LUU
Lake Michigan
Biodiversity
Overview
The Lake Michigan Lakewide Action and
Management Plan (LAMP) is a
collaborative, adaptive management
program that includes federal, state, tribal
and local governments along with other
partners in an effort to protect and restore
Lake Michigan. The LAMP is responsible
for implementing the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, which calls for the
development of Lake Ecosystem
Objectives and lakewide habitat and
species protection and restoration
strategies. This fact sheet describes the
status of Lake Michigan's biodiversity and
strategies to abate critical threats.
Accompanying this overview fact sheet are
eight geographic-specific fact sheets that
describe in greater detail strategies to
abate threats to biodiversity in eight
geographic regions of the Lake Michigan
Basin. For additional information, see
www.epa.gov/greatlakes/lake-michigan
and
wiki.epa.gov/watershed2/index.php/Lake
Michigan Table of Contents.
Lake Michigan is an ecologically rich and varied ecosystem. Stretching
over 300 miles, its coastline includes boreal forests and coastal fens in the
north and prairies, dune and swale, and oak savannas in the south. The
dunes along the southern and eastern shores of the lake comprise the
largest system of freshwater dunes in the world, and the shorelines
provide food and shelter for millions of migrating birds every year.
Nearshore habitats in the water provide spawning or nursery grounds for
many fish species, while tributaries connect the lake to migratory fish,
such as Trout, Salmon, Whitefish, Walleye, and Sturgeon. Most fish
biomass historically occurred in offshore habitats, which provide
spawning areas for Lake Trout and Cisco. The potential exists for
restoration of native Lake Michigan fish communities that are found in
few places outside the Great Lakes.
The biodiversity of Lake Michigan is at great risk from a variety of threats,
currently including invasive species, climate change, water pollution,
legacy and continued pressures from rapid and poorly planned residential
and industrial growth, altered hydrology, and intensive agriculture. The
Lake Michigan Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (LMBCS) was initiated
as a grant to The Nature Conservancy to provide a more in-depth
assessment of the lake's biodiversity status and threats, as well as develop
a comprehensive set of strategies to restore, sustain and increase the
viability of Lake Michigan's biodiversity and abate the threats and
vulnerabilities. It is the product of a two-year research and planning
process involving roughly 170 individuals from 79 agencies and
orpani7atinns from around the lake.
Eadi Mock represents 1% of the total
wa of the Lake MkNgin Basin.
Utfi Hock	1% of ttu tool
•( OH Lit* MIcWjan RjUn
k The 8 major categories of land cover in the Lake Michigan basin
and their relative distribution in 2010. Several critical threats to
Lake Michigan biodiversity are directly related to land cover.
Agricultun Forest Wetland Dmelopid Water Grass Stub Barren
im — i
*, of Basin )1J* »J* l)A 7.1H 6J% 11* 23* 0.4%
. In 2010, agriculture (32%) and forest (29%) accounted for
more than half the area in the basin. The 7.1% of developed
land tends to be found in very sensitive coastal areas.
Source: NOAA Lake Michigan Land Cover Change Report 1985-2010.
Revised September 2014

-------
Are all habitats healthy, naturally
diverse, and sufficient to sustain
viable biological communities?
What is our target for sustainability?
The LAMP vision statement is a sustainable Lake Michigan ecosystem that ensures environmental integrity and
that supports and is supported by economically viable, healthy human communities through collaborative, place-
based partnerships. Many LAMP partners are working to achieve this vision for Lake Michigan. Table 1 lists goals
for 2030 to assure long-term ecosystem viability.
Why is this important?
The Lake Michigan ecosystem continues to experience profound changes due to pollutant loading, development,
habitat destruction, impacts of invasive species, and a changing climate. Many species and their habitats rank as
globally rare or imperiled based on the level of threat, their restricted distribution, and ecological fragility.
What is the current status?
Overall, the health of the biodiversity in Lake Michigan on a lake-wide scale was rated Fair (using a rating system
of Poor, Fair, Good, or Very Good), which indicates that human intervention is needed to help restore biodiversity
and prevent irrecoverable declines. An assessment of each Lake Michigan biodiversity target and associated goals,
objectives, and next steps are presented in Table 1,
What are the major threats and challenges?
•	Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species: Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species outcompete native flora and
fauna in the absence of predators, parasites, and pathogens. This results in reductions of native species and
alteration of ecosystem community composition and function, nutrient dynamics, and anthropogenic use of
the lake and nearshore coastal communities.
•	Dams and Barriers: Dams, culverts and similar structures placed in streams and rivers may block the natural
movement of fish and other organisms, especially those that migrate from Lake Michigan to inland watersheds
to breed; by some estimates, almost 80% of basin tributaries are not fully accessible. Some dams and barriers
are necessary, and these structures should be retrofitted with appropriate fish passage technology (e.g., trap-
and-sort fishways) to allow passage of desirable fish species.
•	Climate Change: Temperature rise in tributaries and the lake wiil promote change to warmer water aquatic
species, whereas changes in water levels brought on by a warmer climate may cause reductions in wetland
areas and changes to shoreline dunes and coastal ecosystems. Changes in precipitation patterns, lake levels,
and groundwater recharge of streams are impacting native species.
•	Housing and Urban Development/Shoreline Alteration: Continued growth and development of coastal areas of
the basin is placing increased stress on important nearshore aquatic and terrestrial habitats and species.
•	We face challenges in
o Understanding the causes, pathways, and actions for addressing deaths of shorebirds from botulism.
This is one example of our lack of understanding of how the larger system and all the pieces interact,
o Promoting projects to identify, enhance, restore, or protect critical ecosystem features, habitat, and
fish species through land purchase, voluntary protection, or improved management tools,
o Developing precise tracking tools for measuring and reporting gains and losses.
Revised September 2014

-------
What are the next steps?
•	The Lake Michigan Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) should promote the LMBCS as a guidance
document and affirm the LAMP'S common vision and priorities for basin partners.
•	The LAMP should encourage implementation of LMBCS strategies, as deemed appropriate by LAMP partners and
stakeholders to conserve and enhance Lake Michigan biodiversity.
« Lakewide organizations should review and turn biodiversity goals into implementable plans and projects.
•	Stakeholder engagement should be expanded to include corporate and industrial sectors, as well as local-
regional government, to focus on important local biodiversity assets.
•	The LAMP should develop climate change education for stakeholders that is region-specific and facilitates
adaptation actions to reduce biodiversity threats and vulnerabilities.
« The LMBCS should be viewed as a living document and should be regularly updated using adaptive
management as a standard component of the review, analysis, and business planning processes.
•	Funding streams should be aligned to achieve priority outcomes that protect, restore or enhance
important habitats and species or populations that benefit Lake Michigan biodiversity.
•	The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) calls for the establishment of draft Lake Ecosystem
Objectives by 2015.
<
For reporting and assessment, the lake was
divided into five geographic regions. These
regions provide a starting point for forming
partnerships among local, state, regional,
tribal, and federal entities to implement the
LMBCS. Fact sheets have been developed for
each region, with the lower three regions
divided into east and west areas:
1.
Green Bay
2.
Northern Basin
3.
Central Basin West
4.
Central Basin East
5.
Mid-lake Plateau West
6.
Mid-lake Plateau East
7.
Southern Basin East
8.
Southern Basin West
Each fact sheet describes the unique
biodiversity features of the region, threats
to biodiversity, strategies to conserve
biodiversity, and key next steps for
implementing biodiversity conservation
strategies in the region. In addition, each
fact sheet reflects the interests of local
stakeholders, including regional planning
commissions, environmental organizations,
the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin; and 10 active tribes with a
presence in the region.
Iwaukee
Grand Rapids
Lake Michigan
Reporting and
Assessment
Units
I Central Basin
| Green Bay
¦ Mid-lake Plateau
Northern Basin
Aurora •"
Naperville
loliet
Southern Basin
South Bend
Revised September 2014

-------
Table 1. Overall Assessment and Goals for 2030 to
Assure Long-Term Viability of Lake Michigan Biodiversity
TARGET
CATEGORY
LAKE-WIDE
ASSESSMENT 2012
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
KEY NEXT STEPS
Open Water
Berithic and
Pelagic Ecosystem
(offshore zone,
waters deeper
than 30 m)
Fair - due to severe declines of
Diporeia and peak densities of
dreissenid mussels, low prey
biomass, oligotrophication, low
plankton biomass and diversity,
and only recent evidence of limited
lake trout natural reproduction.
Most management units show a
decline in fish biomass,
recruitment, and body condition.
Most deepwater ciscoes are
extirpated.
By 2030, to assure that the offshore benthic and pelagic
zone of Lake Michigan is characterized by a more stable
food web that supports a diverse fishery consisting of
balanced predator and prey fish populations and is more
resilient to invasive species:
•	Native fish will comprise 50% of the prey biomass, with
substantial representation by multiple coregonid
species (e.g., Cisco or Lake Herring, Bloater, Kiyi);
•	Lake Trout will maintain self-sustaining populations in
each major area of the offshore;
•	Self-sustaining populations of native predators (such as
Lake Whitefish, Lake Trout, and Burbot) maintain
relatively stable populations consistent with Fish
Community Objectives.
•	Support the mass marking initiative and Lake Trout
restoration efforts of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and state, federal and tribal partners.
•	Initiate research and stocking projects that will
assist current Cisco (Lake Herring) restoration
efforts.
•	Identify and protect areas of critical habitat in the
offshore zone,
•	Increase effort and funding for sea lamprey control
in Lake Michigan.
•	Target other aquatic invasive species that harm
native fish populations and recovery.
Nearshore Zone
(waters shallower
than 30 m,
including the
coastal margin)
Fair, with significant variability
lakewide - While most of the Lake
Michigan nearshore is considered
Fair, the nearshore is threatened
lakewide by high densities of
quagga mussels and standing crop
of Cladophora and low densities of
Diporeia. The northern shoreline is
in Good condition due to low
shoreline and watershed
development and fairly intact
indicator species and community
measures.
By 2030, as evidence that the nearshore is improving as
habitat for native fish and Invertebrates:
•	Greater than 75% of native nearshore fishes have self-
sustaining populations within each area of the lake;
•	Late summer cladaphora standing crop is below 30
gDW/m2 on hard substrates;
•	The 5-year average chlorophyll-a concentrations are
between 0.5-3.0 ng/L;
•	The average shoreline hardening index is less than 20%;
•	Average annual sediment loadings are less than 0.075
tons/ac.
•	Target aquatic invasive species that harm native
fish populations and recovery.
•	Implement green marina and port training and
certification.
•	Identify options and initiate projects to improve
Diporeia densities.
•	Control invasive vegetation in emergent shorelines
and coastal margin wetlands.
•	Continue efforts to reduce tributary phosphorus
loading to Lake Michigan to reduce nuisance algae
blooms.
•	Identify and prioritize shoreline habitat protection
and reduce shoreline development.
Revised September 2014

-------
Table 1 (continued). Overall Assessment and Goals for 2030 to
Assure Long-Term Viability of Lake Michigan Biodiversity
TARGET
CATEGORY
LAKE-WIDE
ASSESSMENT 2012
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
KEY NEXT STEPS
Coastal Wetlands
(historic and
current)
Good - Good or Very Good
ratings for wetland-dependent
bird species and percent natural
land cover are balanced by Fair
ratings for spring water level
increases. Coastal Wetland
condition may be complicated by
climate changes that influence
lake levels and increase run-off
risk from peak storm intensities.
By 2030, so that coastal wetlands provide adequate
ecological functions and habitat for native plants and
animals:
•	The average wetland macrophyte index for coastal
wetlands around the lake will reflect good condition;
•	Coastal wetland area around the lake will have increased
by 10% compared to the 2011 wetland area.
•	Consult current maps and management efforts at
www.greatlakesDhragmites.net to prioritize
Phragmites removal,
•	Support biodiversity information and educational
efforts of the Lake Michigan Stakeholders group.
•	Protect coastal wetland and other habitat from
increasing development and alteration, and
explore habitat enhancement projects.
•	Increase monitoring and control of invasive
wetland species.
Islands (Natural and
Artificial)
Good - Beaver, Garden, Hog and
Washington islands are
considered to have the greatest
priority for conservation based
primarily on biodiversity value.
Islands are particularly under
protected in Green Bay and near
Escanaba.
By 2030, to ensure that islands remain as intact and
sustainable ecological systems:
•	A minimum of 60% of Lake Michigan islands are owned
and managed for conservation;
•	A minimum of 80% of the total area of Lake Michigan
islands are in natural land cover;
•	Abundance and richness of colonial nesting waterbirds is
maintained within 1990-2010 range of variation;
•	All islands protected from known invasive species vectors;
•	Maintain island habitat in an undeveloped condition to
support colonial nesting waterbirds, including
cormorants, on the islands that have been historically
used as nesting sites by colonial nesting waterbirds.
•	Utilize the report Islands of Life: A Biodiversity and
Conservation Atlas of the Great Lakes Islands
(authored by TNC and Ontario NMR) to identify
invasive species that have the potential to alter
ecosystem dynamics and protected habitat that is
essential for aerial migrants.
(http://www. conservationgatewav.org/conservatio
nbvgeographv/northamerica/wholesvstems/greatl
akes/basin/migratorvbirds/pages/islands-of-
life.aspx)
•	Protect islands from increasing development and
alteration, and explore habitat enhancement
projects.
Coastal Terrestrial
Systems (Upland
and wetland
systems within 2
km of shore)
Fair - The Coastal Terrestrial
System is threatened in Lake
Michigan due to continued
habitat loss from development,
fragmentation, separation from
the lake by hardened shoreline
structures, and the spread of
invasive species.
By 2030, to assure that Coastal Terrestrial System is of high
quality and of sufficient extent to provide habitat for native
plant and animal species:
•	At least 40% of the Coastal Terrestrial System will be in
natural land cover;
•	Viable populations of priority nested targets are
adequately represented across the lake;
•	At least 5% of the Coastal Terrestrial System will be in
good to excellent condition;
•	Average artificial shoreline hardening index <20%;
•	All high priority biodiversity areas in Coastal Terrestrial
System are minimally affected by shoreline alterations.
•	Identify and protect areas of critical habitat,
natural areas and corridors.
•	Assess and prioritize habitat enhancement projects.
•	Promote and partner on green infrastructure tools.
•	Support public land acquisition of private property
for conservation efforts.
•	Protect coastal dunes and other habitat from
increasing development and alteration, and
explore habitat enhancement projects.
•	Develop and implement an invasive species early
detection and rapid response initiative.
Revised September 2014

-------
Table 1 (continued). Overall Assessment and Goals for 2030 to
Assure Long-Term Viability of Lake Michigan Biodiversity
TARGET
CATEGORY
LAKE-WIDE
ASSESSMENT 2012
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
KEY NEXT STEPS
Aerial Migrants
(birds, bats, insects)
Fair - Habitat loss, and
consequences of habitat loss such
as habitat fragmentation and
increased presence of invasive
species, currently pose the
greatest threat due primarily to
loss of food resources and
secondarily by direct mortality
from disease (e.g., botulism) or
striking structures.
By 2030, so that Lake Michigan remains a globally significant
stopover area for migrating birds:
•	At least 30% of the 2 km coastal area comprises high
quality stopover habitat for migrating landbirds;
•	At least 10% of the coastal area comprises high quality
stopover habitat for migrating shorebirds;
•	At least 50% of the 2 km coastal area including coastal
wetlands comprises high quality stopover habitat for
migrating waterfowl;
•	At least 80% of the 2 km coastal area that is high quality
stopover habitat for all bird groups is in conservation
ownership or management.
•	Promote widespread adoption of The Urban
Conservation Treaty for Migratory Birds and
continual implementation of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, in light of the added
stress of climate change on species and habitats.
•	Thoughtful siting of offshore wind farms to limit
adverse impacts on migratory fauna.
Native Migratory
Fish
Fair - due to loss of access to
riverine habitat, habitat
degradation, and other factors like
historic overfishing and dams.
Several migratory fishes including
Lake Sturgeon remain rare or
significantly reduced in most areas
in Lake Michigan.
By 2030, to provide adequate access to spawning habitat:
•	At least 50% of the total length of each type of stream is
connected to the lake;
•	Each river-spawning Lake Michigan fish species is
represented by at least two viable populations in each
applicable region of the lake;
•	Tributary connectivity is maximized for Lake Michigan
migratory fish, while increased risk of aquatic invasive
species spread and proliferation (e.g., sea lamprey) is
minimized.
•	Continue and expand streamside rearing of Lake
Sturgeon.
•	Remove/modify high-priority problem barriers and
road-stream crossings, considering potential for
sea lamprey to gain access to new territory.
•	Continue efforts to control sea lamprey.
•	Continue to monitor any changes from annual fish
assessments and partner with the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission to implement adaptive
management recommendations.
•	Continue efforts to improve and restore spawning
habitat in rivers.
Revised September 2014

-------