Adapting to climate change: guidance for the management of inland glacial lake fisheries

Figures & data

Figure 1. A conceptual approach for prioritizing inland glacial lakes for climate adaptation action.

Table 1. Selected strategies, approaches and actions for inland glacial lake fisheries. Citations with asterisks indicate those that were modified from existing climate change adaptation tools, peer-reviewed literature or have been implemented in the inland glacial lakes region. Where appropriate, additional citations provide resources with further details on implementing suggested actions. Two asterisks indicate actions that authors concluded may have a high risk of unintended ecological consequences (see text for additional detail).

Strategy	Approach	Action
Protect or restore water quality
	Prevent new sources of sediment, pollutants, and nutrient runoff
		Establish private conservation easements in priority catchments (Jacobson et al. 2013*).^a
		Catchment land acquisition by federal, state, or local governments (Jacobson et al. 2013*, BTL 2015*).
		Promote or support new outreach programs or incentives for leaving natural areas on privately-owned shorelines undisturbed or by establishing conservation easements (BTL 2015*, Nohner et al. 2018).^a
		Engage local governments and associations to support the implementation of innovative local zoning regulations and stricter shoreland standards (BTL 2015*, Fuller et al. 2016, MNDNR 2019).^a
	Reduce sources of sediment, pollutant and nutrient runoff
		Develop private forest stewardship planning programs and highlight tax incentives for landowners (BTL 2015*, Jacobson et al. 2013*).
		Restore riparian vegetative strips on public lands to buffer runoff and reduce wind action (BTL 2015*; Shannon et al. 2019*).^a
		Establish collaborations with forest managers to mitigate the effect of harvest and timber road development using existing Best Management Practices (BMPs; Shannon et al. 2019*, USFS 2012).
		Establish collaborations with forest managers to increase or restore soil infiltration capacity (BTL 2015*, Shannon et al. 2019*, USFS 2012).
		Engage local governments and associations to support the implementation of ordinances that reduce impact of existing disturbance (e.g., required vegetative buffers; BTL 2015*, Fuller et al. 2016, MNDNR 2019).^a
		Promote or support new landowner incentive programs for the voluntary implementation of stormwater or agricultural BMPs (EPA 2005, Sharpley et al. 2006, Palm-Forster et al. 2017).
		Engage landowners in agricultural catchments to promote the use of BMPs to reduce surplus soil P input and losses and enhance P retention in buffers (Sharpley et al. 2006, Jeppesen et al. 2009*, Carpenter et al. 2018*).
		Protect or restore streamflow to maintain baseflow during periods of prolonged drought or with likely changes in seasonable precipitation, mitigating intensity of P inputs (Jeppesen et al. 2009*)
		Encourage local governments and associations to require stricter regulations for minimizing discharge, reducing sources of pollutants to runoff, filtering surface water, and increasing water retention (BTL 2015*, EPA 2005, Fuller et al. 2016).
		Offer science-based support for the construction of water treatment wetlands and detention ponds (Magee et al. 2019*).
		Support the use of resilient or adaptive BMPs and the adjustment of total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards to account for projected increases in intense rainfall, droughts, and temperature (Sarkar et al. 2018*, Giese et al. 2019*, Schmidt et al. Forthcoming*).
		Implement dredging to eliminate sources of phosphorus from connected streams (Magee et al. 2019*).
	Implement engineering solutions to retain habitat during periods of stress
		Install artificial aeration structures to prevent the loss of coldwater habitat (Magee et al. 2019*).
Protect or restore access to physical habitat
	Restore or prevent the degradation of littoral habitat
		Promote or support new outreach programs and incentives that encourage preservation of CWH, macrophytes, and natural shorelines (Amato et al. 2012, Amato et al. 2015, Nohner et al. 2018).
		Land acquisition by federal, state, or local governments along the shoreline (BTL 2015*).
		Revegetate shorelines, littoral, and transition zones using regionally successful species and proven practices (e.g., extended-use wave breaks; Vanderbosch and Galatowitsch 2010).
		Install artificial spawning habitat within lakes and rivers.
	Ensure access to physical habitat remains under more variable and extreme precipitation regimes
		Addition of coarse woody habitat at greater depths in drought-vulnerable lakes (Gaeta et al. 2014*).
		Engage agricultural landowners to promote water conservation to limit drawdowns (Magee et al. 2019*)
		Protect CWH stranded above water so it is available when lake levels rise (Magee et al. 2019*).
	Restore hydrologic connectivity among habitats
		Install adequate drain structures, remove perched culverts, and alter stream crossings (Diebel et al. 2015).
		Remove or modify dams and impoundments to allow fish movement.
Mitigate the threat of invasive species (approaches and actions taken or modified from Magee et al. 2019*)
	Reduce the chance of spread to un-impacted lakes
		Continue effective outreach efforts for existing invasive species and establish new programs for emerging threats.
		Expand youth education and develop simple and consistent messaging.
		Advertise success of existing outreach programs.
		Install fish passage barriers or chlorinated locks to prevent further spread in connected systems.
		Support regulations or voluntary programs for vessel decontamination, ballast water treatment.
	Control invasive species effects once introduced
		Incentivize invasive species harvest at edge of invasion.
		Promote general health of lake to mitigate effects of invasive species.
		Develop biological controls programs for common invasive species.
Adjust management of current fisheries or populations to ecological change
	Adjust regulations to anticipated population-level changes
		Lower bag limits or restrict harvest on sportfish permanently or in vulnerable years (Kumar et al. 2013*, reviewed by Myers et al. 2017*).
		Maintain age diversity to lower risk of year-class failures (Gwinn et al. 2015*, Hansen et al. 2015b*).
		Eliminate bag limits or extend harvest seasons on non-native introduced or expanding competitors or predators (Pasko and Goldberg 2014*, Paukert et al. 2016*, reviewed by Myers et al. 2017*).
		Alter fishing season in response changing phenology (OMNRF 2013*, reviewed by Myers et al. 2017*).
	Retain or promote genetic diversity
		Establish fishing restrictions for lakes with increasingly unique stocks.
		Use source stocks that are genetically similar to existing populations.
		Eliminate supplemental stocking for naturally recruiting populations.
		Translocate populations of unique genetic strains into climate resilient lakes.**
Adjust management to emerging or anticipated ecological constraints
	Facilitate transitions in response to changing conditions
		Implement stocking of species to retain recreational put and take fishery.
		Implement stocking for new gamefish.**
		Introduce alternative prey source for game species.**
		Improve or protect habitat for species anticipated to become dominant.
	Eliminate ineffective or unsustainable management actions
		Eliminate or reduce stocking to systems unlikely to support viable fisheries.
		Reduce current habitat management for species on lakes unlikely to continue to support populations.
	Facilitate shifts in stakeholder or user preference to emerging or dominant fisheries
		Develop outreach efforts highlighting recreational or consumptive value of expanding or alternate species.
		Change regulations to shift perception of appropriate conservation practices among anglers (Sass et al 2017).

^a Actions are also likely to protect physical structure by reducing sediment loading and retaining current substrate composition.

Table 2. Example funding sources and partners to support inland glacial lakes climate adaptation action.

Type	Funding source	Funding	Description
Federal-grant programs
	State Wildlife Grant Program	State specific	Conserve species identified in State Wildlife Action Plans. Funds allocated to state agencies. Opportunities for multi-state grants through the competitive subprogram.^1
	Healthy Watersheds Initiative	$50,000–150,000	Accelerate and expand the strategic protection of healthy, freshwater ecosystems and their watersheds. Entities who are linked to collaborative partnership with other groups having similar healthy watersheds protection goals.^2
	Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships (Primary: Midwest Glacial Lakes Partnership)	Typically $10,000–75,000	Conserve fish habitat through projects that align with a regional partnership’s strategic plan. Applicants include land owners, public agencies, non-governmental organizations, and governments.^3
State-grant programs
	Michigan Fisheries Habitat Grant Program	Minimum of $25,000	Address causes of habitat degradation as opposed to symptoms, provide long-lasting benefits, address needs on the Fisheries Division priority habitat projects list, be cost-effective, use appropriate methods, monitor project outcomes, address health and human safety for dam management, and/or address research and assessment needs to inform future habitat conservation. State, local, federal and tribal governments, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations are eligible.^4
	Clean Michigan Initiative: Nonpoint Source Pollution Grants	Minimum of $25,000	Restore waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution and prevent high quality waters from degradation. County or local units of government and nonprofit agencies eligible.^5
	Michigan Invasive Species Grant Program	$25,000–400,000	Prevent establishment and control invasive species. State, local, federal and tribal governments as well as universities and nonprofit organizations eligible.^4
	Wisconsin Wetland Conservation Trust	Variable	Restore wetlands. Applicants including individual land owners, public agencies, consultants, and Wisconsin Tribes.^6
	Wisconsin Surface Water Grants	Program dependent	Easement acquisition, restoration, lake management and invasive species control. Most government entities and nonprofit conservation organizations eligible.^7
	Minnesota Conservation Legacy Grant Program	Typically $5000–400,000	Restore or enhance forests, wetlands, prairies and habitat for fish, game and wildlife in Minnesota. Nonprofit organizations and government entities eligible.^8
	Minnesota Clean Water Fund Implementation Program	Typically $5000–400,000	Protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and protect groundwater and drinking water. Local governments or joint power boards working under various state-approved water management plans eligible.^9
Stakeholder organizations and governmental units
	Lake associations	Variable	Voluntary organizations dependent on membership dues and donations. Numerous in many glacial lakes states^10^,11,12
	Lake or conservation districts	Variable	Local government units; specific power dependent on state law and district type. In some cases, can implement taxes that may fund local lake conservation efforts.^10^,12,13,14
	Local or national conservation organizations	Variable	Examples include watershed organizations or councils, Sturgeon for Tomorrow, Walleyes for Tomorrow, Trout Unlimited, Muskies, Inc., Ducks Unlimited, and Delta Waterfowl.

¹ https://wildlife.org/policy/recovering-americas-wildlife-act/.

² https://www.epa.gov/hwp.

³ http://midwestglaciallakes.org/grant/.

⁴ https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79134_81684---,00.html.

⁵ https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3307_3515-314499--,00.html.

⁶ https://dnr.wi.gov/Aid/wwct.html.

⁷ https://dnr.wi.gov/aid/surfacewater.html.

⁸ https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habitat/cpl/index.html.

⁹ https://bwsr.state.mn.us/cwf_programs.

¹⁰ http://www.wisconsinlakes.org/lake-organizations-wisconsin/.

¹¹ http://www.mnlakesandrivers.org/lake-associations/lake-associations-list.

¹² https://www.mymlsa.org/association-web-sites/.

¹³ https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/lake-improvement-districts.html.

¹⁴ http://macd.org/.

Figure 2. Application of the prioritization approach to inland glacial lakes for (a) the Minnesota Cisco Refuge Lake Initiative (approaches and actions for priority levels are shown) and (b) a hypothetical example of promoting recreational fisheries resilience for inland glacial lakes walleye fisheries.

Jacobson PC, Fang X, Stefan HG, Pereira DL. 2013. Protecting cisco (Coregonus artedi Leseur) oxythermal habitat from climate change: building resilience in deep lakes using a landscape approach. Adv limnology. 64:323–332. doi:10.1127/1612-166X/2013/0064-0005.

 Google Scholar

Big Trout Lake Coalition [BTL]. 2015. Lake Trout habitat protection strategies for big trout lake: a water quality protection plan developed by a collaboration of state, local and conservation organization partners. https://crowwingswcd.org/recent-projects/big-trout-lake-conservation-plan/. Accessed 12 Aug 2019.

 Google Scholar

Nohner JK, Lupi F, Taylor WW. 2018. Lakefront property owners’ willingness to accept easements for conservation of water quality and habitat. Water Resourc. 54(3):1533–1548.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fuller E, Berry A, Colclough M, Kirkwood J, Lounds A, Neumann B, Solomon D. 2016. Protecting Michigan’s inland lakes: A guide for local governments. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-nps-inland-lakes-guide_634823_7.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2019.

 Google Scholar

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MNDNR]. Innovative shoreland standards showcase. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/innovative-standards.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2019.

 Google Scholar

Shannon PD, Swanston CW, Janowiak MK, Handler SD, Schmitt KM, Brandt LA, Butler-Leopold PR, Ontl T. 2019. Adaptation strategies and approaches for forested watersheds. Clim Serv.13:51–64. doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2019.01.005.

 Google Scholar

USFS. 2012. National best management practices for water quality management on National Forest System Lands. USA: USFS FS-990a.

 Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2005. National management measures to control nonpoint source pollution from urban areas. Washington (DC): .U.S. EPA.

 Google Scholar

Sharpley A, Daniel T, Gibson G, Bundy L, Cabrera M, Sims T, Stevens R, Lemunyon J, Klienman P, Parry R. 2006. Best management practices to minimize agricultural phosphorus impacts on water quality. U.S. Department of Agriculture ARS–163.

 Google Scholar

Palm-Forster LH, Swinton SM, Shupp RS. 2017. Farmer preferences for conservation incentives that promote voluntary phosphorus abatement in agricultural watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv. 72(5):493–505. doi:10.2489/jswc.72.5.493.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jeppesen E, Kronvang B, Meerhoff M, Søndergaard M, Hansen KM, Andersen HE, Lauridsen TL, Liboriussen L, Beklioglu M, Özen A. 2009. Climate change effects on runoff, catchment phosphorus loading and lake ecological state, and potential adaptations. J Environ Qual. 38(5):1930–1941. doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0113.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carpenter SR, Booth EG, Kucharik CJ. 2018. Extreme precipitation and phosphorus loads from two agricultural watersheds. Limnol Oceanogr. 63(3):1221–1233. doi:10.1002/lno.10767.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Magee MR, Hein CL, Walsh JR, Shannon PD, Vander Zanden MJ, Campbell TB, Hansen GTA, Hauxwell J, LaLiberte GD, et al. 2019. Scientific advances and adaptation strategies for Wisconsin lakes facing climate change. Lake Reser Manage:1–18. doi:10.1080/10402381.2019.1622612.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sarkar S, Butcher JB, Johnson TE, Clark CM. 2018. Simulated sensitivity of urban green infrastructure practices to climate change. EI. 22:1–37. doi:10.1175/EI-D-17-0015.1.

 Google Scholar

Giese E, Rockler A, Shirmohammadi A, Pavao-Zuckerman MA. 2019. Assessing watershed-scale stormwater green infrastructure response to climate change in Clarksburg, Maryland. J Water Resour Plann Manage. 145(10):05019015. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001099.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schmidt M, Sarkar S, Butcher J, Johnson T. (Forthcoming). Agricultural best management practice sensitivity to changing air temperature and precipitation. Trans ASABE. doi:10.13031/trans.13292.

 Google Scholar

Amato MS, Shaw BR, Haack J. 2012. The challenge of self-enhancement bias for educational programs designed to encourage natural shorelines. Lake Reser Manage. 28(3):206–211. doi:10.1080/07438141.2012.697978.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Amato MS, Shaw BR, Haack J, Moore CF. 2015. Property owner beliefs and goals related to shoreline maintenance behaviors. Lake Reser Manage. 31(1):44–49. doi:10.1080/10402381.2014.998397.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vanderbosch DA, Galatowitsch SM. 2010. An assessment of urban lakeshore restorations in Minnesota. Ecol Rest. 28(1):71–80. doi:10.3368/er.28.1.71.

 Google Scholar

Gaeta JW, Sass GG, Carpenter SR, Tonn W. 2014. Drought-driven lake level decline: effects on coarse woody habitat and fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 71(2):315–325. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0451.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Diebel MW, Fedora M, Cogswell S, O'Hanley JR. 2015. Effects of road crossings on habitat connectivity for stream-resident fish. River Res Applic. 31(10):1251–1261. doi:10.1002/rra.2822.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kumar R, Martell SJ, Pitcher TJ, Varkey DA. 2013. Temperature-driven decline of a cisco population in Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota. N Am J Fish Manage. 33(4):669–681. doi:10.1080/02755947.2013.785992.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Myers BJE, Lynch AJ, Bunnell DB, Chu C, Falke JA, Kovach RP, Krabbenhoft TJ, Kwak TJ, Paukert CP. 2017. Global synthesis of the documented and projected effects of climate change on inland fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 27(2):339–361. doi:10.1007/s11160-017-9476-z.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gwinn DC, Allen MS, Johnston FD, Brown P, Todd CR, Arlinghaus R. 2015. Rethinking length-based fisheries regulations: the value of protecting old and large fish with harvest slots. Fish Fish. 16(2):259–281. doi:10.1111/faf.12053.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hansen GJA, Gaeta JW, Hansen JF, Carpenter SR. 2015b. Learning to manage and managing to learn: sustaining freshwater recreational fisheries in a changing environment. Fisheries 40(2):56–64. doi:10.1080/03632415.2014.996804.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pasko S, Goldberg J. 2014. Review of harvest incentives to control invasive species. MBI. 5(3):263–277. doi:10.3391/mbi.2014.5.3.10.

 Google Scholar

Paukert CP, Glazer BA, Hansen GJA, Irwin BJ, Jacobson PC, Kershner JL, Shuter BJ, Whitney JE, Lynch AJ. 2016. Adapting inland fisheries management to a changing climate. Fisheries. 41(7):374–384. doi:10.1080/03632415.2016.1185009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry [OMNRF]. 2013. Changes in bass seasons in Southern Ontario (Zone 17, 18, and 20). http://www.ottylakeassociation.ca/old_website/FishRegsBass2013.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.

 Google Scholar

Sass GG, Rypel AL, Stafford JD. 2017. Inland fisheries habitat management: lessons learned from wildlife ecology and a proposal for change. Fisheries. 42(4):197–209. doi:10.1080/03632415.2017.1276344.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar