SLICE – Transitioning from Phase 1 into Phase 2

1. SLICE – Transitioning from Phase 1 into Phase 2

2. What I’d like to cover… • Project management issues • Where we’re at with Phase 1 • Timeline • Deliverables • Transitioning out of Phase 1 and into Phase 2 • Debrief from Advisory Team Mtg in Jan. 2011 • “Stop-gap” measures in 2012 • Revised purpose and goals • Vision of what SLICE looks like operationally and proposed timelines

3. What I’d like from you… • Better clarity on Exec. Sponsor and Roles in transitioning SLICE Phase 1 into Phase 2. • Your thoughts about what SLICE looks like operationally • Moving from “duct tape and bubble gum” to something sustainable • Realigning staff resources to best carry-out a revised lake survey program • Timeline target for implementing Phase 2

4. SLICE “Org chart” Oversight DNR Fisheries1 Project Coordination2 Ray Valley CO Managers Regional Managers Information base Recommendation of direction Implementation DNR Fisheries Implementation3 Technical Advisory Team12 Eco and Waters Implementation4 Strategic Advisory Team13 PCA Implementation5 Analysis and Evaluation MDH Implementation6 PCA Water Monitoring Unit Local trends Analysis Teams10 Syntheses of trends Local Partners7 DNR Area Staff Local trends Local Partners Local trends Citizen Volunteers8 Public Information and Outreach9 Ancillary Investigations11

6. SLICE Phase 2

8. What I’d like to cover… • Project management issues • Where we’re at with Phase 1 • Timeline • Deliverables • Transitioning out of Phase 1 and into Phase 2 • Debrief from Advisory Team Mtg in Jan. 2011 • “Stop-gap” assessments in 2012 • Revised purpose and goals • Vision of what SLICE looks like operationally and proposed timelines

9. Where we’re at with Phase 1 • 2011 is last scheduled field season of 4-yr Phase-1 pilot • Several products will be rolled out in 2012-13 • Forecast models of cold-water fish habitat given land use and climate changes in 3 sentinel lakes • Hist. reconstructions of WQ in 7 sentinel lakes • Cisco behavior and inland pop assessment tools • Zooplankton indicator development • 24 baseline comprehensive lake reports • DJ research project evaluating indicators

10. Where we’re at with Phase 1 • We’re already finding useful indicators derived from our standard suite of lake survey assessments • Looking to gain efficiencies in effort • If we build it, they will come

11. If you build it they will come… Lucinda Johnson Heinz Stefan Puni Jeyasingh - OSU Lee Engel – U of MN

12. Leveraging other intellectual and financial capital to explore lake issues • Simulations of cisco fish habitat in Minnesota Lakes under future climate scenarios – Fang et al. (Auburn U & U of MN) • Simulating the combined effects of future watershed land cover and climate change on cold-water fish habitat – Herb, Stefan, Johnson, Jacobson (U of MN and NRRI; USGS funded) • Reconstruction of how a century of nutrient-enrichment of lakes has affected evolutionary changes in organisms, particular Daphnia pulexzooplankton – Punidan Jeyasingh Oklahoma State University (NSF funded) • Classification of Selected Minnesota Lakes Using Deuterium and δ18O to Characterize Hydrologic Residence Time – Lee Engel and Joe Magner (U of MN)

13. What I’d like to cover… • Project management issues • Where we’re at with Phase 1 • Timeline • Deliverables • Transitioning out of Phase 1 and into Phase 2 • Debrief from Advisory Team Mtg in Jan. 2011 • “Stop-gap” assessments in 2012 • Revised purpose and goals • Vision of what SLICE looks like operationally and proposed timelines

14. SLICE Advisory Team Meeting • Debrief from Phase 1 • Review of progress on goals and objectives • What worked, what didn’t from a programmatic standpoint • Discussed program purpose and goals • ID’d core survey components of SLICE • Sketched out an analysis timeline of Phase 1 and implementation of Phase 2 • Started the discussion about alternative program designs based on funding scenarios

15. What we accomplished… • Debrief from Phase 1 • Review of progress on goals and objectives • What worked, what didn’t from a programmatic standpoint • Discussed program purpose and goals • ID’d core survey components of SLICE • Sketched out an analysis timeline of Phase 1 and implementation of Phase 2 • Started the discussion about alternative program designs based on funding scnarios

16. What worked… • Just the commitment to build long-term monitoring infrastructure has attracted interdisciplinary partners. • Having a dedicated coordinator • Bringing Research and Management closer – LTM bridges the gap.

17. “Areas for Improvement” • Data quality issues • Many surveys weren’t done • Many surveys weren’t done right • “Span of control issues” with coordinating 18 Area offices and a dozen research staff to all be doing the same thing • Aging issues

18. “Areas for Improvement” • Ownership • One staff with explicit ownership through PD (me) • No ownership means lack of understanding why the data is being collected • Lack of buy in and data quality suffers • Informative data are being put in a database and not being used

19. “Areas for Improvement” • Disconnect in program relevance and staffing. • Area staff are shouldering workloads • SLICE’s primary utility is for describing regional and statewide trends • Scale issue

20. SLICE’s “Power” is in the network: Example: statewide declines in Curly-leaf pondweed

21. Curly-leaf pondweed • Widespread throughout S and central MN and moving north. • Grows under ice and needs some winter light • Can grow abundantly and form mats early in spring • Dies off by early summer and algae blooms typically follow in eutrophic lakes • Expected to benefit from shorter winters and earlier springs

23. Patterns of curly-leaf pondweed growth

24. 40 30 St. James 20 St. Olaf 10 Dec. + Jan. Snowfall (in) departure from normal (1971-2000) 0 - 10 - 20 - 30 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year St. Olaf Pearl St. James Portage Peltier

26. Bottom Line: We won’t get this type of synthesis across lakes with the current individual lake approach of the lake survey program and associated standard reporting

27. “Areas for Improvement” • Communication with staff • Relevance of SLICE to some Area staff not readily apparent • Communication to Area staff on progress or program direction is not timely or targeted. • The loss of training sessions hurts…

28. What we accomplished… • Debrief from Phase 1 • Review of progress on goals and objectives • What worked, what didn’t from a programmatic standpoint • Discussed program purpose and goals • ID’d core survey components of SLICE • Sketched out an analysis timeline of Phase 1 and implementation of Phase 2 • Started the discussion about alternative program designs based on funding scenarios

29. Adaptive Management Process Phase 1: Oct – Jan 2006/2007 Phase 2 Assess problem Phase 1 Op plan Adjust Design May-Jun 2007 Today! Evaluate Implement Monitor Apr. 2008 2008-2011

30. Collaborative process… • Advisory team offered input on a short SLICE purpose statement • Nine long-term goals were identified • More specific short-term Phase 2 objectives will follow with better clarity on budget • Need an “endorsement” from Oversight team

31. SLICE’s purpose… To monitor and model Minnesota lake ecosystems for the detection and better understanding of the effects of environmental stressors in order to guide management and policy actions that sustain lake resources.

32. What we accomplished… • Debrief from Phase 1 • Review of progress on goals and objectives • What worked, what didn’t from a programmatic standpoint • Discussed program purpose and goals • ID’d core survey components of SLICE • Sketched out an analysis timeline of Phase 1 and implementation of Phase 2 • Started the discussion about alternative program designs based on funding scenarios

33. Core components to continue monitoring in 2012 • Water quality – PCA • Zooplankton – PCA & EcoWat • Lake Levels - EcoWat • Year-round temperature loggers • Nearshore fish sampling • Point-intercept veg sampling • Large fish sampling (optional)

34. What we accomplished… • Debrief from Phase 1 • Review of progress on goals and objectives • What worked, what didn’t from a programmatic standpoint • Discussed program purpose and goals • ID’d core survey components of SLICE • Sketched out an analysis timeline of Phase 1 and implementation of Phase 2 • Started the discussion about alternative program designs based on funding scenarios

35. Timelines • 2011 is last field season • Suggested “stop-gap” measures to get us through 2012 • Several final reports to be completed in 2012-spr. 2013 • Would like several things in place by 2013 • Standard assessment and reporting protocols • Dedicated staff • New research projects (DJ, LCCMR???)

36. SLICE Phase 2

37. What we accomplished… • Debrief from Phase 1 • Review of progress on goals and objectives • What worked, what didn’t from a programmatic standpoint • Discussed program purpose and goals • ID’d core survey components of SLICE • Sketched out an analysis timeline of Phase 1 and implementation of Phase 2 • Started the discussion about alternative program designs based on funding scenarios

38. What I’d like to cover… • Project management issues • Where we’re at with Phase 1 • Timeline • Deliverables • Transitioning out of Phase 1 and into Phase 2 • Debrief from Advisory Team Mtg in Jan. 2011 • “Stop-gap” assessments in 2012 • Revised purpose and goals • Vision of what SLICE looks like operationally and proposed timelines

39. Bottom line: Central Fisheries Command needs a small cavalry of specialists as our “eyes” on the landscape

40. The SLICE Cavalry R1 Rough Rider Statewide Rough Rider R2 Rough Rider R4 Rough Rider R3 Rough Rider

41. Report in from the field Sir! You should be aware that curly-leaf pondweed is declining across the State; the snowy winters of 2008 and 2009 may have something to do with it R4 Rough Rider

42. Sir! It appears that last winter was tough on bluegills and it appears we have had widespread year class failures R2 Rough Rider

43. Note…these reports would come in regularly and not rely on periodic data mining projects to find declines that started years ago. Reports will be based on actual data (vs anecdotes)

44. Lake Fish Communities and Habitats Status and Trends Canadian Shield Landtype 2014 Annual Report

46. What I’d like from you… • Better clarity on Exec. Sponsor and Roles in transitioning SLICE Phase 1 into Phase 2. • Your thoughts about what SLICE looks like operationally • Moving from “duct tape and bubble gum” to something sustainable • Realigning staff resources to best carry-out a revised lake survey program • Timeline target for implementing Phase 2