1. Tim Asplund, Buzz Sorge (WI DNR)
The Importance of Healthy Riparian Areas and their Current Status in Wisconsin
Tim Asplund, Buzz Sorge (WI DNR)
Advanced Lake Leaders – Green Lake
Sept. 26, 2013
Courtesy of MN DNR

2. Lakeshore zone
Shallow zone
Complexity:
The degree to which both lakeshore and shallow zones are intact.
Complex habitats facilitate movement of food into and out of lakes, provide shelter and nesting areas for fish an wildlife, and buffer human impacts.
Disturbance:

3. Shorelands and Shallows

4. Shorelands and Shallows

5. Shorelands and Shallows

6. Shorelands and Shallows

7. SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT

8. Shoreland Assessments
Riparian Habitat
Vegetation cover
Shoreline and bank
Trees and shrubs
Littoral Habitat
Bottom substrate
Aquatic plants
Fish habitat
Human Influences
Docks, piers, seawalls
Buildings, lawns, driveways

9. Data: U.W. BioComplexity project

10. Fish grow ~3X faster in lakes with lots of woody habitat
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
log
Growth
Rate
(mm/yr)
Low Development
Low Development
High Development
High Development
Woody Habitat (no./km)
From Schindler et al. 2000

11. FLOATING-LEAF VEGETATION
Jennings et al 2003

12. Shorelands and Shallows

13. Shorelands and Shallows

14. Shorelands and Shallows

15. 2007 National Lake Assessment15

16. Poor Biology is Three Times More Common when Lakeshore Habitat is Poor
Regional summary:
Northern Plains, Coastal Plains and Xeric have highest proportion of lakes with poor habitat conditions
While Northern Appalachian exhibits the highest proportion of lakes with high-quality habitat, > 25% of lakeshores are in poor condition 16

17. National Lake Assessment (P-Hab) method

18. Habitat assessment plot (P-hab)
Benthic
Sampling

19. 1. Littoral Habitat

20. Canopy
Understory
Groundcover
2. Riparian Zone

21. 3. Shoreline

22. 4. Human Development
Building
Pier
Lawn

23. 55 individual habitat metrics captured at each site (550/lake).

24. NLA Physical Habitat and Human Disturbance Indices
Riparian (Lakeshore) Vegetation Cover Index
Littoral Habitat Cover Index
Littoral Habitat and Lakeshore Vegetation Complexity Index
Riparian Disturbance Intensity and Extent Index

25. Protocol Littoral Zone Riparian Zone Both Bottom substrate
Aquatic macrophytes
Fish cover
Canopy
Understory
Ground cover
Shoreline substrate
Human influence
Bank features
Invasive species
Riparian Zone
Both

26. Condition of the Nation’s Lakes: Habitat*
*) NLA Primary indicator is Lakeshore Habitat

27. Condition of the Nation’s Lakes: Habitat

28. Stressors to the Nation’s Lakes: Extent, Relative Risk, and Attributable Risk
#1 – Lakeshore vegetation: Poor biology is three times more common when lakeshore vegetation cover is in poor condition. This affects 36% of lakes.
#2 – Nutrients: Poor biology is 2.5 times more common when nutrients are high. This affects about 20% of lakes. 28

29. Riparian Disturbance

30. Littoral Cover Index

31. Lakes sampled for shore habitat in 2012 and 2013

32. Goals of 2013 National Lake Assessment Lakeshore Sampling
expand the assessment of lakeshore habitat condition across Wisconsin
analyze lakeshore habitat condition in terms of lake area and surrounding land use
Compare macrophyte survey methods: point-intercept vs. transect
develop ecoregion-specific lakeshore habitat metrics for Wisconsin
Incorporate lakeshore habitat metrics into WisCALM and Citizen Lakes Monitoring
use lakeshore habitat metrics in addition to trophic status to assess lake health

33. Putting it together – Setting lake specific objectives and management strategies
Poor
Impaired/
UAA
Fair
Watch List
Good
Maintain Condition
Excellent
Consider for O/ERW
TSI
LittRipVeg
AMCI
Objective
Box plots: All lakes in a given natural community and/or ecoregion
Lake Condition Metrics (Water Quality, Plants, Shorelands, etc )

34. Lakes sampled for shore habitat in 2012 and 2013

35. Restoring Complexity and Functional Values of Shorelands

36. Reference Developed/Control Developed/Treated Found – Post
Crystal – Post
Total Number
Figure 3. Initial habitat structure at vegetation plots along reference shorelines on undeveloped
lakes (n=5) as compared to vegetation plots at control shorelines on developed lakes (n=5) and
treated shorelines (shorelines selected for habitat restoration) on developed lakes (n=5). Also,
conditions at 2 “treated” lakeshores, two to three years after planting (Found and Crystal). \
Figure 4. Initial forest canopy closure at vegetation plots along reference shorelines on
undeveloped lakes (n=5) as compared to canopy closure at vegetation plots at control shorelines
on developed lakes (n=5) and treated shorelines (shorelines selected for habitat restoration) on
developed lakes (n=5).
Starrett/Crystal
Escanaba/Found
White Sand/Lost
L. St. Germain/Star
Moon/Jag
% Canaopy Closure