State: Michigan Project No: 237016

STUDY FINAL REPORT

State: Michigan Project No.: T-11-R-1

Study No.: 237016 Title: Refinement of the aquatic portion of Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan and development of tools to support the plan

Period Covered: October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011

Study Objectives: The goals of this project are to: (1) refine Michigan’s comprehensive aquatic conservation strategy; (2) synthesize progress made during the first phase of plan implementation; and (3) develop improved databases, frameworks, and tools for implementation of Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (MWAP). The specific objectives are as follows:

Objective 1. Update and maintain Michigan’s river classification framework and databases as well as coordinate the development of Michigan’s inland lake GIS databases and classification framework.

Objective 2. Refine Michigan’s ecological drainage units (EDUs) that were developed by The Nature Conservancy.

Objective 3. Define aquatic ecological systems (AESs), subwatersheds with distinct characteristics in physicochemical and biological properties.

Objective 4. Identify high priority conservation areas for both inland lakes and rivers.

Objective 5. Assess environmental conditions of Michigan’s rivers and inland lakes.

Objective 6. Identify key environmental threats to each water body.

Objective 7. Develop GIS application tools to meet other implementation needs of the MWAP programs.

Objective 8. Synthesize progress made in aquatics during the first 5-years of MWAP implementation.

Objective 9. Develop and write the aquatic portion of the 10-year conservation strategy refinement report.

Summary: This report covers the study period from 2010 to 2011 and is presented as a final report because we are terminating this grant and incorporating this project with grant T-10-T-3 beginning fiscal year 2012. Since the inception of this study in 2008, we have developed an aquatic habitat database for the MWAP that includes all river reaches and all inland lakes that are 5 acres or larger. We have maintained, corrected, and upgraded the details regarding those stream reaches and lakes into the Institute for Fisheries Research Hydrologic Dataset (IFRHD). The IFRHD formed the basis for further development of Ecological Drainage Units (EDUs) and Aquatic Ecological Systems (AESs) for the State of Michigan as classification schemes based on biological and landscape information. High priority conservation areas for fishes including 1 T-11-R-1, Study 237016

Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) were identified using a cost function method. Further, we assessed stream and lake conditions and identified the major anthropogenic threats for all stream reaches and lakes that are 5 acres or larger in Michigan. Initial progress was made towards the development of web-based GIS applications by obtaining advice from fisheries managers and scientists.

Findings: There are total 12 jobs in this study. However, only jobs 1–9 and 11 were active during this study period. The findings for each of the 10 jobs are reported below.

Job 1. Title: Update and maintain the river database, and coordinate the development of the inland lakes database to meet MWAP needs.–The aquatic habitat database for MWAP, including river and inland lake datasets, has been maintained and upgraded. We added 441 inland lakes into the database. Those lakes existed in IFR Lake Polygon data, but were incorrectly labeled as a stream/river in the NHD. We manually verified the assignment and inclusion of each lake in the database. To do this, three rules were defined to determine if a lake should be included in the database: 1) the lake had to be considerably wider than a flowing river, 2) a dam or impoundment needed to be present, and 3) the lake area must be recognizable in aerial photos and USGS topographical maps. If the lakes met those three criteria, we modified their polygon geometry based on the topographical maps and aerial photos. Rivers within the new lakes were modified to represent lake artificial paths. Because these changes constituted a significant physical modification from the original NHD, we renamed the dataset as the Institute for Fisheries Research (IFR) Hydrological Dataset (IFRHD). All inland lakes and confluence-to- confluence river reaches that were present in the 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset are included in the IFRHD.

Local and network catchments were updated based on previously developed boundaries for all lakes and river reaches in the IFRHD. Riparian buffers were created in raster formats with 10x10 m cells through a resampling process from 30x30 m cells. We divided rivers into two categories; narrow and wide. If a river was located within the NHDArea polygon, the river was categorized as a wide river. When rivers were located outside of the NHDArea polygon, they were categorized as narrow rivers. The raster format of narrow rivers was created with one cell (10 m wide). Riparian zones for narrow rivers were created by buffering 60 m along each side of rivers, so the total riparian zones for narrow rivers were 130 m wide. Wide rivers were created based on the width of rivers. Riparian zones for wide rivers were created by buffering 60 m along each side of the polygon lines of wide rivers, with the total riparian zone of 130 m plus the river width. After creating the riparian zones for each river, we dissolved the zone to the reach level of streams with connectivity of confluence to confluence. We attributed over 100 landscape and river network variables to each catchment and riparian zone. We also calculated groundwater recharging area at each of the spatial scales.

The updated dataset and information helped guide DNR and Departmenet of Environmental Quality (DEQ) management decisions. For example, an early version of the dataset was used as a web-based spatial screening tool for statewide groundwater withdrawal assessment and regulation. The early version of this database was used by DEQ for macroinvertebrate biomonitoring sampling design. DNR Fisheries Division is using the database for the Status and Trends fish community assessment program for sampling design, data management and reporting. The IFRHD can be used for identifying information gaps and providing essential information to protect, enhance, and rehabilitate habitat for species with the greatest conservation need (SGCN).

This job is noted as necessary by the MWAP to serve as a baseline for database development and evaluation of habitat conditions (Eagle et al. 2005).

10 F-80-R-1, Study 469

Job 2. Title: Refine Michigan’s ecological drainage units that were developed by The Nature Conservancy.–The boundaries of the previous version of Michigan’s ecological drainage units (EDUs) developed by The Nature Conservancy were refined and updated using the process developed by the USGS Aquatic Program (McKenna and Castiglione 2010). EDUs were developed by combining multiple similar aquatic ecological systems (AESs). The details of AESs are described in Job 3. There are 19 EDUs in the State of Michigan and each EDU consists of up to 27 AESs (Table 1).

EDUs (Figure 1) will be used to develop conservation frameworks and in management planning for fish and other aquatic species including SGCN. EDUs can be used for the development and use of best management practices and development of specific policies for protecting specific species in a specific region or watershed.

Job 3. Title: Define aquatic ecological systems (AES) as subwatersheds with distinct characteristics in physicochemical and biological properties.– The most recent version of the AES delineation tool developed by the USGS Aquatic Program (McKenna and Castiglione 2010) was used to identify distinct AESs. The delineation tool uses fish occurrence, river classification, and landscape characteristics to classify the AESs (Example: Figure 2). Input parameters for delineation included predicted abundances of 38 species of fish for valley segments and confluence to confluence stream reaches (Steen et al. 2008). The fish abundances at each location were defined by one of three classes: none, low and high. River segment classifications were also used as classification parameters in the delineation tool (Brenden et al. 2008, Seelbach unpublished data). Bootstrapping cluster analysis was used to classify streams according to the species presence, and to determine at which level the groups of streams were significantly different. The similarities between stream reaches were computed using the Bray-Curtis coefficient and highly similar reaches within each sub watershed were merged together to form larger patches called fisheries conservation and management units (FCMs). Larger classification units were formed by merging similar FCM’s within the same watershed and averaging fish assemblage data. This aggregation process was continued up the hierarchy of scale from AESs to EDUs.

Within Michigan’s EDUs (Figure 1), 99 AESs were constructed. Each EDU consists of up to 27 AESs and the same types of AESs exist in different EDUs. This spatial delineation provides a framework for developing multi-scale classifications for diverse management needs and conservation situations in freshwater ecosystems. For example, FCMs may be suitable for local- level management or assessment efforts, whereas AESs would be appropriate units for addressing many broad-scale conservation and assessment issues.

The AESs will be helpful for management through the development of a conservation framework to analyze fish and other aquatic species including species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). The development and use of best management practices, recommended strategies, or recommended plans for conservation and management in specific situations can be planned using the AES structure as a framework.

Job 4. Title: Identify high priority conservation areas for both inland lakes and rivers.–We developed a process for identifying high priority conservation areas during this study period.

Information about the high priority conservation streams will be translated into a management tool. The information included in the tool will be useful for assessing the condition of streams in the future. The tool is envisioned to aid in developing best management practices and conservation and management strategies to address issues associated with species of greatest conservation need (SGCN; Appendix A).

3 T-11-R-1, Study 237016

Job 5. Title: Assess environmental conditions of Michigan rivers and inland lakes.–Assessments of environmental conditions of Michigan’s inland lakes and wadeble streams were completed during this study. A process for identifying reference stream reaches and lake impairment status and assessing disturbance gradients were described by using readily available geo-referenced stream, lake, and human disturbance databases. Approximately 38% of cold-water and 16% of warm-water streams in Michigan are considered least-disturbed. Conversely, approximately 3% of cold-water and 4% of warm-water streams were moderately- to severely-disturbed by landscape human disturbances. Approximately 92% of lakes in Michigan were identified as least to marginally affected and about 8% were moderately to heavily affected by landscape human disturbances. Among lakes that were heavily affected, more inline lakes (92%) were affected by human disturbances than disconnected (6%) or headwater lakes (2%). More small lakes were affected than medium to large lakes. For inline lakes, 90% of the heavily affected lakes were less than 40 ha, 10% were between 40 and 405 ha, and 1% was greater than 405 ha. For disconnected and headwater lakes, all of the heavily affected lakes were less than 40 ha (Wang et al. 2008 and 2010). While the river assessment was completed prior to the initiation of this project at a coarse resolution (1:100,000 scale), continued efforts under the funding of this project allowed for further refinement of the river model at a 1:24,000 scale.

Job 6. Title: Identify key environmental threats to each water body.–Key environmental threats were identified for Michigan inland lakes and wadeble streams. Our process uses inter-confluence stream reaches as an assessment unit, permits the evaluation of stream health across large regions, and yields an overall disturbance index that is a weighted sum of multiple disturbance factors. The strength of this approach is that it is linked to the scale of disturbances that affect a stream. With improved availability of high-resolution disturbance datasets, this approach will provide a more complete picture of reference stream reaches and factors contributing to degradation of stream health. The disturbances that had the greatest effect on moderately- to severely-disturbed streams were nutrient loading and percent urban land use within network watersheds. Among the anthropogenic disturbances that contributed the most to lake disturbance index scores, nutrient yields and farm animal density affected the highest number of lakes, agricultural land use affected a moderate number of lakes, and point source pollution and road measures affected least number of lakes. The identification of key environmental threats for Michigan inland lakes and wadable streams is completed (Wang et al. 2008 and 2010).

Job 7. Title: Develop GIS application tools to meet the other Fisheries Division implementation needs of the MWAP.–We initiated the development of a web-based GIS application system during this study period. A database was compiled and is now ready to be used in the web application. This database consists of stream/river reaches, lakes, and their associated local, network, and riparian catchments. The components of the database are all hydrologically connected and linked with all available physical and biological information. We also added high priority conservation areas into our database. All of the information within the database can be queried to satisfy multiple management and conservation needs. We are in the process of getting input from fisheries biologist and managers about their needs for the application. This application and database will be used initially by the Fisheries Division and then expanded to other users. We are in the process of developing web applications that will be capable of producing customized tables and maps that managers and biologists can specify. This web application will also provide users the ability to remotely access the most recent database.

These application tools will be critically important for identifying information gaps and providing essential information to protect, enhance, and rehabilitate habitat for species of greatest conservation need (SGCN).

10 F-80-R-1, Study 469

Job 8. Title: Provide GIS support to the MWAP in mapping critical habitats and distributions of species of greatest conservation need. Also provide support to the designation of critical aquatic conservation areas.–We provided GIS support to the MWAP programs when requested. We provided a variety of spatial data including streams, lakes, and watersheds to display fish habitat and evaluate spatial relationships by different programs that deal with species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) issues. We also prepared spatial data for universities, NOAA, The Nature Conservancy, and provided maps in support of fish related issues, including Asian carp, creel survey, and river assessment for the Fisheries Division. These tasks included providing stream datasets, creating maps, and producing analysis results and tables.

Job 9. Title: Synthesize progress made during the first 5-year wildlife action plan into a progress report.–Materials were provided to Wildlife Division’s Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator for completing this task. The report is available at:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2011_WAP_web_final_350485_7.pdf.

Job 11. Title: Prepare annual performance report.–This final report was prepared and findings are reported in Appendix A as well as the following publication.

Wang, L., K. E. Wehrly, J. E. Breck, and L. S. Kraft. 2010. Landscape-based assessment of human disturbance for Michigan lakes. Environmental Management 46:471–483.

References:

Brenden, T., L. Wang, and P. W. Seelbach. 2008. A river valley segment classification of Michigan streams based on fish and physical attributes. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 137:1621-1636.

Eagle, A.C., E.M. Hay-Chmielewski, K.T. Cleveland, A.L. Derosier, M.E. Herbert, and R.A. Rustem, eds. 2005. Michigan's Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 1592 pp. http://www.michigan.gov/dnrwildlifeactionplan.

Mackenna, J. E., C. Castiglione. 2010. Hiearchical multi-scale classification of nearshore aquatic habitats of the Great Lakes: Western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 36:757-771

Steen, P. J., T. G. Zorn, P. W. Seelbach, J. S. Schaeffer. 2008. Classification tree models for predicting distributions of michigan stream fish from landscape variables. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:976–996.

Wang, L., T. Brenden, P. Seelbach, A. Cooper, D. Allan, and R. Clark, Jr. 2008. Landscape based identification of human disturbance gradients and reference conditions for Michigan streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 141:1–17. (Attached)

Prepared by: Minako Edgar and Lizhu Wang Date: September 30, 2011 5 Figure 1.–Ecological Drainage Units (EDUs) in Michigan.

6 T-11-R-1, Study 237016

Figure 2.–An example of the patchwork of Aquatic Ecological Units demonstrated in the Saginaw Ecological Drainage Unit in Michigan.

7 T-11-R-1, Study 237016

Table 1.–Number of Aquatic Ecological Systems (AES) identified and 8-digit HUC watersheds contained within Ecological Drainage Units (EDU) in Michigan. Each EDU identification corresponds to numbers in Figure 1.

Number of AES Great Lake Basin EDU id within EDU Watersheds within EDU Erie 1 2 St. Clair Erie 3 25 Tiffin Erie St. Joseph Erie 5 1 Raisin Erie 7 1 Detroit Erie 8 1 Ottawa-Stony Erie 17 2 Clinton Erie 18 1 Huron Erie 19 1 Lake St. Clair Huron 2 1 Birch-Willow Huron 9 20 Shiawassee Huron Pine Huron Pigeon-Wiscoggin Huron Tittabawassee Huron Flint Huron Saginaw Huron Cass Huron Kawkawlin-Pine Huron 12 11 St. Marys Huron Au Sable Huron Carp-Pine Huron Lone Lake-Ocqueoc Huron Cheboygan Huron Black Huron Thunder Bay Huron Au Gres-Rifle Michigan 4 2 Little Calumet-Galien Michigan 10 8 Maple Michigan Upper Grand Michigan Lower Grand Michigan Thornapple Michigan 11 4 St. Joseph Michigan Kankakee Michigan 13 20 Manistee Michigan Menominee Michigan Muskegon Michigan Michigamme Michigan Boardman-Charlevoix Michigan Betsie-Platte Michigan Manistique Michigan Cedar-Ford Michigan Escanaba Michigan Tacoosh-Whitefish Michigan Fishdam-Sturgeon

8 T-11-R-1, Study 237016

Table 1.–Continued.

Number of AES Great Lake Basin EDU id within EDU Watersheds within EDU Michigan Brule Michigan Brevoort-Millecoquins Michigan 15 9 Pere Marquette-White Michigan Kalamazoo Michigan Black-Macatawa Superior 14 11 Keweenaw Peninsula Superior Presque Isle - Black - Montreal Superior Ontonagan Superior Dead-Kelsey Superior Betsy-Chocolay Superior Waiska Superior Flambeau Superior Sturgeon Superior Tahquamenon Superior Upper Wisconsin Superior 16 4 Bad-Montreal