Methods for Evaluating Shallow Water Habitat Restoration in the St. Clair River

Transcription

1 Methods for Evaluating Shallow Water Habitat Restoration in the St. Clair River

2 Objectives Document fish use of restoration sites Spawning Presence of larvae, juvenile, and adult fish Quantify differences between restoration and control sites Species abundances and composition Juvenile fish abundance

3 ConnectingChannels Multiple Uses St. Marys River Economic, Ecological, and Societal Value St. Lawrence River St. Clair- Detroit River System Niagara River

4 Habitat Loss In The St. Clair River Riparian Development Dimitry Gorsky- USFWS Channelization

5 Impacts to Fish Loss of low velocity shallow water riparian habitat Nursery areas for developing fishes Habitat for small fishes Largemouth Bass Burbot Smallmouth Bass Bluegill Credit: City of Marysville

6 Shoreline Restoration

7 NearshoreRestoration Sites Port Huron North 93m of shoreline Mixed rock added Native shrubs and grasses planted Port Huron South 150m of shoreline Seawall removed Large woody debris added

8 NearshoreRestoration Sites Blue Water River Walk 1,300m of shoreline softened Mixed rock and large woody debris added Native plants and river walk incorporated Pumping for Fish Eggs Marysville Living Shoreline 400m of shoreline softened Mixed rock and large woody debris added Native plants and river walk incorporated

9 NearshoreRestoration Sites Cottrellville 152 m of shoreline softened Cobble and large woody debris added Native shrubs and grasses planted

10 Restoration Objectives Provide: Nursery habitat Habitat for small fishes Are they working? Limited pre-restoration data Community level assessment Assess multiple life stages

11 NearshoreControl Sites Shallow water areas with public access Mixture of riprap and sandy shoreline Marysville Control Marine City Beach Algonac State Park

12 Assessment Techniques Eggs Egg mats Egg pumping Larvae Light traps Larval Fish Light Traps Processing Light Traps Setting Egg Mats

13 Assessment Techniques Small and juvenile fishes Minnow traps Backpack Electrofishing Adult fishes Gillnets Processing Minnow Traps Minnow Trap Backpack Electrofishing Setting Gillnet

14 Sampling Limitations Site Egg Mat Egg Pump Light Trap Minnow Trap Port Huron North x x x x Port Huron South x x Backpack Electrofishing Gillnet Blue Water River Walk x x x x x x Marysville Control x x x x Marysville Living Shoreline Marine City Beach x x x x x x Cottrellville x x x x x x Algonac State Park x x x x x Anchor Bay x x x

15 Eggs and Larvae Egg mats and pumping 3 seasons Over 300 samples 11 eggs collected Light traps 2-4 fish families observed Catch dominated by gobies

16 Fish Use Of Restoration Sites Rainbow Darter Pugnose Minnow Brown Trout Rainbow Trout Mudpuppy

17 More Species Captured With Backpack Electrofishing Restoration Site Control Site Minnow Trap Gillnet Backpack Electrofishing

18 Quantifying Differences 1. Do species abundances differ between restoration and control sites? 2. Does species composition differ between site types? 3. Does juvenile abundance differ between site types? GALLERY.NANFA.ORG

19 Species and Groups of Interest SCDRS Initiative indicator species and groups Suckers Non-native species Rare, threatened, endangered (RTE) species Smallmouth bass Yellow perch Species, genera, families Based on number of individuals collected Adults and juveniles

20 Species and Groups of Interest Electrofishing Minnow Traps Gillnets Suckers Non-native species RTE species Smallmouth bass (Juv.) Yellow perch (Adult) Panfish(Adult & Juv.) Minnows Darters Mottled sculpin Other species Non-native species Yellow Perch Panfish(Juv.) Minnows Other species Suckers Yellow perch (Adult) Other species

21 Statistical Models Generalized linear models: Similar to ANOVA Poisson distribution Count data Inference on catch per unit effort (CPUE) Effort accounted for within model Allows relative abundance estimates Assess species composition

22 Species and Groups of Interest Electrofishing Suckers Non-native species RTE species Smallmouth bass (Juv.) Yellow perch (Adult) Panfish(Adult & Juv.) Minnows Darters Mottled sculpin Other species Backpack Electrofishing

23 Greater CPUE at Restoration Sites Backpack Electrofishing

24 Greater CPUE at Restoration Sites Backpack Electrofishing

25 Assessing Species Composition Species CPUE Total CPUE Relative Abundance

26 Difference in Relative Abundances Backpack Electrofishing <- Control Restoration ->

27 Difference in Relative Abundances Backpack Electrofishing <- Control Restoration ->

28 Species and Groups of Interest Minnow Traps Non-native species Yellow Perch Panfish(Juv.) Minnows Other species Minnow Trap

29 Similar Abundances at Between Site Types Minnow Trap CPUE Relative Abundance

30 Species and Groups of Interest Gillnets Suckers Yellow perch (Adult) Other species Gillnets

31 Similar Abundances at Between Site Types Gillnets CPUE Relative Abundance

32 Quantifying Differences 1. Do species abundances differ between restoration and control sites? 2. Does species composition differ between site types? 3. Does juvenile abundance differ between site types? GALLERY.NANFA.ORG

33 Are Juvenile Fishes More Abundant at Restoration Sites? Native juvenile fishes pooled Differences assessed with Poisson models

34 Conclusions Backpack electrofishing most effective at sampling structurally complex habitats Higher resolution and power to detect differences More individuals and species collected Shoreline restoration beneficial to a suite of species and function as nursery areas Despite few eggs and larvae being collected Shoreline restoration sites had net positive effects for native fishes

35 Acknowledgements Ethan Acromite Dustin Bowser Dana Castle Zach Fyke Emily Galassini Rob Hunter Scott Jackson Ellen O Neil Jake Maeger Stacy Provo Brian Schmidt Hayley Schroeder Paige Wigren Nathan Williams Carson Prichard Jenny Sutherland Ryan Young Maegan Stapleton Sean Zera Amanda Bryant

36 Questions?

37 Mudpuppy Use Of Shoreline Sites Restoration Site Control Site 33 bi-monthly samples 37,116 trap hours

38 Smallmouth Bass Use Of Shoreline Sites Restoration Site Control Site 11 monthly samples 26 hours shocked

39 Yellow Perch Use Of Shoreline Sites Restoration Site Control Site Restoration Site Control Site 11 monthly samples 26 hours shocked 33 bi-monthly samples 37,116 trap hours

40 Sensitive Species Use Of Shoreline Sites River Redhorse Restoration Site Control Site Pugnose Minnow Restoration Site Control Site Northern Madtom 10 monthly samples 26 hours shocked 9 monthly samples Standard 45.6 m long net 2.5, 3.8, 5.1, 6.4, 7.6, 10.2 cm mesh sizes

41 Gear Effectiveness Backpack electrofishing collected: More individuals More species Moderate CI

42 Unique Species By Gear Minnow Traps Central Mudminnow Longear Sunfish Mimic Shiner Pumpkinseed Sunfish Troutperch Electrofishing Fathead Minnow Golden Shiner Longnose Dace Pugnose Minnow Stonecat Troutperch Three-Spine Stickleback Spotted Sucker Gillnets Brindled Madtom Common Carp Creek Chub Freshwater Drum Muskellunge Northern Madtom Silver Lamprey Spotted Sucker Walleye White Bass

43 Models Generalized linear models: ~ ~ (, ) = + Relative abundance: = /

44 Assessing Catch per Unit Effort # collected Catch per unit effort (CPUE) ~ ~ (, ) = + Effect of restoration

45 Assessing Species Composition Relative abundance estimate = / Total fish CPUE estimate Species CPUE estimate

46 Shoreline Alterations Credit: Dave Bennion Historic US Wetlands Extent Credit: Dave Bennion Modern US Wetlands Extent

47 Assessing Species Composition