1 / 46

Sustaining Lakes in a Changing Environment (SLICE) Sentinel Lakes Program Ray Valley and Don Pereira

Sustaining Lakes in a Changing Environment (SLICE) Sentinel Lakes Program Ray Valley and Don Pereira. Talk Outline. The Why - History, motivations, and aims of program The What - Program design and sentinel lake selection The How - Data collection activities and partnerships

arden
Download Presentation

Sustaining Lakes in a Changing Environment (SLICE) Sentinel Lakes Program Ray Valley and Don Pereira

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Sustaining Lakes in a Changing Environment (SLICE) Sentinel Lakes Program Ray Valley and Don Pereira

  2. Talk Outline • The Why - History, motivations, and aims of program • The What - Program design and sentinel lake selection • The How - Data collection activities and partnerships • The So What - Lessons learned

  3. Talk Outline • The Why - History, motivations, and aims of program • The What - Program design and sentinel lake selection • The How - Data collection activities and partnerships • The So What - Lessons learned

  4. Why Focus on Lakes? • Minnesota is known for her lakes • Lakes don’t flush • Focal integrators of time and space

  5. Why – Glacier-like changes to landscape and climate • Shoreline and nearshore transformations • Impervious surfaces • Hydrological transformations • Human accelerators of species spread • Climate change

  6. Consequences on Resilience • Cumulative impacts of stressors • Stressors to watersheds • Ditching, draining, channeling, • Impervious surface • Withdrawing & damming • Alterations to lakes • Overharvest/Overstocking • Removal of structure • Disturbance from watercraft • Time Lags • Hysteresis – “can’t go back” • Positive feedbacks Cumulative impacts of stressors System “state” Scheffer and Carpenter 2003

  7. Reality Bites! In a lot of systems there’s no “going back.” Our expectations and management approach for these systems should be different for systems largely “intact”

  8. Enter SLICE – informing expectations and appropriate mgt responses We ask: • In highly altered systems, how can we realistically improve water quality and provide a self-sustaining recreational fishery? • In high integrity systems, what watershed and in-lake factors are contributing to their resilience, and how can we keep those resilience mechanisms intact? • Early Detection and Rapid Response indicators What indicators tell us “all is not well” and indicate whether our responses are making a difference?

  9. Sustaining Lakes in a Changing Environment (SLICE) • Program aims to: • Timely detect change to habitat conditions and species population communities • Understand and project what is/will come into our lakes (watershed modeling) • Understand and project the ultimate fate of external and internal loads (limnological modeling) • Facilitate structured decision-making and adaptive management

  10. Talk Outline • The Why - History, motivations, and aims of program • The What - Program design and sentinel lake selection • The How - Data collection activities and partnerships • The So What - Lessons learned

  11. Phase 1 (Pilot; 2008-2011): • Pilot phase • Establish network of sentinel lakes • Partnership and infrastructure building • Independent research projects to assess specific questions • Indicator ID • Phase 2 (2012-2016) • Using lessons learned in Pilot to guide operational program Eating the elephant one bite at a time! chrisnierhaus.com

  12. Adaptive Management Process Phase 1: Oct – Jan 2006/2007 Phase 2 2013 Assess problem Phase 1 Op plan 2012 Adjust Design May-Jun 2007 Evaluate Implement Monitor 2011-12 Apr. 2008 2008-2011

  13. Planning and Decision Framework Oversight DNR Fisheries1 Project Coordination2 Ray Valley 1. Information base Recommendation of direction Implementation DNR Fisheries Implementation Technical Advisory Team Eco and Waters Implementation Strategic Advisory Team PCA Implementation Analysis and Evaluation MDH Implementation PCA Water Monitoring Unit Local trends Analysis Teams Syntheses of trends Local Partners DNR Area Staff Local trends Local Partners Local trends Citizen Volunteers Public Information and Outreach Ancillary Investigations

  14. Experimental Design

  15. Three R’s of Statistical Study Design • Realism • Randomization • Representation Population Sample Inference

  16. Questions for us here to consider: • At what spatial scale do we want to draw inference? • How much of the state do we want to cover or how “representative” do we want to be? • How quickly do we want to detect change and “check in on status?” • The answers to these questions will guide the appropriate statistical design

  17. Objective of SLICE:Annual inference of status and trends in lake indicators at the Landscape Scale

  18. Sentinel Lake Selection

  19. Sentinel Lake Selection Stratified Approach 1. Landtype x 4 2. Mixing x 2 3. P-Concentration x 3

  20. Other considerations with final candidate pool • PCA “reference” lake • Other historical datasets • Paleolimnology • Rich lake survey history • Unique partnership opportunities • Active local water monitoring programs

  21. The Sentinel Lakes

  22. SLICE is more than Sentinel Lakes – “Split-Panel” Design

  23. Panel 1: Sentinel Lakes (2008 - ) • Stratified sampling design • Figurative Approach: “6-in wide, 1 mile deep” • Monitoring system-wide changes at a fine temporal resolution in a small number of systems spread across the state • Synchronous trends - are things behaving similarly across large scales? • Cause-effect inference • Forecast modeling w/ cont. verification Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 = The network of sentinel lakes

  24. Panel 2: “Random” surveys (2013 - ) • Approach: “1 Mile-wide 6” deep” • Focus is on maximizing lakes sampled, minimal time spent at each one. • Combination with Sentinel panel is powerful for robust inference of status across time and space • Will focus on utilizing datasets from other ongoing monitoring programs Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 = Group of Lakes

  25. Sentinel Lake Characteristics (ranges)

  26. Sentinel Lake watershed sizes are skewed Median = 9 Median = 31 km2 Are these watersheds representative of other Minnesota lake watersheds??

  27. Median = 12 km2

  28. Median = 12km2

  29. Median = 10

  30. Sentinel Lake watershed sizes are representative! Median = 9 Median = 31 km2

  31. Talk Outline • The Why - History, motivations, and aims of program • The What - Program design and sentinel lake selection • The How - Data collection activities and partnerships • The So What - Lessons learned

  32. Question:What data do we need and who’s going to collect it?

  33. Started with a conceptual model of system behavior

  34. Right partners for the right job • PCA, DNR, SNF, Citizen Volunteers, local units of govt, researchers efficiently deployed • Research staff evaluating: • Indicator “vetting” – signal:noise • Appropriate lake and watershed models • Reconstructing past conditions • Efficient sampling methodology • Reporting and data management structures in place. • Leveraging multiple funding sources

  35. “If you build it, they will come” • A platform for interdisciplinary study of lakes • Independent “off-shoot” projects focused on: • Cold-water fish and habitat • Historical reconstructions of water quality and zooplankton • Zooplankton patterns • Groundwater-surface water interactions • “Free” Analysis off of our “Free” data • Projects, investigators, lakes involved, and contact info is being tracked on SLICE web page

  36. Talk Outline • The Why - History, motivations, and aims of program • The What - Program design and sentinel lake selection • The How - Data collection activities and partnerships • The So What - Lessons learned

  37. Lessons Learned – Successes • Eating an elephant one bite at a time • Right partners doing the right job • We built it and now they are coming • Structured-decision making and adaptive learning process

  38. Lessons Learned – Mulligans Take logistics as seriously as strategy

  39. Designating a project/program “Coordinator” is a no-brainer and something the state does well

  40. The logistics of who they are coordinating is another matter entirely that rarely receives sufficient attention

  41. Span of Control Issues: Herding Cats • Getting dozens of staff to be all doing the same thing is not easy!

  42. Other Admin Issues to consider • Data QA/QC • Data management and dissemination • Appropriate staffing for the workloads • Communication plan

  43. Departing thoughts… • Stressors are slowly wearing away the resilience of our water and fisheries resources • Greater urgency with lakes – they are our legacy and they don’t flush. • Most MN lake watersheds are small – good from a management standpoint. • The interdisciplinary partnerships are the backbone of SLICE • Advice for sentinel watershed planning – give logistic operations of carrying out a program its due during the planning process.

  44. Funding and Partners

More Related