next Steps: DST

Passability of recommended barriers

1) Build species-specific opZmizaZon into DST 2) IdenZfy rules of thumb that can guide removals even without data/opZmizaZon

Budget step

SLIDE 22

Data sources

Loca.on Source Stream Data Coastal Data Presence Abundance Age Class Ontario MNR - ARA X X X MNR - FWIS X X X 11 ConservaZon AuthoriZes X 3 X 6 2 DFO X X X X ROM X X Illinois DNR X X X X Indiana DNR X X X DEM X X Michigan DEQ X X DNR X X X X Fish Atlas X X X DNR - MRI - LP X X X DNR - MRI - UP X X X Minnesota DNR – FishMap* X X X X New York DEC X X X Ohio Ohio EPA X X X OSU X X X X Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission** X X X X Wisconsin DNR X X X X X FishMap X X X X US - Great Lakes USFWS Lamprey survey X X Great Lakes Goodyear Atlas X X

SLIDE 23