Shoreline development effects on large deep lakes, Lake Crescent, Olympic National Park

1
Shoreline development effects on large deep
lakes, Lake Crescent, Olympic National Park
Rachel Kaminski
Photo Courtesy of Elizabeth Seminet-Reneau
2
Lake Crescent History Info

• Landslide 10,000 yrs. Ago
• Genetic Drift
• Oligotrophic
• Deep 190m, steep sided ( 600ft)
• 17.6km long ( 11mls)
• 32 streams 22 intermittent
• 120 houses, 2 resorts

3
Long Term Monitoring

• NPS, USGS
• People involved
• Dr. Fradkin, Dr. Hampton, Elizabeth, seasonals
• Eutrophication
• Endemic spp.
• Beardslee, Crescenti, etc.
• Determine appropriate shoreline habitat

4
Olympic National Park
5
Objectives

• To create a visual profile of the Lake Crescent
  shoreline
• To determine where features are located along
  shoreline/nearshore habitat
• CWD, docks, lawns, etc.
• Vertical profile of Lake Crescent (data-sonde)

6
Hypotheses

• Purpose - to further the research on lakeshore
  development, particularly around Lake Crescent,
  by studying the impacts of structural changes on
  nearshore habitats.
• Main hypothesis - there will be less large woody
  debris in front of developed lakeshore sites than
  at undeveloped sites.
• Sub-hypotheses
• There will be less large woody debris in front of
  developed lakeshore sites than at undeveloped
  sites.
• Developed lakeshore sites will have less large
  woody debris than road grade shoreline, because
  areas of road grades will have more trees near
  the shoreline than developed sites.

7
Photo Courtesy of Elizabeth Seminet-Reneau
8
Why is Woody Debris Important?

• Refugia/protection (predators, nests)
• Spawning substrate
• Source of prey
• Behavioral changes

9
Photo Courtesy of Elizabeth Seminet-Reneau
10
Methods and Materials

• Video
• GPS handheld
• 5 sites
• Van Dorn
• Data-sonde
• Secchi depth
• Zooplankton net

11
Video Features

• Developed
• Houses, docks, bulkheads, lawns, road grades,
  ramps
• Undeveloped
• Large woody debris (lines and points), emergent
  vegetation, bedrock

12
Results
13
Results
14
Conclusions

• More woody debris at undeveloped sites than
  developed
• More woody debris in front of road grades than at
  developed sites
• Less habitat for fish at developed sites

15
Discussion

• Error (video)
• One day represented
• Sun glare
• Camera angle (UTMs)
• Time jumps on DVD
• Counting LWD in excel

16
References

• Hampton, Stephanie. 2005. Seasonal variation in
  anthropogenic nutrient additions and food web
  response in a large deep lake (Lake Crescent,
  Olympic National Park). Unpublished Research
  Proposal, University of Idaho. 13 pp.
• Meyer J. and S. Fradkin. 2002. Summary of
  Fisheries and Limnological Data for Lake
  Crescent, Washington. Olympic National Park,
  National Park Service.
• Sass, G.G., J.F. Kitchell, S.R.Carpenter, T.R.
  2006. Hrabik, A.E. Marburg, and M.G. Turner. Fish
  Community and Food Web Responses to a Whole-lake
  Removal of Coarse Wody Habitat. Fisheries 31 (7)
  321-330.
• Seminet-Reneau, Elizabeth. 2006. Effects of
  shoreline development on the nearshore food web
  of a large deep nutrient-poor lake. Unpublished
  Research Proposal, University of Idaho. 9 pp.