1. Shoreline alteration By: Kristen Woodling www.pwconserve.org/.../graphics/january2004.jpg www.seattlepi.com/mediaManager/?controllerNam...

2. Outline Background- why alter the shoreline? Shoreline alteration on the global scale Shoreline alteration in Lake Erie Problems Possible solutions Research paper My research Conclusion J.Ross

3. Background Shoreline alteration: any anthropogenic activity that adds to or removes parts of a shoreline Shorelines are altered/hardened in order to reduce erosion Shorelines have been anthropocentrically altered since the first human settlements http://www.climate.gov.ki/Climate_change_effects_in_Kiribati.html

4. farm1.static.flickr.com/56/152644051_7ea7510asomd.com/news/headlines/2008/9000.shtml http://ian.umces.edu/imagelibrary/displayimage-lastupby-0-2471-1062.htmlwww.boatnerd.com/.../Breakwall-12-06-04LR.jpg

5. Shoreline Alteration on the Global Scale Shoreline alteration is a global issue Little is known about exact relationship between alteration and aquatic food webs U.S. Atlantic coast: –Less then 10% of shoreline set aside for conservation –Estimated 60% of remaining shoreline is in process of development

6. Shoreline alteration in Lake Erie http://photography-plus.com/fullPic.asp?picID=1639 ~98% of shorelines in the western basin have been armored with stone, iron or concrete Lake Erie is the most developed and structurally protected of the Great Lakes TOLEDO

7. Problems Degrades natural environment Severs aquatic-terrestrial linkages Reduces shallow water habitat Decreases economic/aesthetic/recreational integrity of area Allows for greater amounts of runoff www.sciencedaily.com/.../09/090917161736.htmcristinabump.wordpress.com/.../australia/sydney/ www.pwconserve.org/.../graphics/january2004.jpg

8. Possible Solutions Riparian Buffer en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_buffer Living Shoreline Bill Bartodziej (DNR) landscape.zoology.wisc.edu/.../Logs2.jpg Woody Debris www.adepttech.com/images/Shoreline2 012.jpg Permit

9. Solutions STOP BUILDING ON SHORELINES! www.pwconserve.org/.../graphics/january2004.jpg

10. Research Paper “Effects of coastal development on near shore estuarine nekton communities” D.M. Bilkovic, M.M. Roggero Effects of landscape features and coastal development on near shore habitats and near shore nekton community (James River, Virginia) Nekton assemblages at sites with low development (<23%) and natural or riprap shorelines were different from all other combinations of altered conditions

11. Summary Both upland development and the placement of erosion control structures on the shoreline were associated with reduced fish community integrity, and shoreline alterations were linked with the amount of sub-tidal structural habitat in the near shore. minnesota.publicradio.org/.../14/shorelineregs/ian.umces.edu/imagelibrary/displayimage-6755.html

12. Methods and Materials Bow-mounted Marine Sonic Sea Scan used to classify bottom conditions. Bottom classifications: –featureless (soft) –structural habitat (hard) River was divided into three 20km sections segmented into near shore reaches based on adjacent shoreline condition (riprap revetment, bulkhead, natural [unmodified]) and surveyed bottom type [hard or soft]). http://www.keoghsmarine.c om.au/product_list.php?g_ CategoryID=242

13. Methods Cont. Two replicate seining halls were done at each site to assess fish and benthic community (July-August 2005). cassisaari.com/j/tag/potamogeton/

14. National Land Cover Database Fig. 1. Fish community survey locations and land use on the James River, 2005

15. Fig. 3. Mean ± SE fish community index by shoreline condition: bulkhead, riprap revetment or natural. Values associated with bulkhead shorelines were significantly lower than for riprap revetment or natural conditions(1-wayANOVA, p = 0.04)

16. Fig. 2. Mean ± SE structural sub-tidal habitat by shoreline condition: bulkhead, riprap revetment or natural, for fish survey sites on the James River. Structural habitat, such as oyster reefs, clam beds or woody debris was reduced adjacent to hardened shorelines (1-way ANOVA, p = 0.009)

17. PC1 PC2 Fig. 5. Multidimensional scaling ordination of James River near shore nekton assemblages adjacent to sites categorized into 5 arrangements of upland land use and shoreline condition

18. Results Nekton assemblages at sites with low development (<23%) and natural or riprap shorelines were different from all other combinations of altered conditions Shoreline alteration and land use are affecting nekton communities

19. My Research Identified and categorized Lake Erie shoreline based on anthropogenic influences and amount of recovery. Identified relationships of these shoreline types with fish community. J.Ross

20. Methods Electrofished 21 sites along southern shoreline of Lake Erie Categorization of shoreline: AlteredRecovering (< 50% developed) RecoveredUnaltered -Metal wall -Riprap (no veg) -Managed beach -Riprap (with veg) -Unmanaged beach -Lots of veg -Logs and debris -No armoring -Natural shoreline -No anthropogenic interference J.Ross dreamstime.com

21. Results Study is still in progress The results from a single factor ANOVA showed no significant difference (p=0.37) between the four categories. We determined that categories were too broad and did not separate the sites based on factors that affect the fish community. Assess land use and benthic data?

22. Conclusions Why? To reduce erosion Shoreline alteration is a world-wide issue Lake Erie is the most developed of the Great Lakes Problems: degrades environment, destroys habitat, increases runoff Research Paper: shoreline alteration and land use are affecting nekton communities Solutions: permits, buffers, living shoreline, stop building on shorelines

23. References D.M. Bilkovic, M.M. Roggero. 2008. Effects of coastal development on near shore estuarine nekton communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 358: 27-39 Department of Natural Resources: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/shoreline_alterations_lake scaping.pdf Greg G. Sass, James F. Kitchell, Stephen R. Carpenter, Thomas R. Hrabik, Anna E. Marburg, & Monica G. Yurner. 2006. Fish Community and Food Web Responses to a Whole-lake Removal of Coarse Woody Habitat. Fisheries. 31:7 321-33 J G Titus, D E Hudgens, D L Trescott, M Craghan, W H Nuckols, C H Hershner, J M Kassakian, C J Linn, P G Merritt, T M McCue, J F O'Connell, J Tanski and J Wang. 2009. State and local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable to rising sea level along the US Atlantic coast. Environmental Research Letters. 4:4 1-8 http://www.epa.gov/medatwrk/grosseile_site/indicators/sos/shoreline.pdf

24. Questions?