Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Final Version July, 2010
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...... ii List of Figures...... v List of Tables ...... vi List of Abbreviations...... viii List of Scientific Names of Fish Mentioned in BQFMP ...... viii Endorsement and Acknowledgement of BQFMP...... ix
Executive Summary ...... x
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Plan...... 1 1.2 Physical Description of the Bay of Quinte...... 2 Physical Characteristics ...... 2 Watershed and Tributaries ...... 3 Physiography and Landscape ...... 3 Population ...... 4 Climate ...... 4 Ice Out ...... 4 1.3 Public Input and the Planning Process...... 5 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee...... 5 Public Consultation...... 6 Public Survey...... 6 Open Houses and Sportsman Show ...... 6 BQFMP Website ...... 7 1.4 Review of Background Information and Documents...... 7 Lake Ontario Management Unit Annual Report ...... 7 Remedial Action Plan...... 8 Fish Habitat Management Plan for the Bay of Quinte ...... 8 Ecological Framework for Recreational Fisheries Management in Ontario ...... 8
2.0 GUIDING PRINCIPLES, DIRECTION AND DOCUMENTS
2.1 Vision, Goals and Principles for the BQFMP ...... 10 2.2 Guiding Direction and Documents...... 11
3.0 PARTICIPANTS, COLLABORATING INITIATIVES AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Participants in the BQFMP Process ...... 14 3.2 Key Government Agencies and their Legislative Responsibilities ...... 15 Federal Responsibilities...... 15 Provincial Responsibilities ...... 16
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan ii July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Local Responsibilities...... 17 3.3 Collaborating Initiatives ...... 18 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement ...... 18 Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plans ...... 19 Joint Strategic Plan of the Great Lakes Fisheries ...... 19 Project Quinte...... 19 Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Quinte Watershed Cleanup ...... 19 Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program ...... 20 Great Lakes Surveillance Program...... 20 Bay of Quinte Ecosystem Modelling (EOCPATH)...... 20 Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) ...... 20
4.0 BAY OF QUINTE FISHERIES AND FISH POPULATION ASSESSMENT
4.1 A History of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries and Fisheries Management...... 22 4.1.1 Commercial Fishery...... 22 Establishment of Quota Management...... 23 Commercial Allocation / Quota Setting...... 23 Restructuring of Lake Ontario Commercial Fishery 1985-88: An Overcapitalized Fishery...... 23 Addressing Gill Netting Issues...... 25 Gill Net Reduction (buy-out)Programs...... 25 Gear Experimentation and Conversion...... 25 Gill Netting Restrictions...... 25 OMNR Management Approach Through the 1990s...... 25 2005 – Pool Concept...... 26 Current Bay of Quinte commercial Fishery...... 26 Commercial Fishing Gear...... 28 Commercial Baitfish Harvest...... 28 New Regulations for VHS Positive Waters...... 31 Summary of Baitfish Regulations...... 31 4.1.2 Recreational Fishery...... 33 Historic Sport Fishery, 1800s...... 33 Modern Sport Fishery,1900s...... 33 4.1.3 Aboriginal Fishery...... 35 The Mohawks Of The Bay Of Quinte – 1784 - Present...... 35 Current Aboriginal Fishery In The Bay Of Quinte...... 36 4.2 Fish Population Assessment In The Bay Of Quinte...... 37 4.2.1 Assessment Techniques and Programs...... 37 4.2.2 Fisheries Independent Assessment Programs ...... 38 Index Gillnetting...... 38 Index Trawling ...... 39 Nearshore Community Index Netting...... 39 4.2.3 Fisheries Dependent Assessment Programs...... 40 Commercial Harvest Assessment ...... 40 Creel Survey ...... 40 4.2.4 Other Monitoring Programs ...... 40 Baitfish Harvest Assessment ...... 41
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan iii July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Contaminant Monitoring ...... 41
5.0 STATUS OF FISH POPULATIONS IN THE BAY OF QUINTE AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Changes to Bay of Quinte Fish Community and Ecosystem ...... 43
Species Specific Trend Monitoring (Note These subsections are repeated for every fish species) ...... 45 Life History...... 46 Current Population Status...... 46 Current Fishery regulations...... 47 Ecological Significance...... 47 Socio-Economic Importance/Human Interaction...... 48 Fishery Management Tools...... 48 Fishery Management Objectives...... 48 5.1 Walleye...... 48 5.2 Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass...... 57 5.3 Yellow Perch...... 62 5.4 Northern Pike ...... 67 5.5 Lake Whitefish...... 70 5.6 Panfish ...... 74 5.7 Other Species...... 77 5.8 Prey Fish ...... 79 5.9 Species at Risk...... 82
6.0 MAJOR ISSUES AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
6.1 Primary Issues and Proposed Management Actions ...... 91 6.1.1 Quality of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries ...... 92 6.1.2 Non-Compliance to Fishing Regulations and Enforcement Efforts ...... 94 6.1.3 Future Fisheries Assessment on the Bay of Quinte ...... 95
6.2 Secondary Issues...... 97 6.2.1 Increasing Stakeholder and Agency Involvement ...... 97 6.2.2 Invasive Species...... 98 6.2.3 Resource-Related Education and Communication ...... 99
6.3 Tertiary Issues...... 100 6.3.1 Fish Habitat and Water Quality...... 100 6.3.2 Climate Change...... 101 6.3.3 Colonization and Proliferation of Double-crested Cormorants...... 102 6.3.4 Contaminant Levels in Fish...... 103 6.3.5 First Nation Fisheries...... 104 6.3.6 Walleye Stocking ...... 105 6.3.7 Fish Pathogens ...... 106 6.3.8 Fish Restoration Programs...... 107
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan iv July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS AND BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Proposed Management Action 1 – Continue Assessment of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries ...... 109 7.2 Proposed Management Action 2 – Promotion and Enforcement of New Fishing Regulations ...... 111 7.3 Proposed Management Action 3 – Improved Communication and Community Involvement ...... 112
8.0 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….114
9.0 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………….127
9.1 Appendix A – Summary of Public Input Survey ...... 9.2 Appendix B – Terms of Reference For BQFMP ...... Appendix C - Community Involvement Framework...... List of Figures
Figure 1 – Map of Bay of Quinte...... 4 Figure 2 – Vision, Goals and Principles of the BQFMP ...... 10 Figure 3 – Commercial Fishing Zones in Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence River...... 24 Figure 4 – Commercial Harvest for Canadian Waters Of Lake Ontario 1900 - 2006 ...... 27 Figure 5 – Trends in Walleye Harvest By Open-Water Angling...... 34 Figure 6 – Trends in Walleye Harvest, Open-water Angling, Ice Angling, Commercial, Aboriginal Spear, Aboriginal Gill Net 1957-2005 ...... 36 Figure 7 – Angling Release Rates vs. Catch Rates (CUE) of Walleye...... 55 Figure 8 – Smallmouth Bass Abundance in the Bay of Quinte (Big Bay Site) Index Gill Nets 1972 – 2006...... 58 Figure 9 – Largemouth Bass Angler Catch Rate and Combined Abundance of Sunfish in the Bay of Quinte 1972 – 2002...... 58 Figure 10 – Yellow Perch Abundance in Bay of Quinte Index Gill Nets (Big Bay Site) 1981 – 2006...... 63 Figure 11 – Commercial Harvest of Yellow Perch From Quota Zones 1-3 (Upper Bay Of Quinte) and 1-4 (Lower Bay Of Quinte) 1994-2006 ...... 65 Figure 12 – Lake Whitefish Catch-per-Gillnet in the Outlet Basin of Lake Ontario, 1972-2006 ...... 71 Figure 13 – Commercial Harvest of Lake Whitefish from Quota Zones 1-3 (Upper Bay of Quinte) and 1-4 (Lower Bay of Quinte) 1994 – 2006 ...... 73
Figure 14 – Cummulative Number of Non-Native Species Identified in Lake Ontario Exclusive of Oligochaetes ...... 99 Figure 15 – Geographic Extent of the 2000 and 2001 Bay of Quinte Cormorant Program...... 102
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan v July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
List of Tables
Table 1 – List of Abbreviations...... viii Table 2 – List of Scientific Names ...... viii Table 3 – Actions and Issues – Do the Management Actions Meet the Publicly Stated Issues ...... xii Table 4 – Assessment of Management Actions, Stakeholder Responsibilities and Priorities...... xiii Table 5 – List of Government Agencies and Stakeholders ...... 14 Table 6 – Summary of Key Federal Legislation Relevant for Fisheries Management ...... 15 Table 7 – Summary of Key Provincial Legislation Relevant for Fisheries Management ...... 16 Table 8 – Summary of Key Local Governments, Organizations and Stakeholders and their Mandates...... 18 Table 9 – Commercial Fish Quota (lbs) issued for Canadian Waters, 2006...... 24 Table 10 – Commercial Fish Harvest in Quota Zones 1-3 and 1-4 (Bay of Quinte), 1994 - 2006 ...... 29 Table 11 – Value of the Commercial Fishery in Quota zones 1-3 and 1-4 (Bay of Quinte), 2006, 2000, and 1998 ...... 30 Table 12 – Baitfish Restrictions For Species At Risk and Invasive Species...... 32 Table 13 – Number of Fish Samples Collected For Contaminant Analysis By the Ministry of the Environment...... 42 Table 14 – Angling Effort (Angler Hours) by all Anglers and Those Targeting Walleye, Catch, Harvest, CUE, 1993 - 2006 ...... 52 Table 15 – Summary of Fishing Effort, Numbers of Fish Harvested and Caught, and Walleye Angling Success during the Bay of Quinte Ice Fishery, 1993 to 2007 ...... 52 Table 16 – Mean catch-per-trawl of age-0 yellow perch at six Bay of Quinte sites,1992-2006...... 63 Table 17 – Northern Pike catch per gillnet set in the Bay of Quinte, 1992-2005 ...... 68 Table 18 – Mean catch-per-trawl of age-0 lake whitefish at two sites, Conway in the lower Bay of Quinte and EB03 near Timber Island in eastern Lake Ontario,1992-2006 ...... 72 Table 19 – Fishes at risk, as of December 31, 2006, that are on the SARO and/or COSEWIC lists and that occur or formerly occurred in the Lower Niagara River, Lake Ontario or upper St. Lawrence River drainage basin...... 84 Table 20 – Management Options for Maintaining the Quality of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries...... 93 Table 21 – Management Options to Improve Enforcement Efforts ...... 95 Table 22 – Management Options for Future Fisheries Assessment ...... 96 Table 23 – Management Options to Increase Stakeholder and Agency Involvement ...... 97 Table 24 – Management Options for Invasive Species ...... 99
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan vi July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 25 – Management Options for Resource Related Education and Communication...... 100 Table 26 – Management Options for Fish Habitat and Water Quality ...... 101 Table 27 – Management Options for Climate Change ...... 102 Table 28 – Management Options for Cormorants ...... 103 Table 29 – Management Options for Monitoring Contaminants ...... 104 Table 30 – Management Options for First Nations Fisheries ...... 105 Table 31 – Management Options for Stocking Walleye...... 105 Table 32 – Management Options for Fish Pathogens...... 107 Table 33 – Management Options for Fish Restoration Programs...... 107 Table 34 – Summary of FMP Implementation Costs ...... 112
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan vii July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
List of Abbreviations
Table 1 – List of Abbreviations AOC Area of Concern BAO Bait Association of Ontario BQFMP Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan CFHIS Commercial Fisheries Harvest Information System CUE Catch per Unit Effort DCR Daily Catch Report DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) FHMP Fish Habitat Management Plan FMP Fisheries Management Plan IJC International Joint Commission LOMU Lake Ontario Management Unit OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation OCFA Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association OFAH Ontario federation of Anglers and Hunters RAP Remedial Action Plan
Table 2. List of Scientific Names of Species Mentioned in the BQFMP
Common Name Scientific Name Category American eel Anguilla rostrata Fish Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Fish Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Fish Common Carp Cyprinus carpio carpio Fish Lake herring (Cisco) Coregonus artedi Fish Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush Fish White bass Morone chrysops Fish Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Fish Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Fish Bluegill Lepomis machrochirus Fish Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Fish Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Bird Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Fish Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Fish Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Fish Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis Fish Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Fish Muskellunge Esox masquinongy Fish Northern pike Esox lucius Fish Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Fish Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Fish River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Fish Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Fish
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan viii July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Round goby Neogobius melanostomus Fish Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui fish Walleye Sander vitreum fish White perch Morone americana Fish Yellow perch Perca flavescens Fish Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha invertebrate Quagga mussel Dreissena rostriformis bugensis invertebrate Diporeia sp. Diporeia hoyi invertebrate
Endorsement and Acknowledgement of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
. The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Watershed-based Fisheries Management Plan Guideline (draft OMNR document dated November 8, 2005)
. The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan was developed under the guidance of a Steering Committee that included representatives from: o Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Lake Ontario Management Unit and Kingston Area Office), o Ontario Ministry of the Environment, DFO Habitat (Peterborough District), o DFO Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (Burlington)), o Lower Trent Conservation Authority, o Quinte Conservation Authority, o Environment Canada (Burlington) o Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, o New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC), o Ontario Commercial Fisheries’ Association (OCFA), o Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), o Queen’s University (Kingston,) and the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee.
. Public involvement was solicited at open house meetings and via a stakeholder survey. A summary of the results of the stakeholder survey is included in Appendix A of this document
. The Terms of Reference for the development of this document, including roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee, are included in Appendix B of this document
. The proposal notice regarding the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan posted by the OMNR on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry (http://www.eco.on.ca/english/registry/index.htm) for public comment is included in Appendix C of this document
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan ix July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Executive Summary Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan: 2007-2017
The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan (BQFMP) will guide the management of the fisheries resources of the Bay of Quinte and will be in effect for 10 years with an internal review after five years. The goals, objectives, principles, successes and future direction of the FMP will be reviewed at the end of the plans’ 10-year duration. The Bay of Quinte is a dynamic ecosystem and the BQFMP will remain a flexible and living document that can adapt and be amended in response to environmental change.
The plan will provide a brief description of objectives and principles for managing the fish populations, the role of the Bay of Quinte’s physical attributes, its current ecological status within the context of historical conditions, strategies and available management tools dealing with issues raised by the public and an implementation plan for the next five year period.
Purpose and Focus of Plan
The purpose of the BQFMP is to facilitate the sustainable management and use of the Bay of Quinte fish community, by balancing the demands made by the fisheries within the biological capacity of the system.
The plan will focus on the development of strategies based on a series of fundamental management objectives aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries resources and on the identification and resolution of issues that affect the fisheries resource. The plan will also focus on enhancing, promoting and maintaining open communication between government agencies and stakeholders by providing a framework for the coordinated and cooperative management of the Bay.
The Fisheries Management Plan planning process allows all levels of government agencies involved in resource management, and the stakeholders and general public to discuss issues and concerns and reach a consensus on how the resource should be best managed. This planning process requires evaluation of data concerning the fisheries, and consultation with members of the public, First Nations and both governmental and non-governmental agencies to develop management strategies and recommendations for the sustainable management and protection of fisheries for future generations. Section one provides further details on the intent of the plan, the public involvement process and the background documents that provide guidance for the outcome of the plan.
The vision of the BQFMP is:
VISION FOR BQFMP
Abundant, edible and diverse fishes… Happy Fishers! The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan will facilitate the sustainable management and use of the Bay of Quinte fish community, balancing the demands made on fisheries resources with the biological capacity of the system.
Stakeholders involved in Planning Process
x Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
More information is provided in Section 2 about the goals and guiding principles for the preparation and implementation of the plan. Section 3 provides a list of all the stakeholders involved in the planning process together with information on government legislative responsibilities and ongoing collaborative initiatives.
Description of the Fisheries and Assessment Techniques
Section 4 provides a description of the fisheries and all the current techniques used to assess the fishery.
Status of Fish Populations in the Bay of Quinte
Section 5 provides a description on the life history, current population status, current fishery regulations, ecological significance, fishery management tools, and fishery management options on several species: walleye, smallmouth and largemouth bass, yellow perch, northern pike, lake whitefish, panfish, other species, prey fish and species at risk.
Identified Public Issues
Section 6 identifies the top 14 issues that were raised through the public involvement process together with a series of available management options that were considered. The issues are divided into three categories; primary, secondary and tertiary importance. The primary issues are identified as being within the scope of the management plan and have been identified by the public as a high priority concern. Table 3 provides an overview of whether the recommended management actions meet the publicly stated issues. The top primary issues are: 1. Quality of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries 2. Non-Compliance to Fishing Regulations and Enforcement Efforts 3. Future of Fisheries Assessment on the Bay of Quinte
Recommended Implementation Actions
Section 7 identifies the Actions that are recommended for implementation of the FMP over the first five years of the ten year plan, together with budget considerations. These actions will be reviewed at the five year point in accordance with current or evolving pressures and adapted where appropriate. Table 4 provides a summary of whether the management actions meet the objectives of the plan, and identifies stakeholder and agency roles and responsibilities, and a high, medium or low priority for the management actions. The public will be notified and involved in any changes to the BQFMP. The top actions that are recommended include:
Management Action 1 – Continue Assessment of Fisheries of Bay of Quinte a) Index Netting Programs b) Near Shore Community Index Netting (NSCIN) c) Open Water and Winter Creel Survey d) Commercial catch sampling and daily catch record administration e) Future Assessment and Research Needs (round gobies) f) Government to Government Partnership g) Stakeholder FMP Implementation Assessment Programs Management Action 2 – Promotion and Enforcement of New Fishing Regulations a) Education and Communication Package b) Increased Enforcement Campaign Management Action 3 – Improved Communications/Community Involvement a) Formation of a Bay of Quinte Sub-committee within Lake Ontario/ St. Lawrence River (FMZ 20) Stakeholders Committee. b) Host regular public forums c) Increase promotion of voluntary reporting of non-creel catches
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan xi July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 3 – Actions and Issues – Do the Management Actions Meet the Publicly Stated Issues Management Actions Issues Continue Assessment of Fisheries Promote/ Improved Enforce Communication (Please see issue description for more detail) Regulations and Community Involvement
- action directly apples to issue action does not directly apply to issue
Main Support Staff Costs Index Netting Program Nearshore Community Index Open Water and Winter Creel Survey Commercial Catch Sampling and Record and Future Assessment Research Needs Government to Gov’t Partnership Stakeholder FMP Implementation Education and Communication Package Increased Enforcement Campaign Stakeholders Forum PublicHost Annual Forums Voluntary Report of non-Creel catches Primary Issues 1. Quality of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries 2. First Nations Fisheries 3. Non-compliance to Fishing Regulations and Enforcement Efforts 4. Future of Fisheries Assessment Secondary Issues 5. Increasing Stakeholder and Agency Partnerships 6. Invasive Species 7. Resource-related Education and Communication Tertiary Issues 8. Fish Habitat and Water Quality 9. Climate Change 10. Colonization/Proliferation of Cormorants 11. Contaminant Levels in Fish 12. Walleye Stocking 13. Fish Pathogens 14. Restoration Projects
xii Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan July, 2010 Final Version
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 4 – Assessment of Management Actions, Stakeholder Responsibilities and Priorities
Assessment of Objectives Stakeholder Roles and Priorities Other and Criteria Responsibilities targets Fundamental Criteria L – Lead P - Participating Objectives 1 2 3 4 5 a b c d H high M medium L low MNR DFO MOE OCFA CA FN Anglers Non Anglers OBFA Businesses Management Action ONE – Continue Assessment of Bay of Quinte Fisheries a) Main support Costs (staff) L H b) Index Netting Program L H c) Nearshore Community Index L H Netting Program d) Open Water and Winter Creel L P P P P P H Survey e) Commercial Catch Sampling an L P M Daily Catch Record Administration f) Future Assessment and Research L P P P L Needs g) Government to Government L P P P P H Partnership h) Stakeholder FMP Implementation L P P P P P P H Assessment Program Management Action TWO – Promotion and Enforcement of New Fishing Regulations a) Education and Communication L P P P P P P P P P H Package b) Increased Enforcement L P P P H Campaign Management Action THREE – Improved Communications and Community Involvement a) Form BQ Sub-committee within L P P P P P P P P P H zone 20 (lake-wide) committee b) Host Regular Public Forums L P P P P P P P P P M c) Increase in Voluntary Report of L P P P P P M non-creel Catches
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan xiii July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Lake Ontario is the 17th largest freshwater lake in the world and supports locally significant and diverse commercial and recreational fisheries in its Bay of Quinte and eastern basin (Mills et al. 2003). The members of the Tyendinaga Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte have important fisheries linked to the Bay as well. In addition, several non-consumptive activities, including nature appreciation, and socio-economic businesses and recreational activities are linked to the Bay. Historically, the largest fish yields for Lake Ontario and a world-renown walleye recreational fishery have been produced in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario (OMNR 1999). The fish community of this region is diverse consisting of cold, cool and warm water species, and has been closely monitored for over 40 years by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) using various peer reviewed assessment and laboratory methods (see Section 4.0).
The aquatic communities in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Current Impacts Ontario are dynamic and complex and under continuous stress from environmental/natural drivers and human activity. The Bay of Quinte The decline in the abundance of walleye nearshore habitats provide important spawning, nursery and foraging and lake whitefish habitats for virtually all Bay of Quinte fish species targeted by New introductions and commercial, recreational and First Nations fisheries. It is this zone, the spread of non-native however, that has been heavily impacted. During the past 40 years, species the fish and fish habitats from this region have suffered from the Loss of habitat Climate change impacts of degraded water quality; community changes that reflect a decline in abundance of prominent predatory species (walleye, lake trout, northern pike) and the introduction of non-native invasive species (alewife and rainbow smelt); the loss of wetland habitat and in-water habitat from development and dredging; and other changes to habitat.
In recent years, water quality has improved substantially and habitat loss has slowed. However, new non-native species have become established such as round goby and zebra and quagga (Dreissenid) mussels. Both the zebra mussel and the round goby have become primary forage food for many fish and wildlife species, changing food web interactions in the Bay. Since zebra and quagga mussels have become established, water clarity has improved and aquatic plant growth has ameliorated as well. Through the efforts of the BQRAP and its partners to restore fish habitat in the Bay of Quinte, particularly at the ecosystem level, phosphorous levels and nuisance algae have been greatly reduced; aquatic plants are more widely distributed and the fish community has returned to a more natural mesotrophic state meeting the BQRAP habitat target (BQRAP 2007; Liesti et al. 2006). However, the perpetual effects of climate change remain a concern particularly in the nearshore areas.
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Plan
The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan (BQFMP) will guide the management of the fisheries resources of the Bay of Quinte and will be in effect for 10 years with an internal review after five years. The goals, objectives, successes and future direction of the FMP will be reviewed at the end of the plans’ 10-year duration. The BQFMP is designed to be flexible and adaptable to a wide range of future conditions. The FMP is to be a dynamic document that may be amended as conditions require.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 1 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Scope of the Plan – The planning area focuses on the Bay of Quinte, from the Murray Canal to the end of Adolphus Reach at Pleasant Point, and recognizes the connectivity to Quinte- area tributaries (local rivers and streams) and the eastern portion of Lake Ontario. This will help to ensure that fisheries management occurs at an ecosystem level.
Focus of the Plan – The focus of the BQFMP is to establish goals and objectives for the management of fisheries resources and to identify and resolve issues related to the sustainable management of the fisheries resource. The plan will also focus on enhancing, promoting and maintaining open communication between government agencies and stakeholders by providing a framework for the coordinated and cooperative management of the Bay.
The Bay of Quinte is a dynamic ecosystem and the BQFMP is an adaptive document that will respond to social, economic and environmental changes as they arise. The plan provides: a brief description of objectives and principles for managing the fish populations; the role of the Bay of Quinte’s physical attributes; its current ecological status within the context of historical conditions; strategies and available management tools dealing with issues raised by the public; and an implementation plan for the next five year period.
Purpose of Plan – The intent of the plan is to assist the MNR in achieving sustainable management and use of the Bay of Quinte’s fish community by balancing the demands made of the management agencies and the stakeholders within the biological capacity of the system. The Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) planning process enables all levels of government agencies involved in resource management and the stakeholders and general public to discuss issues and concerns regarding how the resource should be best managed. This planning process requires evaluation of data concerning the fisheries and collaborative discussions with members of the public, First Nations and both governmental and non- governmental agencies to develop management strategies and recommendations for the sustainable management and protection of fisheries for future generations. Management direction is determined through consultation of both fisheries data and concerns expressed by FMP participants.
The development of the BQFMP is part of the commitment of Ontario and Canada to restore the natural environments in the Great Lakes under the Canada—Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA). The Steering and Planning & Development Committees for the FMP were assembled in 2005. The BQFMP is being initiated and developed by OMNR in conjunction with other multi-agency, government and stakeholder groups, and the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee (BQFAC).
1.2 Physical Description of the Bay of Quinte
Physical Characteristics – The Bay of Quinte is a narrow, Z-shaped inlet of the north-eastern shore of Lake Ontario, situated between the mainland on the north and the peninsula of Prince Edward County headland on the south (See Figure 1). It is located about 200 kilometres (km) east of Toronto and 40 km west of Kingston. It is approximately 100 km in length from Quinte West (formerly Trenton) in the west to Amherst Island in the east, and at maximum approximately 2 km wide.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 2 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The Bay of Quinte has 3 distinct parts:
Upper Bay – beginning at the Murray Canal and extending east past Quinte West (formerly Trenton) near the outflow of Trent River to Deseronto and down through Long Reach, a 40 km stretch;
Middle Bay – for 20 km between the upstream end of Long Reach and the restriction at Glenora, including Picton Bay and Hay Bay; and
Lower Bay – from the restriction at Glenora and Picton east 25 km to Adolphus Reach, comprising the North Channel outlet to Lake Ontario at the eastern tip of Amherst Island.
A small canal near Quinte West, the Murray Canal, links the western end of the upper bay to Lake Ontario and the Trent-Severn Canal connects Lake Ontario via the Trent River to Georgian Bay (BQRAP 1993).
The Bay of Quinte covers an area of approximately 254 square kilometres (sq km) extending from the first barriers along its tributaries to the eastern tip of Amherst Island in Lake Ontario (BQRAP 2007). The Bay’s depth ranges from an average of 2 metres (m) along the shoreline to an average depth of 3.5 to 5.2 m from the upper to middle sections of the Bay. Relative to the other two bays, the lower bay is much deeper with an average depth of 24.4 m and maximum depths greater than 55 m. Maximum water temperatures in the lower bay are lower than, and occur later in the summer than, the upper and middle bays.
The Bay of Quinte’s volume of water is flushed up to 10 times per year and flushes from the west to the east where it opens into Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Flushing of the upper bay occurs due to inflow of the Trent, Moira, Salmon and Napanee Rivers, with the bulk of its inflow from the Trent River. The upper bay receives no flushing from oligotrophic (low nutrient) Lake Ontario water, and is thus strongly influenced by anthropogenic inputs (e.g., fertilizer runoff and sewage treatment plant outflows) from communities both on the bay and along its tributaries. Backflows from Lake Ontario sometimes provide low nutrient waters to the middle bay that mixes and dilutes the waters in the middle bay (BQRAP 2007).
Watershed and Tributaries – The Trent, Moira, Salmon and Napanee Rivers are the four major tributaries to the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. Their watersheds (drainage area) and the lands in Prince Edward County draining into the bay cover 17,315 sq km (BQRAP 1993). The Trent River watershed is the largest of the four tributaries (about 67% of the total area) and extends north to Algonquin Park and west to within 25 km of Lake Simcoe. Only a small corner of Quinte West drains directly into Lake Ontario via the Murray Canal.
Physiography and Landscape – The Bay of Quinte’s watershed has a diverse landscape and a wide range of physical features including wetlands, streams, forests and grasslands that provide a variety of habitats. The local topography has been sculpted by glacial retreat and melt-waters and ancient lakes that covered portions of the Great Lakes basin thousands of years ago. The shoreline of the Bay contains 22 provincially significant wetlands, some of which are under pressure from urban development in the cities of Belleville, Quinte West and the Towns of Napanee, Picton and Deseronto.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 3 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 1 – Map of Bay of Quinte
Source – MNR data 2004
The four tributaries originate from the rocky Canadian Shield, the Oak Ridges, the Dummer moraines and the Peterborough drumlin field. In the south-eastern portion of the watershed, the Napanee Plain defines the topography which is comprised of limestone bedrock and clay soils that emerge to form a scarp (a steep slope) along portions of the southern watershed divide of Prince Edward County (Chapman and Putnam 1984). This area is characterized by rare ecological communities and habitats such as alvars.
Population – From the population immediately surrounding the Bay of Quinte, the north shore of the upper bay supports approximately 80% or 105,000 people (BQRAP 2005), mainly in the urban centres of Quinte West, Belleville, Deseronto and Napanee.
Climate – The climate of the region has relatively mild temperatures. Precipitation is higher than other regions of southern Ontario largely due to the ‘lake effect’ from Lake Ontario and the Bay itself, which modify weather patterns over the area resulting in dramatic rain and snow fall events. The average annual temperatures range from a low of -5.5°C in the winter to a high of 20.3°C in the summer. Average annual precipitation is 892 mm; rainfall (735.9 mm) accounts for 83% of the precipitation for the area and snowfall accounts for 17% (155.7 mm). Growing degree days range from 160 days on the mainland or northern shoreline of the Bay to 180 days for Prince Edward County/Peninsula.
Ice Out – Ice formation begins in the Bay of Quinte normally during the first half of December. Ice begins to form in the bays and harbours at the eastern end of the lake and in the approaches to the St. Lawrence River during the last week of December and first week of January. An extensive ice cover does not appear on Lake Ontario until February and is confined mostly to the eastern end of the lake. In a mild winter, ice coverage on Lake Ontario is of the order of only 10% while in a severe winter it can increase to 95%
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 4 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
(Anssel 2003). Break-up normally starts late in February with the lake becoming generally open water early in April.
1.3 Public Input and the Planning Process
Public participation is an important ingredient in the success of any Resource Management Planning process as it helps to ensure that the plan will address public issues and incorporate community activities. Everyone who shares an interest in the aquatic resources of the Bay of Quinte must have open and easy access to information and opportunities to provide input to shape the decisions that affect both their lives and the resource.
An initial focus group workshop was held on July 20, 2005. This meeting brought together staff from multiple agencies, BQFAC members and stakeholder groups, with past or present interest in the Bay of Quinte, to more clearly define the purpose of the plan and to identify a planning process. The Planning Team met several times during 2005 to work on the terms of reference for the Plan and to provide comment with respect to the initial public consultation exercises. A copy of the Terms of Reference is provided in Appendix B.
An independent consultant, French Planning Services Inc, was engaged to design a Community Involvement Framework (CIF) to ensure the involvement of every individual interested in the health of the Bay of Quinte fisheries. The framework identified a series of steps that the Planning Team followed to engage the public throughout the planning process. More information regarding the principles, objectives, targeted audiences and communication tools are provided in Appendix 4 Community Involvement Framework.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee (BQFAC)
The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee was formed in May 2003 as a direct result of input received from public meetings concerning the status of the walleye population in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario. The ten member committee was selected to be representative of both local and provincial interests in the fisheries of the Bay of Quinte. Their mandate was to provide input and advice and develop and make recommendations to MNR about the sustainable management of fish communities and fisheries in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario so they may continue to provide social and economic benefits to the local region as well as to the province. The committee was also to play a role in promoting fishing in the area and in supporting/enhancing communications with local stakeholders.
The committee met four times in 2005 and as in previous years of its operation the committee heard presentations from both MNR and local stakeholders with respect to fisheries issues in the Bay of Quinte. In 2004 an independent review of the Lake Ontario Management Unit (LOMU) assessment program was conducted at the request of the BQFAC. The reviewers, Patrick J. Sullivan and Lars Rudstam from Cornell University, submitted their report to the BQFAC and LOMU on April 7, 2004. The BQFAC reviewed the report and discussed the results with both the reviewers and Ministry biologists prior to drafting their response. In their response the committee recommended to the Minister of Natural Resources that a cost-benefit analysis of the conclusions stated within the report be conducted and that immediate emphasis should be placed on those conclusions related to gear catchability.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 5 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
In late 2004 the BQFAC recommended to the Minister that the walleye slot limit be removed in the Bay of Quinte in time for the opening of the openwater fishery on May 7, 2006. The committee worked tirelessly with MNR staff to achieve the removal of the slot limit. On May 6, 2006 the Minister of Natural Resources announced that after substantial review the province was increasing walleye fishing opportunities in eastern Lake Ontario by removing the lower size limit on walleye in the Bay of Quinte. Under the new regulation anglers were able to keep walleye up to 63 cm in length and one walleye greater than 63 cm.
The BQFAC held an Open House on October 3, 2005 at the Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott in Belleville, ON. The purpose of the open house was to allow the local community to: 1) meet the members of the Committee and learn about the BQFAC mandate; 2) learn what the BQFAC has accomplished for fisheries management in the Bay of Quinte; and 3) find out how to work with the BQFAC to help shape the future of fisheries management in the Bay of Quinte through the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan (BQFMP).
The BQFAC has played a significant role in the preparation of the BQFMP by being a liaison to the community and by providing advice on pertinent public issues and management options as well as how to enhance communications with local stakeholders.
Public Consultation
With the help of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee (BQFAC) public input was obtained from four main sources: a public input survey, three public open houses, booths at the Spring Fishing Show and Toronto Sportsmen’s Show in 2006, and by personal contact via email ([email protected]) or telephone. A website was designed and posted on-line to be used as the main vehicle to provide electronic information to anglers and the general public.
Public Survey – A BQFMP public opinion survey was designed by the FMP planning team, French Planning Services Inc and the BQFAC to enable public and stakeholder groups to identify issues facing the Bay of Quinte fisheries, to provide comment on current aquatic resource uses in the Bay, and to provide preferred options for future fishery use and management in the Bay and eastern Lake Ontario.
The surveys were circulated during the first open house forum (December 2005), through the BQFMP website, and at the Spring Fishing Show and Toronto Sportsmen’s Show in 2006. In total, 650 surveys were distributed and 116 were returned. The respondents included recreational anglers, commercial fishers, charter boat operators, and representatives from small businesses, local governments and environmental groups.
The surveys provided insight into the public issues that affect the Bay of Quinte fisheries, and generally indicated that stakeholders greatly value the Bay of Quinte’s fishery. The public survey, together with input from the Open Houses, provided the main source of information for Section 6 of this plan – Major Issues and Proposed Management Options.
Open Houses and Sportsmen Show – The first public Open House was held on December 7th, 2005 in Belleville to share the following information: . Regarding the development of the BQFMP and to identify how the public could become better involved; . Pertaining to the historical and current status of the Bay of Quinte fisheries; and
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 6 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
. To receive public feedback.
The BQFMP Public Input survey was distributed, and members of both the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee and the Planning Team were in attendance to engage discussion and answer questions from the audience.
The second Open House was held on May 31, 2006 in Belleville to: . Provide an overview of actions-to-date; . Share the results of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan (BQFMP) public survey; . Provide information regarding the direction of the BQFMP; and . To allow the public to share their information, comments and concerns.
A third Open House will be held in 2007 to present the draft management plan and to seek input from stakeholders and the general public.
A booth on the BQFMP was set up at the Spring Fishing Show and Toronto Sportsmen’s Show in 2006. Hundreds of people stopped to pick up information or speak with the FMP Coordinator, BQFAC members and MNR staff operating the booth. The Public Input survey was distributed at both shows.
The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan Website – In 2006, a website to provide information on the BQFMP and the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee was posted at http://www.bqfac.ca. The website provided quick access to information about the purpose and mandate of the BQFAC together with information on the history of the fisheries in the Bay of Quinte.
1.4 Review Background Documents
The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan began with data collection, including fish species abundance trends and habitat changes, from various reports and through public consultation. The species-specific data, including research, rehabilitation and management programs, and information regarding habitat conditions and restoration, as well as stewardship and partnership initiatives, were summarized from the Lake Ontario Management Unit (LOMU) Annual Report(s), Project Quinte and the Remedial Action Plan for the Bay of Quinte.
Lake Ontario Management Unit Annual Report – The Lake Ontario Management Unit (LOMU) is the Ministry of Natural Resources’ (OMNR) lead administration unit for fisheries management in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The Glenora Fisheries Station is operated by the OMNR, and is the main work centre for Lake Ontario fisheries related activities, including a variety of fish studies in eastern Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte. Extensive long-term scientific data, including population trends and catch and harvest efforts, has been maintained, in some cases, since the late 1950s. As part of its work, LOMU produces a yearly report entitled Lake Ontario Fish Communities and Fisheries: Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit (available online at http://www.glfc.org).
In 2005, LOMU coordinated and delivered more than 12 projects, including the nearshore community index netting (NSCIN) in the Bay of Quinte, supporting the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. These projects focused on
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 7 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) and the ‘Areas of Concern’, including the Bay of Quinte, identified in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) – The upper reaches of the Bay are shallow and susceptible to local nutrient enrichment from sewage treatment plants and surface runoff from various land uses. The capacity of natural ecosystems to deal with these changes has been overwhelmed, and in order to improve the degraded environmental conditions, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been developed for the Bay of Quinte. The BQRAP is supported by Project Quinte, a multi-agency, long-term research project that has gathered detailed information on trophic interactions, fish community changes, and habitat impacts in the Bay of Quinte.
The Bay of Quinte’s five year action plan included twenty-four (24) recommended environmental actions to be completed by 2005 to restore the impaired beneficial uses. These actions ranged from planning to ecosystem modelling to fish habitat restoration projects, including non-point source control efforts, decreased phosphorus levels in the Bay and algal biomass, strong public outreach, and a continued effort to advocate that an ecosystem approach be taken in all future land use and economic planning processes in the Bay of Quinte watershed. Periodic updates regarding the target successes of the BQRAP are posted on http://www.bqrap.ca/.
The Bay of Quinte RAP is a partnership between the Canadian federal and Ontario provincial governments, with support from the local municipalities, Quinte Conservation Authority, Lower Trent Conservation Authority and Quinte Watershed Cleanup Inc (formerly the Bay of Quinte Public Advisory Committee).
Fish Habitat Management Plan for the Bay of Quinte (BQFHMP) – Fish habitat has, overtime, been altered, fragmented and destroyed by development demands and human pollution. As part of the Remedial Action Plan, a Fish Habitat Management Plan was developed to focus specifically on the protection, rehabilitation and restoration of fish habitat in support of delisting the Bay of Quinte as an Area of Concern. Recognizing the importance of taking an ecosystem approach to habitat restoration, the BQFHMP will not function in isolation from other BQRAP initiatives. The principles of the BQFHMP recommendations regarding habitat protection and management, research and monitoring, and public education and involvement have been incorporated into the fundamental objectives of the BQFMP.
The Fish Habitat Management Plan builds on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) policy to achieve an overall net gain of the productive capacity of fish habitat for the Bay. The plan will provide a management framework for resource users and land use policy. In July 2006, The Department of Fisheries and Oceans – Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences completed a Fish Habitat Classification Model for the Upper and Middle Sections of the Bay of Quinte. This scientifically defensible model provides detailed information on the relative suitability of fish habitat in the Bay of Quinte (not its tributaries), and can be used by habitat managers to identify and protect critical fish habitat and guide conservation and rehabilitation activities.
Ecological Framework for Recreational Fisheries Management in Ontario – The development of an ecological framework for the management of recreational fisheries in the Province of Ontario is ongoing. The purpose of this initiative is to streamline and simplify fishing regulations, and to help ensure sustainable fisheries. New fisheries management zones
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 8 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
(FMZs) have been established across the province for 2007. The ministry has set out recommended seasons and creel and size limits for all regulated recreational fish species in each of the new zones. Anglers are encouraged to visit OMNR’s website at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/fishing/fmz/index.html .
The remainder of this document provides an in depth account of the status of fish populations and fisheries based on the background information presented in this section and using the information in sections 2 and 3. The main focus of the plan is to suggest management objectives and possible strategies for future implementation targets/plan that will address the issues, presented by the public.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 9 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Section 2.0 GUIDING PRINCIPLES, DIRECTIONS AND DOCUMENTS
2.1 Vision, Goals and Principles for the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 2 provides the vision, objectives and principles for the development and implementation of the BQFMP. The Vision is a “motherhood” statement about what the Fisheries Management Plan will do. Fundamental objectives are general statements about what the BQFMP hopes to accomplish and provides a focus for what the BQFMP proposes to do. Principles are value statements that are intended to guide actions and provide a foundation for decision-making. Existing international, federal, provincial and local strategies and initiatives provide excellent examples of objectives and guiding principles that have been infused in the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan (see Section 3).
Figure 2 – Vision, Goals and Principles of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan Vision
Abundant, edible and diverse fishes… Happy Fishers! The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan will facilitate the sustainable management and use of the Bay of Quinte fish community, balancing the demands made on fisheries resources with the biological capacity of the system.
Goals
1. To ensure long-term sustainable resource use and resource protection and conservation. 2. To provide an adaptive, ecosystem-based management approach that is guided by the best available science and the awareness of the complex interrelationship of all species (including humans) and the environment, and encompasses the social, economic and ecological aspects of resource use in the decision making process for the Bay of Quinte’s biodiversity, resources and habitats. 3. To establish stakeholder partnerships and increase public involvement in management decisions. 4. To improve communications and cooperation between resource users and organizations with authority over the Bay. 5. To identify implementation tactics, including program costs and funding sources.
Key Principles
Sustainable Development – the adverse impacts on the use of natural elements such as air, land and water will be minimized to ensure the aquatic ecosystem’s overall integrity and availability of resources for future generations.
Limit the Resource – the natural productive capacity of any aquatic ecosystem has a limit and, therefore, a limit to the amount of fish that can be produced and harvested. The purpose of managing human activities is to minimize the damaging effects of over harvesting, pollution and improper land and/or water use in order to sustain naturally reproducing fish populations.
Natural Reproduction – naturally reproducing fish communities, based on native fish populations, provide sustainable benefits to society with minimal long-term costs. Hatchery-dependent fisheries and non-native ‘naturalized’ species, including rainbow trout, brown trout and rainbow smelt, will continue to be recognized and managed as valuable components of the fishery and the aquatic communities.
Knowledge – the most appropriate and responsible fisheries management decisions that manage Ontario’s fisheries effectively are scientifically based, relying on the best available knowledge and long-term monitoring assessment techniques to better understand the structure, function and limits of ecosystems and populations, incorporate stakeholder knowledge, and strive to be adaptive to ecological, social and economical changes.
Societal Benefits – resource management decisions must take into account the enormous contribution the fisheries resource continues to make to the material, physical and cultural well-being of the people of Ontario. Resource allocation shall be based, therefore, on the ecological, social, cultural and economic benefits and costs to society, both present and future, to protect sufficient fish and aquatic habitat to sustain the resource for the future.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 10 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Promote and Facilitate Public Involvement – based upon the principle that participation in fisheries management plan development must include all those who share an interest, good communications strategies are, therefore, important to effectively convey results of fisheries assessment, management and enforcement programs. Seeking input from client groups through formal consultation processes helps managers to understand and have regard for their values, objectives and concerns.
2.2 Guiding Direction and Documents
The Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan is linked to several other planning initiatives that have relevance to Lake Ontario fisheries management. The following documents have been used to establish a foundation for the vision, goals and principles for the development of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan:
1. Protecting What Sustains Us: Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy 2005 (top priority); 2. Our Sustainable Future – OMNR’s Strategic Directions (OMNR 2005) (second priority); 3. Lake Ontario Committee Fish Community Objectives (GLFC 1999), (third priority); 4. Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (SPOFII): An Aquatic Ecosystem Approach to Managing Fisheries (OMNR 1992)(incorporated in FCOs); 5. DFO’s Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO 1986); 6. Lake Ontario Fish Community Objectives (FCO) (Stewart et al. 1999); 7. Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) (LaMP Status Report 2006) 8. Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Plan (see Section 1); and 9. Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan (see Section 1).
Of direct relevance to the BQFMP are the following Guiding Principles from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (1996):
. Protection of aquatic habitats for “No net loss of the productive capacity of habitats”. . An ecosystem approach which emphasizes a holistic perspective of fisheries management that encompasses the social, economic and ecological aspects of resource use enabling the conservation of habitats and resource use in a sustainable manner. . Biodiversity conservation protects native species and the genetic diversity of the fisheries, which is important for healthy aquatic ecosystems and, therefore, all fish species in the watershed including vulnerable, threatened and endangered species should be considered. . Rehabilitating degraded habitat and populations is an important aspect of fisheries management. . The Public should be encouraged to understand and appreciate the value of fisheries resources and to participate in the decision-making process to affect positive changes on the health of the aquatic ecosystem. . The planning process has regard for the rights and interests of First Nations communities and provides for meaningful consultation with First Nations communities in cases in which their First Nations or treaty rights may be affected, . Decision-making is based upon the best available scientific information and an adaptive management approach to provide long-term monitoring assessment and reporting of the effectiveness of management actions in a timely manner. . All possible options must be considered, and evolve to implementation actions that are feasible.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 11 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat is an explicit recognition by the federal government that fish habitats are national assets. It is a comprehensive framework for the conservation, restoration and development of fish habitats and strategies for the implementation of its various components. The policy is also a blueprint for a common- sense, cooperative approach between the private sector and various levels of government to increase the social and economic benefits from productive fish habitats and the fisheries resources they support. The policy itself was developed through a process of federal, provincial, territorial and private sector consultation and cooperative effort.
Other guiding principles that were considered were from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Special Publication 99-1 for the Fish Community Objectives (FCO’s) for Lake Ontario, which identify resource-management values common to OMNR’s and New York State’s mandates to manage fish and fisheries of Lake Ontario. These principles encourage implementation of fisheries-management activities that support the attainment of Lake Ontario’s fish-community objectives.
. The lake must be managed as a whole ecosystem because of the complex interrelationship of all species (including humans) and the environment . The public has a role to play in ensuring that healthy fish communities and fisheries are passed on to future generations. . Humans are part of the ecosystem—their actions can influence certain aspects of the ecosystem—but their ability to directly set its future course is limited; responsible management, therefore, must continually strive to better understand the structure, function and limits of the ecosystem. . Stakeholders contribute critical biological, social, economic and cultural information to fisheries management agencies in support of fisheries management decision making, and with decision making comes a duty to share accountability and stewardship. . Managing a fish community requires a long-term perspective that recognizes short- term social, cultural and economic requirements; human use that is not ecologically sustainable cannot yield sustainable economic benefits. . Protection and rehabilitation of fish communities and their habitats are the most- fundamental requirements for productive, long-term fisheries. . The amount of fish that can be produced and harvested from an aquatic ecosystem has ecological limits. . Self-sustaining, native and naturalized species support diverse, long-term fish communities that can provide continuing social, cultural and economic benefits. . Stocked fish can contribute to the ecological function of the fish community, support the rehabilitation of native fish species, and provide put-grow-take fishing opportunities. . Protecting and rehabilitating native and desirable naturalized species, including individual stocks, are important in supporting biodiversity. . Protecting and rehabilitating rare and endangered species are important for maintaining biodiversity. . Protecting and rehabilitating critical fish habitat, including tributary and inshore spawning and nursery areas, are required to sustain productive fisheries over the long-term.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 12 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
. Determining how well the ecosystem is managed depends on the availability of timely scientific information provided through broad based, long-term monitoring and research.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 13 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Section 3.0 PARTICIPANTS, COLLABORATING INITIATIVES AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Participants in the BQFMP Process
The participants in the Fisheries Management Plan process include a wide range of governments, agencies, organizations and people. Table 5 lists those government agencies and stakeholders that are directly or indirectly linked with the BQFMP planning process, as well as recognizing those user groups that need to be involved in developing planning and implementation partnerships.
The following sections provide information on various collaborating programs and legislative responsibilities.
Table 5 – List of Government Agencies and Stakeholders International, Federal, National and Provincial Local International Municipalities International Joint Commission Municipal Councils of Brighton, Trenton, Belleville, Prince Great Lakes Fishery Commission Edward County, Napanee, Desoronto and Quinte West
Federal/National Conservation Authorities and Advisory Committees Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Quinte Conservation Parks Canada Lower Trent Conservation Environment Canada (EC) Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee (BQFAC) Department of National Defence (DNF) Quinte Remedial Action Plan Restoration Council New York State Department of Environmental (BQRAP) Conservation (NYSDEC) Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Organizations and Schools Canada Anglers and Anglers Clubs Tyendinaga Mohawk Council of the Bay of Quinte Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) Mohawks, commercial fishers and community Ontario Nature – Federation of Ontario Naturalists members Ontario Bait Fishers Association (OBFA) Quinte Field Naturalists Provincial Academia Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association (OCFA) Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Businesses (OMMAH) Chambers of Commerce Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Hatchery Operators Affairs (OMAFRA) Tourism based groups and associations Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, Department of Charter Boat Operators Indian Affairs and Northern Development Commercial fishers Recreationals Fishing Derbies (Service Clubs)
Public Individual recreational, commercial and First Nations fishers Shoreline property owners Other interested individuals
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 14 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
3.2 Key Government Agencies and their Legislative Responsibilities
Federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations governments and conservation authorities have their own policies, programs, legislation and regulations that contribute directly or indirectly to the management of fisheries resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) is the agency that has primary responsibility for fisheries management and planning in Ontario, but several non-government and community-based organizations also participate in managing or protecting fisheries resources in the Bay of Quinte and its watershed. During the development of the BQFMP, complimentary initiatives were incorporated to avoid overlap of existing fish management policies and programs.
An overview of the key institutional responsibilities that related to fish management is outlined in the following section.
Federal Responsibilities – Numerous pieces of federal legislation relate to fisheries management, including mandates from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Environment Canada and Parks Canada (Table 6). The Fisheries Act is perhaps the most important federal piece of legislation for fisheries resources, since it outlines the legislative requirements for protecting and managing fish habitat. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and OMNR are responsible for various Sections of the Fisheries Act. Other pieces of legislation such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) are also important for the protection of fish resources. Carried out by Environment Canada, CEAA is meant to help predict the environmental effects of proposed initiatives before they are carried out and can cause harm to fisheries resources.
Table 6 – Summary of Key Federal Legislation Relevant for Fisheries Management Legislation Relevance to Fish and Fish habitat Department of Fisheries and Ocean Fisheries Act Requires the protection of fish and fish habitat from destructive activities, and includes provisions for pollution and safe fish passage; any work that occurs in or near water must demonstrate that the works will not harmfully alter, disrupt or destroy fish habitat. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/ en/F-14/index.html and http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan Transport Canada Navigable Waters Regulates the construction or placement of work, in, on, over, under, through or across Protection Act navigable water. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-22/index.html Environment Canada Canadian Requires that all federal government-related projects undergo an environmental Environmental assessment to ensure that the project will not cause ill effects on the environment. Assessment Act http://laws.justice.gc.ca/ and http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca. Species At Risk Act Ensures that species at risk (listed under Schedule 1, Parts 1-3 of the Act), residences, or their habitat are protected. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/s-15.3/103526.html Migratory Birds Conservation and protection of listed species of migratory birds and their nests. Convention Act Cormorants are not listed in the MBCA, but are protected under provincial and territorial legislation, which includes pelicans, hawks and owls as well. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/M-7.01/ http://www.mb.ec.gc.ca/nature/migratorybirds/dc00s06.en.html Fisheries Act Enforces pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 15 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 6 – Summary of Key Federal Legislation Relevant for Fisheries Management Legislation Relevance to Fish and Fish habitat Indian Act Tyendinaga Mohawk Council of the Bay of Quinte manages environmental concerns on the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. http://www.mbq-tmt.org/
Provincial Responsibilities – The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), in particular the Southern Region, Peterborough District (Kingston Area Office), Lake Ontario Management Unit, and Fish and Wildlife Research divisions, is the agency that has primary responsibility for fisheries management and planning in the Bay of Quinte. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is primarily responsible for water quality and quantity matters in the province, which has an obvious influence on fish and fish habitat. Whereas, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is responsible for the Planning Act and the protection of fish habitat in municipal land use planning decisions, pursuant to the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement.
OMNR staff actively participates on a variety of bi-national and inter-agency committees to share information and expertise, and to develop solutions to problems of common concern in the Lake Ontario Basin. A strong network of communications outside and within OMNR is critical to making sound resource management decisions (e.g., setting recreational fishing regulations, commercial fishing quotas, stocking levels, and fisheries management objectives) (OMNR 2005a).
Table 7 provides an overview of some of the key pieces of provincial legislation that relate to the protection or management of fish or fish habitat.
Table 7 - Summary of Key Provincial Legislation Relevant for Fisheries Management Legislation Relevance to Fish and Fish habitat Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Lakes and Rivers Regulates structures in and alterations to lakes, rivers and streams. Improvement Act http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90l03_e.htm Fish and Wildlife Centres on the management, perpetuation and rehabilitation of fish and wildlife resources Conservation Act in Ontario; provides for hunting, trapping, fishing and related activities. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/97f41_e.htm Ontario Fisheries Regulations for recreational, bait and commercial fisheries in Ontario under the Ontario Regulations Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor89-93/ Public Lands Act Provides for the management, sale and disposition of public lands, and easements in or over public lands may also be granted for environmental purposes. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90p43_e.htm Endangered Species Act Ensures the conservation, protection, restoration or propagation of species of flora and fauna that are threatened with extinction in Ontario. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90e15_e.htm Environmental Bill of Rights Provides a mechanism for the people of Ontario to become involved in environmental decision making on proposals, policies or regulations that are posted on the Environmental Registry for public consultation. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/93e28_e.htm Water Transfer Control Act Grants approval to transfer surface or groundwater out of Lake Ontario’s drainage basin, provided the proponent meets the information requests and compensation requirements. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90w04_e.htm Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 16 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 7 - Summary of Key Provincial Legislation Relevant for Fisheries Management Legislation Relevance to Fish and Fish habitat Ontario Water Resources Provides for the protection of surface and ground water related to adverse discharges. Act The Act regulates the taking of water from wells or surface water sources and the treatment and disposal of sewage. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90o40_e.htm Clean Water Act Protects existing and future sources of drinking water, and makes complementary and other amendments to other Acts. It ensures communities are able to protect their municipal drinking water supplies through developing collaborative, locally driven, science-based protection plans. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Source/Statutes/English/2006/S06022_e.htm http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/cwa.htm Environmental Protection Provides protection and conservation of the natural environment through research studies Act (contaminants, pollution, waste management and disposal) and environmental planning to lead to wise use of the natural environment. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90e19_e.htm Nutrient Management Regulations to manage materials containing nutrients (e.g., livestock manure storage, Act handling and utilization) in ways that will enhance protection of the natural environment and provide a sustainable future for agricultural operations and rural development, and regulations that directly impact municipal and industrial sewage. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/02n04_e.htm http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/agops/index.html Environmental Assessment Provides for the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. Act http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90e18_e.htm Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Planning Act Guides land use development through a provincial policy-led planning system to promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment, and encourage co-operation and co-ordination among various interests. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90p13_e.htm Municipal Act Municipalities regulate approvals for construction over public shores and waters. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/01m25_e.htm Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Drainage Act Ensures that landowners (who do not have access to a stream or creek) living along watercourses have the rights of property owners to drain their lands; it ensures the construction and maintenance of sufficient outlets to drain surface and subsurface water. http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90d17_e.htm Conservation Authorities Conservation Authorities Regulates construction in a floodplain, alteration of a waterway, and the placement of fill Act in regulated areas. Conservation Authorities have the authority to study and investigate their jurisdictional watershed to develop programs for the conservation, restoration, development and management of the watershed’s natural resources. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c27_e.htm
Local Responsibilities – Numerous policies and programs from conservation authorities and local municipalities are implemented at the regional or local level that supports the management or protection of fisheries resources in the Bay of Quinte and its watershed. Table 8 provides an overview of some of the key local-level agencies and organizations that operate in the Bay of Quinte area. Furthermore, the table highlights the agency or organization’s mandate as it relates to fisheries management.
At the local level, a broad range of stakeholders, including municipalities and community- based groups, are involved in activities that can affect the fisheries resources in the
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 17 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
watershed, and whose opinions are critical to the development and success of a fisheries management plan. Municipalities are involved in both regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives that can have an impact on fish habitat through land-use planning decisions, official plan policies and zoning by-law provisions. In addition, many municipalities work with watershed groups to protect and manage water quality. Various non-government organizations, private companies, special interest groups, and individual members of the general public are also important for the management and protection of fisheries resources.
Table 8 – Key Local Governments, Organizations and stakeholders and Their Mandates Agency/Organization Mandate Lower Trent Conservation To encourage municipalities to identify and protect environmentally sensitive areas Authority (LTCA) through land-use planning. Quinte Conservation Authority To encourage municipalities to identify and protect environmentally sensitive areas (QCA) through land-use planning. Quinte Municipalities: To identify and protect environmentally sensitive areas through land-use planning Belleville, Brighton, Napanee, decisions (e.g., sub-divisions, consents and development applications), and through Prince Edward County, official plan and zoning by-laws. Trenton Bay of Quinte Remedial To develop partnerships among key stakeholder groups and to improve riparian Action Plan health through the promotion of awareness and practical changes. Stewardship Council To promote environmental stewardship and increase awareness about environmental issues among landowners. Fisheries Related Groups: There are various mandates that are specific to the organization, but in principle . Ontario Federation of they each promote recreation and conservation for sustainable fisheries. Anglers and Hunters . Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association . Ontario Bait Association . Angling & Hunting Clubs
3.3 Collaborating Initiatives
There are a number of significant collaborating initiatives that involve facets of the BQFMP. While these initiatives are led or created by one agency, the initiatives involve the combination of many stakeholders. Some of these initiatives are:
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, 1978) – between Canada and the United States expresses the commitment of each country to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem through the development of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP) for each of the five Great Lakes. The International Joint Commission (IJC) administers this agreement. The IJC also administers water level control of Lake Ontario through the Boundary Waters Treaty, which has the potential to cause both positive and negative impacts on fish habitat in the Bay of Quinte.
Under this Agreement, the Bay of Quinte has been designated an Area of Concern because the area's beneficial uses and its ability to support aquatic life have been impaired. As a result a Remedial Action Plan for the Bay of Quinte is ongoing as part of the
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 18 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
GLWQA. The Province of Ontario, exclusive of the United States, and inclusive of its domestic partners, is responsible for the management of the Bay of Quinte. http://www.ijc.org/
Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) – is a binational, cooperative effort to reduce chemical pollutants and address the biological and physical factors impacting the lake, and includes a number of objectives and guidelines to achieve these goals. The purpose of the LaMP is to develop strategies for source reduction and other actions to restore beneficial uses of Lake Ontario (EC and MOE – Lead Agencies in Canada; however, OMNR is now a full voting member). http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeont/2006/index.html
Joint Strategic Plan for the Great Lakes Fisheries – a joint effort between Canada and the United States as the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC 1997) facilitates cooperative management on the Great Lakes to develop shared fish community objectives (FCO) and manage the lakes as an ecosystem. A guiding principle for the Joint Strategic Plan is for a heightened awareness in environmental issues to develop, achieve and assess the progress on fish community objectives. The FCOs are updated every five years to address the following goals: sustainable fish stocks; protecting diversity; ecological understanding and balancing of predators and prey; adhering to science-based management; and balancing the stakeholder interests of stakeholders.
The Joint Strategic Plan (Fish Community Objectives) also recognizes the incredible problem the entire ecosystem faces with exotic species and calls upon the agencies to promote procedures to protect the resource. http://www.glfc.org/
Project Quinte – Project Quinte is a co-operative, multi-agency, research and monitoring project between the federal and provincial governments and non-government authorities to examine the biological, chemical and physical integrity of the Bay. The project has investigated long-term effects of the reduction in point-source phosphorus (P) loadings, food chain changes, and more recently the impact of invasive species such as zebra mussels in the Bay.
Long-term data sets for biomass, species composition, and production for various trophic levels provide a unique opportunity to model trophic interactions in the Bay and determine how various factors are impacting important fish populations. Project Quinte has been invaluable to the implementation of the RAP, supporting an essential, continuing program of research and monitoring, and providing information on changes due to remedial actions.
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/raps/quinte/intro_e.html
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Quinte Watershed Cleanup – In 1985, the Bay of Quinte was designated as one of 42 pollution hot–spots, “Areas of Concern”, around the Great Lakes because of 11 impaired beneficial uses contributing to loss of habitat, poor water quality, and contaminants found in fish tissue and local sediments. The Area of Concern contains the Bay and its tributaries. Its drainage basin is the largest in southern Ontario (Lake-Wide Management Plan 2006). The Trent River is the largest tributary entering the Bay of Quinte, influencing its water quality and water flow regimes. Parks Canada manages the Trent- Severn Waterway, of which the Trent River is a part. In 1986 the Bay of Quinte Remedial
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 19 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Action Plan was created to restore the Bay. The Action Plan is carried out by provincial and federal government agencies, municipalities and citizen groups.
In 1997, a Restoration Council, with membership from Federal and Provincial Government agencies (EC, MOE, DFO, OMNR, OMAF), local conservation authorities and Quinte Watershed Cleanup was formed to oversee the implementation of the 80 recommendations from the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The Department of National Defence and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte have joined the Restoration Council since that time. The Quinte Watershed Cleanup is a local community based group that works to promote the restoration and protection of the Bay of Quinte, which originated from a public advisory group set up to provide advice to the Provincial and Federal Government during the development of the RAP. http://www.bqrap.ca/
Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program – a collaborative effort between OMNR and OMOE to provide advice on contaminants in fish (e.g., DDT, PCB, mirex, mercury, heavy metals) and to produce publicly available guidelines about the consumption of recreational fish in Ontario waters.
Great Lakes Surveillance Program – is a collaborative effort between Environment Canada and OMNR to provide lake-by-lake water quality, sediments and biota monitoring. Within the context of Lake Ontario, the program strives to: provide good water quality information; establish reference index stations for local background environmental quality data; determine general trends and changes in water quality; identify emerging issues; and support site-specific actions. In 2003, an intensive version of this was conducted. This was called LOLA, the Lake Ontario Lower Food-web Assessment program. Another intensive year is being planned now for 2008.
Bay of Quinte Ecosystem Modelling (ECOPATH) – a collaboration of the Lake Ontario Management Unit (LOMU), OMNR Research, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the University of Waterloo, Cornell University, the University of Syracuse, University of Toledo, and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC). The Lake Ontario Management Unit participated in an ecosystem modelling project designed to compute energy flows among biota in the Bay of Quinte that would be compared with data from Oneida Lake in New York.
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) – Deepwater ciscoes once dominated the deepwater fish community in Lake Ontario. However, this species complex has been rare in the lake since the late 1950s. Current ecological conditions including food resource base (mysis species are present in the bottom waters), the decline of non-native competitor abundances, the rarity of deepwater fishing, and reductions in contaminant loads, favour a restoration endeavour.
The objectives of the restoration program include a hatchery program to rear ciscoes for release; long-term monitoring of stocked ciscoes in the wild; and genetic assessments of stocked ciscoes’ offspring.
The Lake Ontario Management Unit (LOMU), in collaboration with CORA and commercial fisherman Ralph Wilcox, have collected and fertilized deepwater Cisco eggs from Whitefish Bay, Lake Superior during winter 2005.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 20 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 21 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
4.0 BAY OF QUINTE FISHERIES AND FISH POPULATION ASSESSMENT
4.1 A History of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries and Fisheries Management
The fisheries of the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario are characterized by a pattern successive stock collapse. Christie (1973) cited many factors contributing to the destabilizing of the Bay of Quinte fisheries including over fishing, changes in water quality, destruction of fish habitat, and exotic species invasions. These stresses caused large changes within the fish community frequently resulting in the loss of species, abundance fluctuations, shifts in species dominance, food-web alterations, and reduced size and condition of individuals. Within this dynamic environment, the activities of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries changed to exploit a new destabilized Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario fishery.
4.1.1 Commercial Fishery
Prior to and shortly after European settlement, the fishery was exploited primarily to meet community needs and fishing was restricted to tributaries and nearshore areas. Except in the vicinity of population centers, little commercial fishing likely took place before the 1850s (railways expanded during this time making markets accessible) because of the lack of accessible markets (Greenland 1974). As markets became available commercial fisheries were developed and the numbers of fishers increased.
Early fisheries likely targeted Atlantic salmon, whitefish and herring due to their relative ease of capture with seine nets on spawning grounds. The seine fisheries that developed along the shores of Lake Ontario by the early 1800s were intensive and wasteful. Whitefish were used as fertilizer (Adams 1912), and small whitefish, lake herring, and lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) were “destroyed as nuisances” (Koelz 1926).
As traditional nearshore species declined the fishery diversified targeting offshore species. New technologies (refrigeration, steam powered boats) and gear types (gillnets and pound nets) intensified fishing operations resulting in increased capital investment in the fishery and larger harvests. By the 1940s, western Lake Ontario and U.S. fisheries collapsed due to the loss of ciscoe, lake trout, and whitefish stocks and from the limited availability of alternative species. Fisheries in the Bay of Quinte persisted due to the availability of warm water species for harvest (Christie 1973).
The fishery was evolving, as species disappeared, others were targeted. Early fisheries operations harvested relatively fewer, highly valued larger species (lake trout and whitefish), later operations harvested many, lower valued, smaller species. This evolution documented within many fisheries is termed “Fishing-Up”. By the early 1980s, the Lake Ontario gill net fishery relied heavily on yellow perch; exerting extreme pressure on perch stocks. In an effort to keep the fishery viable, OMNR and the commercial fishing industry began looking for strategies to improve management. It was recognized that open access and unlimited harvest of fish stocks was unsustainable.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 22 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Establishment of Quota Management
Fishery managers from many jurisdictions saw individual harvest quotas as the best solution for a fishery characterized with over harvest. Limited entry to the fishery and/or reducing overcapitalization of the fishery through buy-back programs were also seen as potential ways to address the excess fishing capacity that had developed in many commercial fisheries. Eastern Lake Ontario was one of the first areas of the province with individual species quotas and by 1985 quota management was introduced for most commercial species in Lake Ontario, as part of a province-wide modernization program (OMNR 2003a). The quota zones for Lake Ontario are presented in Figure 3. The Bay of Quinte is divided into two fish Quota Zones (QZ), 1-3 and 1-4; Quota Zone 1-3 extends from the western most point of the Bay of Quinte to the Glenora Ferry and Quota Zone 1-4 extends from the Glenora Ferry to the eastern tip of Amherst Island.
Commercial Allocation/ Quota Setting
Commercial allocations are adjusted annually through the quota system. In establishing annual quotas, OMNR managers attempt to find an appropriate balance among biological, social, and economic considerations, within the overall objective of resource sustainability. The status of individual species/stocks of fish is the principal factor influencing quota decisions. The determination of stock status involves the review of available fisheries assessment information (e.g. index fishing, commercial catch sampling), trends in commercial harvests in preceding years, and input and observations from the local commercial licence holders. The interests of other resource users (i.e. aboriginal, recreational and tourism interests) are also considered in broad allocation decisions.
Past performance (i.e. commercial harvests in years immediately prior to the introduction of quotas) became an important basis for determining both overall industry allocations and the quota “share” assigned to individual fishers. Essentially, a licence holder’s share of the allocation was based on a “best three out of five” year harvesting history for each licence. Those fishers who had substantial harvests benefited and were assigned more quota than those with low harvests.
Quota is assigned to each individual license based on a share of the overall total allowable catch (TAC) for each quota zone. LOMU divides the TAC by the proportion or share on a license and allocates 50% of the quota on Jan 1 of each year based on the previous year’s allocation. By the end of March, the remainder would be allocated pending the TAC estimated during February and March and presented to all fishers at an Annual General Meeting (OMNR 2003a). The 2006 commercial allocations for the Canadian waters of Lake Ontario (including the Bay of Quinte (quota zones 1-3 and 1-4) and the St’ Lawrence River are summarized in Table 9).
Restructuring of the Lake Ontario commercial Fishery 1985-88; An Overcapitalized Fishery
Through much of its history, the Lake Ontario commercial fishery has been characterized by a large number of participants relative to the overall landings and landed value of the catch (the familiar phenomenon of too many fishermen chasing too few fish). By the mid-
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 23 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 3. Map of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River showing commercial Fishing quota zones in Canadian waters.
Table 9. Commercial fish quota (lb) issued for Canadian waters of Lake Ontario, 2006.
1980s, a significant recreational fishery had developed in the Bay of Quinte, based primarily on the dramatic recovery of walleye stocks. There was also growing interest in offshore angling for trout and salmon, as the combined effects of sea lamprey control and fish stocking by both Ontario and New York State resulted in substantial numbers of salmonids in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario. While commercial fishermen target particular species such as yellow perch and lake whitefish, gill nets are not species-specific. A good deal of “species mixing” occurs and incidental catch (“by-catch”) of non-target fish in gill nets can be very high.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 24 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
User group conflicts between recreational and commercial fishermen intensified as the recreational fishery expanded. Initially, issues involved the physical placement of commercial gear in areas used by recreational fishermen. However, concern about incidental catch of non-target, non-commercial species in the gill net fishery became a much larger issue (OMNR 2003a).
Addressing Gill Netting Issues
Restructuring of the commercial fishery in the late 1980s involved reducing the number of participants and encouraging more biologically and socially acceptable harvesting methods. Fisheries managers tried to achieve a greater level of resource management control, particularly with respect to the commercial gill net fishery. This included several management actions:
Gill net reduction (buy-out) programs
Between May of 1985 and December of 1988, two buy-out programs were instituted by OMNR to purchase gill net licences and associated commercial fishing operations offered for sale (i.e. on a willing seller-willing buyer basis). The objectives of the buy-out programs were to more closely align the capacity of the industry with the biological capability of the fisheries resource, to reduce the incidental catch of non-target fish in gill nets and to reduce related conflicts among resource users. Over the three years of the program, 50 of the 86 gill net licences were purchased, reducing the quantity of licensed gill net by 58 per cent (OMNR 2003a).
Gear experimentation and conversion:
Commercial licence holders were encouraged to use alternative fishing gear (other than gill nets) through incentives such as extended fishing seasons, quota adjustments (e.g. walleye allocation to impounding gear licences) and various types of experimental permits.
Gill netting restrictions
Up until the 1980s, there were few seasonal limitations on the commercial gillnet fishery in waters outside the Bay of Quinte, with the exception of a few specific embayments or nearshore areas. Between 1985 and 1988, gill netting seasons were established to minimize incidental catch of non-target species such as trout, salmon and smallmouth bass in the Lake Ontario gill net fishery. The broad management objective of these measures was to allow the harvest of commercial fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels while minimizing adverse impacts on non-commercial species and promoting harmonious use among various users of the fishery resources (OMNR 2003a).
OMNR Management Approach Through the 1990s
Through a variety of incentives and regulatory/ licensing amendments, OMNR fishery managers tried to assist the industry in adjusting to the restructured fishery that resulted from the 1985-88 buy-out programs. Measures included increased quota allocations where stocks were improving (e.g. lake whitefish), greater flexibility in quota transfers, realignment of unused quota within the industry, and extended fishing seasons where feasible. Fishery
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 25 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan managers have tried to maintain an appropriate level of management control with respect to incidental catch of non-target fish species. At the same time, OMNR has worked with the industry to institute “test fishing” programs to monitor incidental catch levels associated with longer gill netting seasons. Through the 1990s, in response to requests from the industry, season extensions were negotiated, with particular focus on whitefish and yellow perch gill netting seasons. These season adjustments were generally based on test fishing, on-board monitoring or field observations of incidental catch. Examples include:
• Earlier fall harvesting of lake whitefish in 4 ½ inch mesh gill nets in Quota Areas 2 and 4. • The closed season for small mesh in the spring was discontinued in Quota Area 2, to allow year-round fishing for yellow perch. • The harvest of walleye from trap nets in Quota Areas 1, 2, and 4 was significantly extended beyond the May-June experimental fishery originally established in 1989.
2005-Pool Concept
Since the onset of quota management, less than 50% of the quota on quota managed species has been harvested on average with an increasing importance of non-quota managed species in the harvest. In order to better use quota to manage fisheries, a higher percentage of the quota needs to be harvested. In 2005, LOMU began experimenting with ‘pools’ of unused quota. This first year of the pool was done in only a few quota zones as a voting system was used. After one year of assessment and review by the general assembly of fishers, the pool was extended to all quota species in 2006. In general, when fishers reached at least 50% of their initial quota, they could access the remaining 50% of their full allocation. Following this increase, when fishers reached about 70% of their full allocation, they could access more quota from the pool. There was no limit to the number of times one accessed the pool.
Fishers could ask for an amount equal to their initial allocation or based on their expert knowledge. For example, if a fisher thought they would catch another 2500 kg over a week or weekend, then that is what they were provided with. MNR compared their recent DCRs (Daily Catch Records) to their request to assess these propositions. By the end of the year it was possible for those actively fishing to attain more than their normal share of a zones allocation for a species but by Jan 1 of the following year, all licenses would return to their initial share as per Dec 31, 2004.
Current Bay of Quinte Commercial Fishery
This once vibrant lake-wide industry has been greatly reduced in scale with yearly harvests approximately 8% of historic levels (Figure 4.). Today Lake Ontario supports a locally important commercial fishery with harvest primarily coming from areas east of Brighton including the Bay of Quinte and the lower St. Lawrence River.
Important commercial species currently harvested from the Bay of Quinte include yellow perch, brown bullhead, sunfish species (Lepomis sp.), black crappie, rock bass, white perch, freshwater drum, lake whitefish, and walleye (quota zone 1-4 only). While the fishery
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 26 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 4. Commercial harvest (thousands of pounds) for Canadian waters of Lake Ontario including the Bay of Quinte, from 1900 to 2006. Data points represent 5-year averages except 2005 data point which represents a two year average (2005 – 2006). Data from 1900 to 1960 was obtained from Christie (1973) and data from 1960 – 2006 was obtained from the 2006 LOMU annual report.
6000
5000 )
3
4000
3000
2000
Harvest (lb x 10 x 10 (lb Harvest 1000
0
1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year fluctuates yearly with some species more abundant in certain years, the overall trend shows diminished catches. Total commercial harvest from the Bay of Quinte in 2006 was 361,772 lbs. While this represents a 27 percent increase over last years yield, catches in 2006 are only 65 percent of what they were during the mid-90s (Table 10). Noteworthy changes are discussed below.
By far the most important species harvested from the Bay of Quinte in terms of weight and value is yellow perch. In 2006, yellow perch harvest represented 80 percent of the catch by weight (Table 10) generating over 70 percent of the total revenue collected from the Bay of Quinte fishery (Table 11). While the yellow perch harvest has improved in recent years, with harvests from 2006 being the highest in a over a decade in the Bay of Quinte (Table 10), revenue remains roughly unchanged due to a 40% drop in the unit price ($/lb).
The American eel as late as the mid 1990s was one of the top three species in commercial value to Ontario's fishing industry. Since the 1970s, indices of abundance in the Upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario have declined by approximately 99% (COSEWIC 2006a). Due to declining numbers the American eel fishery was closed to both recreational and commercial fishers in 2004. It is currently listed as endangered nationally and of special concern provincially (SARO). Loss of this species from the commercial harvest has undoubtedly affected the value of the Lake Ontario fishery (Table 11).
Lake whitefish have sustained a valuable commercial fishery on Lake Ontario for over 100 years. Unfortunately, in recent years, the commercial lake whitefish fishery has declined significantly. In the Bay of Quinte (Quota Zones 1-3 and 1-4), the annual lake whitefish
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 27 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan harvest has declined by 97 % since 1996 and the price per pound has been greatly reduced (OMNR 2007a). The decline of the Lake whitefish has resulted in over $150,000 of lost revenue when compared to conditions in the mid 1990s.
In 2006 walleye harvest in the Bay of Quinte (quota zone 1-4) was the highest it has been since 1998. However, the unit price ($/lb) has dropped considerably making the catch almost half of what it would have been worth in the late 90s.
The commercial harvest of panfish (pumpkinseed, bluegill, black crappie and rock bass) has increased in the Bay of Quinte throughout the late 1990s and into the 21st century. In 2006, over thirty (30) metric tonnes of pumpkinseed, bluegill, black crappie and rock bass were harvested from the Bay of Quinte making panfish harvest a significant part of the Bay of Quinte fishery contributing approximately 15% of the total revenue.
Brown bullheads and channel catfish, collectively, contribute the largest biomass in the Bay of Quinte and are targeted by the commercial fishery. Bullheads specifically comprise approximately 40% of the total harvested biomass from the Bay of Quinte. In recent years bullhead harvest and revenues have been cut in half likely due to a parasitic infestation resulting in reduced sales (GLFC 2003).
Commercial Fishing Gear
In the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes trap nets are used for all commercial species in Lake Ontario. Gill nets are used for lake whitefish, lake trout, walleye, yellow perch, white perch, and white bass. Hoop nets are used to catch all commercial species. Seines are used for carp, yellow perch, and a variety of panfish. Trawl fishing is used for both lake whitefish and smelt but is still experimental in Canada. To keep a sustainable commercial fishery in the Great Lakes there are various closures of the fishery during spawning season, and in various areas of the Great Lakes there are both permanent and seasonal designated refuge areas. With many fish species there is a minimum size restriction to allow them to at least spawn once before they enter the fishery.
Commercial Baitfish Harvest
Baitfishes may be collected by individual anglers possessing a resident fishing licence, or by commercial baitfish harvesters. The commercial baitfish industry is comprised of licensed harvesters and dealers and is represented by a professional organization, Bait Association of Ontario. This industry is closely regulated by the province by means of licences, legal species lists, daily log books, annual reporting and facility standards. In addition, harvesting takes place in prescribed geographic areas, and is based on principles intended to protect baitfishes and their habitat (Cudmore and Mandrak 2007).
Baitfish harvest from the Bay of Quinte is regulated and monitored by OMNR’s Peterborough District – Kingston Area Office with policy direction from OMNR’s Fisheries Section. Management of the bait fish resource in Ontario is co-managed by the OMNR and the Bait Association of Ontario (BAO) through an agreement developed in 1998.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 28 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 29 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 30 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Currently there is only one licensed baitfish harvester operating in part within the Bay of Quinte. Their harvest is limited to Hay Bay and the lower Bay of Quinte in the vicinity of Adolphustown. Harvest in 2006 consisted of 564 dozen fish consisting mostly of golden and spottail shiners. All of the fish harvested are sold outside of the Bay of Quinte, therefore, most of the baitfish used in the Bay of Quinte comes from inland waters. However, resident local anglers with a valid fishing licence may catch and possess from up to ten dozen baitfish for personal use. The amount of harvest attributed to local licensed anglers is difficult to estimate.
The commercial harvest and sale of crayfish and frogs as bait was banned on January 1, 2007. Currently, baitfish harvest for commercial sale has been restricted in the Bay of Quinte area because of the VHS infection (see below).
New Regulations for Ontario’s VHS Positive Waters
In 2005, Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus (VHSV) was identified in the freshwater environment of North America for the first time. The virus was found in two separate instances: in muskellunge from Lake St. Clair, Michigan and in freshwater drum from the Bay of Quinte. Since this time, VHSV has been found in round gobies and smallmouth bass from Lake Ontario, bluntnose minnows from the St. Lawrence River and emerald shiners from the Niagara River and Lake Erie. The emerald shiner and bluntnose minnow are both used as live bait-fish in Ontario.
VHSV is a Rhabdovirus; the most well known Rhabdovirus is the rabies virus. However, unlike rabies, the VHSV does not infect humans. The spread of VHSV is variable, including the transport of infected fish into non-infected waters, predatory fish eating infected prey fish, infected fish spawning with non-infected fish, contamination of fish handling equipment, and possibly other vectors of transport (OMNR 2007b; Cornell University Press 2006). For more information pertaining to VHS, please review comments provided in Section 6.
To slow the spread of the virus and protect fish populations, Ontario delineated a VHS management area. The VHS Management Area contains the VHS virus-positive waters of lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron (including Georgian Bay) and their connecting waterways and tributaries up to the first barrier impassable to fish (excluding fishways). Within the VHS management area steps have been taken to reduce the risk of infection of new waters including restrictions on where bait fish are transported, restrictions on the collection of walleye, trout, and salmon eggs including a requirement for egg disinfection, and restrictions on where stocking can occur. The Bay of Quinte is virus positive therefore, commercial live bait operators will not be allowed to sell or transport baitfish out of the “management area’. Only sale within the management area of locally caught baitfish or bait-fish received from the Buffer or Virus- free Zones will be allowed. A similar live bait-fish ban has been established in the United States market to prevent the spread of the virus.
Summary of Bait fish Regulations
Species considered species at risk (listed as Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened under Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), non-native fishes (invasive or exotic), and game fish cannot be used as bait fishes. The province also protects provincially
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 31 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan significant species at risk not currently protected under SARA. Exceptions include the locally specified use of lake herring (family Salmonidae) as bait. Please note that a number of changes have been made to bait regulations to protect rare and endangered species, conserve biodiversity and prevent the spread of invasive species. As opposed to providing a list of species not to be used as bait (black List), the province has created a list of species that can be used as bait (white list). This new approach will allow for consistency without having to revamp the prevented species list following exotic species invasions.
Caution is advised when collecting species that closely resemble species that have species at risk designation and are listed as illegal in the Ontario Fishery Regulations, such as species of Buffalo and Redhorse suckers which are difficult to distinguish in the field.
Table 12. Only the fish species listed below may be used as live bait in Ontario:
Minnows: Suckers: Blacknose shiner White sucker Blackchin shiner Longnose sucker Bluntnose minnow Brassy minnow Others: Central stoneroller Central mudminnow Common shiner Lake herring (cisco) Creek chub Trout-Perch Eastern blacknose dace Emerald shiner Sticklebacks: Fallfish Brook stickleback Fathead minnow Ninespine stickleback Finescale dace Golden shiner Sculpins: Hornyhead chub Mottled sculpin Lake chub Slimy sculpin Longnose dace Mimic shiner Darters and Logperch: Northern redbelly dace Blackside darter Pearl dace Fantail darter Redfin shiner Iowa darter River chub Johnny darter Rosyface shiner Least darter Sand shiner Rainbow darter Spotfin shiner River darter Spottail shiner Tessellated darter Striped shiner Logperch
Source: Fishing Ontario 2008-2009 Recreational Fishing Summary
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 32 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The conservation status of baitfish species, and consequently their use, may change over time. Be sure to check latest version of the Ontario Fishery Regulations for up-to-date information.
4.1.2. Recreational Fishery
When compared with the commercial fishery, the history of recreational fisheries is poorly documented. Therefore much of the early accounts (pre – 1950s) described in this section were obtained from sources referencing activities from other locations within Lake Ontario. In particular, Tom Whillans’ masters thesis documenting the fish community transformations in three bays within the lower Great Lakes contains a wealth of information on early recreational fisheries in Toronto Bay and Burlington Bay (Whillans 1977). It can be assumed that some of these activities also likely occurred within the Bay of Quinte.
Historic Sport Fishery, 1800s
Sport Fishing was practiced by many early settlers in Lake Ontario, however a good argument could be made that this was more of a domestic food fishery than a recreational fishery. Early references (mid 1800s) of recreational fishing from other lake Ontario locations refer to an ice spear fishery and summer bait fishing, trolling, and pier fishing. Whillans’ thesis also mentions fly fishing as a popular sport in the Toronto region. Species targeted include sunfish, pike, black bass, perch, eel and catfish. The extent of the historic recreational fishery in the Bay of Quinte can only be speculated, however, if similar fisheries from other Lake Ontario locations are any indication of activities in the Quinte region then bass, pike, walleye, and Atlantic salmon would have been likely targets.
Modern sport Fishery 1900s
Currently, walleye is the most sought after species in the Bay of Quinte recreational fishery. However the walleye population was not always abundant making other species the focus of recreational fishers. Except for a few years in the 1920s, walleye catches from the bay of Quinte would have been consistently low due to their low abundance between 1900 and 1950. Hurley and Christie (1977) suggest that bass, sunfish, muskellunge, and northern pike would have been more available for sport harvest than walleye during this period.
An important walleye sport fishery developed in the 1950s; estimated annual catches were as high as 39,000 walleyes (Christie 1972). It was during this period that the OMNR began conducting angler surveys in an attempt to monitor sport catch and harvest. Figure 2 summarizes sport fish harvest inferred from summer angler surveys conducted between 1957 and 2005. The population became negligible after the passage of the strong 1959 year class. It is not clear why walleyes became more abundant in the late 1940s and 1950s. Christie (1973) pointed out that this period was characterized by higher spring water temperatures, which favoured walleye production throughout the Great Lakes. He also speculated that eutrophication may have enhanced the survival of walleyes by increasing the supply for juveniles and by reducing other predators. Also noted was that the increase in walleyes coincided with the increase in rainbow smelt. Payne (1963) found that smelt were the second-most-important food item in the walleye diet (next to alewives).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 33 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The decline of the walleye population in the 1960s has been attributed to poor water quality (excessive nutrients- hypertrophy)and the proliferation of white perch (Morone americana); an exotic that invaded via the Hudson River-Erie Canal route in the 1950s (Hurley 1986). Christie (1973) pointed out that the last successful year classes of walleyes coincided with the beginning of the rise in the white perch population in the bay. He suggested that white perch may have contributed to the decline of the major walleye stocks by preying on their eggs or larvae. During this period (1960 – 1977) the recreational fishery would have been poor as the fish community was lacking large piscivores and was dominated by alewife and white perch.
A dramatic increase in walleye in 1978 coincided with sharp reductions in phosphorous inputs; however, Hurley (1986) argues that the increase in walleye abundance may reflect climate extremes; cooler than normal temperatures in the winter of 1977-78 coincided with a large white perch die-off. Many species show signs of recovery following the white perch crash including walleye, yellow perch, and whitefish.
The recreational fishery rebounded and grew when the walleye population recovered through the 1980s. Walleye have been the dominant species sought and harvested since the early 1980s. Angler participation peaked in 1996 at over one million hours of angling effort. Total annual walleye harvest peaked sooner, in 1991, at about 220,000 fish. Walleye fishing success and participation in the fishery declined in the mid 1990s. The decline in the fishery paralleled declines in the walleye population that occurred in response to dramatic changes in the Bay of Quinte ecosystem, particularly after zebra mussel invasion.
Figure 5. Trends in Walleye harvest by open-water angling (1957-1963, 1974, 1976, and 1979 – 2005).
2
) 5 1.6
1.2 # of fish x 10 # of fish ( 0.8
arvest H arvest 0.4
0 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 Year
Specifically, the production of young walleye declined, from the high levels of the late- 1980s and early 1990s, to lower levels that were consistent with the changed Bay of Quinte ecosystem. Despite the decline, walleye remain the most sought after species drawing 91 % of angler effort in the summer fishery. The remaining effort is mostly directed towards largemouth bass. Largemouth bass catches have increased in recent years as habitat has become more favourable for this species. As a result, there has been some increase in the
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 34 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan number of anglers targeting this species. To date, much of the increased attention toward largemouth bass has come from tournament fishing.
4.1.3. Aboriginal Fishery
Historic and current information regarding First Nation’s fisheries in the Bay of Quinte are limited. Historic information from other locations on Lake Ontario have been used to portray the Bay of Quinte Fishery.
The fish community in the Bay of Quinte was initially exploited by native peoples. Fish comprised an important dietary component; however, the intensity of exploitation differed among tribes and varied according to the time of occupation. Early inhabitants relied heavily of fish as a food item whereas later inhabitants reduced their reliance on fish with the emergence of agriculture (Crewe 1971).
Spring and fall were prime fishing times however some ice fishing was practiced. A wide range of fishing methods was employed including nets (seines and gill), weirs, traps, spears, decoys, hooks and poison. Often villages would send bands, sometimes long distances, to fishing camps. These areas were often located at sites conducive to harvest with specific gear. Fish were frequently preserved by drying or smoking for human and domestic dog consumption (Rostlund 1952). One could speculate that Intensive harvest from select locations could put significant stress on some local fish communities (e.g. lake sturgeon). In fact, Whillans (1977) estimates a yearly harvest of 6 – 12 x 106 kilograms by First Nations at the time of European contact. This number is based on Tigger’s (1969) estimated population size of 12,000 people in southern Ontario at that time.
The remains of many fish taxa have been documented from archaeological sites around Lake Ontario. Species such as lake trout, lake sturgeon, walleye, brown bullhead, bowfin, various centrarchids, and suckers are well represented. Archaeological finds reveal that the fish community exploited by early native communities differed little from those exploited by early Europeans (Whillans 1977).
The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte – 1784 - present
The Bay of Quinte Mohawks originally inhabited lands in upper New York State. These lands were relinquished following British defeat during the American War of Independence. In lieu of their loss of land, the British Crown granted the Mohawks 92,700 acres on Bay of Quinte. This parcel of land was acquired for the Mohawks from the Mississauga’s through treaties in 1794(National Library of Canada 1858).
Subsistence in the Bay of Quinte was derived mainly from agricultural pursuits through the production of wheat, rye, barley, oats, hay, buckwheat, and the raising of livestock (National Library of Canada 1858). However, like other early resident in Upper Canada, the Mohawks likely would have relied heavily on local fish and wildlife resources as a source of dietary protein. Their involvement in the commercial fishery during the 1800s is undocumented.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 35 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Current Aboriginal Fishery in the Bay of Quinte
The only documented aboriginal fishery in the Bay of Quinte is an annual walleye spear fishery conducted during the spring in the Napanee, Salmon, and Moira Rivers (OMNR 2001a). Annual harvest on the Salmon River was censused directly by the aboriginal community 1982, 1988- 1989, and 1991-1993. Since 1994, Spear fishery harvests have been surveyed in partnership with the OMNR.
The aboriginal spring spear fishery harvested 3,000 to 4,000 fish annually on the Bay of Quinte's Salmon River prior to 1992. This harvest increased when spearing activity expanded to include the Napanee and Moira Rivers. The spear fishery harvest, for the three rivers, was over 6,000 fish on average between 1992 and 1995, and over 13,000 fish on average between 1996 and 2000. A comparison of sport, commercial, and First Nation’s harvest is presented in Figure 6.
The only major source of walleye harvest that was not formally surveyed was that of the aboriginal gillnet fishery. Harvest for this fishery was determined based on surveillance by conservation officers. Aboriginal gillnet harvests were assumed to be negligible prior to 1992. From 1992-1996, the aboriginal gillnet harvest was specified at 12,800 kg annually.
Figure 6. Trends in walleye harvest by open water angling (1957-1962, 1976, 1979- 2005), ice angling (1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991-2005), commercial (1957-2005), aboriginal spear (1988, 1989, 1991-2000), and aboriginal gill net (1992-1996, and 2001) fisheries.
In 2001, the fishing effort was estimated to be 177 trips, resulting in a harvest of 57,300 fish (OMNR 2002a). However, these numbers are speculative and the Mohawks claim that these estimates are largely exaggerated and ignore the pooling of the catch to distribute to extended families and other Mohawk communities (Trent University Native Studies 2002).
Resource use conflicts continue to be a large issue with Bay of Quinte residents and fishers. In the 1980s a conflict between commercial and sport fishing was at the forefront. Results
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 36 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan from a recent public survey indicate that perceived excessive harvest by First Nations and the practice of spearing walleye during spawning migrations are primary issues in 2006 (see appendix A for survey results). These issues increased in priority following several years of low walleye abundance relative to the abnormally high numbers seen in the 1980s.
Non-aboriginal fishers argue that all user groups should have equal access to the fishery, whereas the First Nations claim that “Equality” ignores the aboriginal right to fish that stems from their historic use of the territories and resources. This view is supported through the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in regards to the Sparrow case (Sparrow v. The Queen[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075).
The decision affirmed that fishing is an existing Aboriginal right protected in the Canadian Constitution, and that governments must follow strict rules of conduct in their stewardship of the fishery. According to the Sparrow decision, governments can interrupt this right only where there are conservation considerations. Where conservation is a concern, governments must limit fishing by other parties before they interfere with the right of Aboriginal people to fish for food, ceremonial and societal uses. Governments must consult Aboriginal people where their right to fish is affected.
4.2 FISH POPULATION ASSESSMENT IN THE BAY OF QUINTE
In order to characterize and assess fish population status and make informed management decisions about resource use, the LOMU monitor fish populations and fishery activities using scientifically-based sampling methods and harvest information provided by resource users. Short- and long-term data enable managers to predict future community changes, and make appropriate decisions to sustain resource use and ecosystem health. The Bay of Quinte’s fish community has been researched and monitored with a high level of consistency for over forty years by the OMNR at the Glenora Fisheries Station.
This section describes the sampling methods used on the Bay of Quinte, and summarizes the results from several assessment programs, which help to illustrate the current status of the fish community and the fisheries associated with the Bay of Quinte.
4.2.1 Assessment Techniques and Programs
Several field programs monitor fish populations, including the assessment of a species’ individual needs during progressional life stages. Many of these programs are deployed by OMNR, and several others rely solely on voluntary stakeholder, including commercial, recreational and First Nations fisheries, cooperation. Participation of these user groups ensures that exploitation and fish populations are sustainable (Belore et al. 2006).
To best predict the current and future status of fish populations (stocks) and fisheries (harvest), a management agency needs both fishery independent and fishery dependent data.
Fishery independent data provides consistent review of fish population(s) from a particular area. In the Bay of Quinte, fishery independent data are collected by the
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 37 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
OMNR using scientifically-based sampling methods, including index gillnetting, nearshore community index netting, index trawling, fish tagging and genetic research. In some cases, additional information may be required to answer uncertainties about the status of a fish population and impacts of fishing.
Fishery dependent data provide harvest and other (seeking) related information on the fishery (i.e., recreational, commercial and First Nations), and in some instances a user’s relative satisfaction may be captured in a mail out survey or public forum. Fishery dependent data are collected from voluntary and/or mandatory reporting programs, including commercial fisheries daily catch records (DCR), recreational fisheries creel surveys, and First Nations commercial and subsistence harvest.
Annual fish population assessments (in particular the age structure data of each fish population) based on harvest tracking programs and fishery independent programs to determine the effects of a fishery on various age groups in the population. Various population parameters, such as survival, the spawning (adult) portion of the population and size at age of fish in the population, in the fishery and not yet recruited to the fishery are determined. This is typically based on catch per unit effort relationships from fisheries and surveys, but can also include abundance estimates from tagging programs such as those used for walleye on Lake Ontario (Belore et al. 2006).
The following sub-sections 4.2 and 4.3 describe the fisheries independent and dependent programs that have consistently been delivered by the OMNR for assessment purposes.
4.2.1 Fisheries Independent Assessment Programs
Index GillnettingThe index gillnetting program is used to assess the current relative abundance of age one and older fish. It refers to the systematic use of gillnets to acquire information on a variety of fish species’ composition and abundance over time. Gillnets are multi-paneled monofilament (replaced multifilament in 1992) mesh with mesh sizes ranging from 1½-6 inches when stretched.
Gillnets are deployed from June to September in eastern Lake Ontario and Bay of Quinte. Nets are set in similar conditions over a period of time, and the difference in the sequential catches is assumed to reflect changes in the fish community. The gillnets are bottom set at fixed index netting sites in eastern Lake Ontario (ranging in depth from 2.5-140 m) and the Bay of Quinte (ranging in depth from 5-45 m) annually, which began with the Hay Bay site in 1958 (OMNR 2006a).
Nets are set overnight in the same sites from year to year. These sites include both deep and shallow parts of the lake so that various fish communities are sampled. Data collected include: species, length, weight, ageing materials (e.g., otoliths), capture location and depth. A subset of these fish is brought back to the laboratory at the Glenora Fisheries Station where more data, such as sex, stomach contents and pathology, are collected. Each gillnet catch is standardized to represent the total number of fish in 100 m of each mesh size and summed across ten mesh sizes from 1½-6 inch. Statistics for all fish species caught in the gillnetting program on the Bay of Quinte from 1992 to 2005 are shown in the LOMU 2005 Annual Report (OMNR 2006a).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 38 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Twenty-two (22) different species were caught in 2005 in the Bay of Quinte during the open water period sampled. The most abundant species in Bay of Quinte were yellow perch, alewife, white perch, gizzard shad, freshwater drum and walleye (yellow pickerel).
Index Trawling
Bottom trawling is used primarily to assess the status of the young-of-the-year (YOY) (e.g., age-0) of larger fish species and monitor the abundance of small benthic fish species. The data from this type of program are typically used to forecast recruitment or future abundances of “fishable biomass”. Trawling data are also very useful for predicting short to medium term sustainability of fish populations under a variety of exploitation options (Belore et al. 2006). This program occurs annually since 1958 (except 1989) at fixed sites in eastern Lake Ontario (ranging in depth from 21-100 m) and in the Bay of Quinte (ranging in depth from 4 to 23 m). Typically, less than a ½ km drag using a three-quarter “Western” bottom trawl are made at the Bay of Quinte sites.
Statistics for all fish species caught in the trawling program on the Bay of Quinte from 1992 to 2005 are shown in the LOMU 2005 Annual Report (OMNR 2006b). The most abundant species caught by trawl in the Bay of Quinte in 2005 were young-of-the-year (YOY) sunfish, yellow perch, white perch, alewife, round goby, freshwater drum, spottail shiner and gizzard shad.
Nearshore Community Index Netting
The nearshore fish community index netting program (NSCIN) assesses fish in waters less than 3 metres deep in late summer or fall of each year (Stirling 1999). It is designed to be comparable across years and with other lakes in Ontario (OMNR 2002b). This program was deployed on the Bay of Quinte in response to changing nearshore habitat and to properly sample the nearshore community which was not being well represented by the index gillnetting and trawling programs previously mentioned. NSCIN was initiated on the upper Bay of Quinte (Trenton to Deseronto) in 2001 and was expanded to include the lower Bay of Quinte (Deseronto to Lake Ontario) in 2002. NSCIN also provided information about delisting criteria to the Quinte RAP and, as such, was funded under the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA).
The NSCIN program utilizes 6-foot trapnets (live capture gear), and was designed to evaluate the abundance and other biological attributes of fish species that inhabit the littoral area. Suitable trapnet sites are chosen from randomly selected UTM grids on the Bay of Quinte (OMNR 2002b).
In 2005, the most abundant species by number were bluegill, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, gizzard shad and black crappie. The most abundant species by weight were freshwater drum, brown bullhead, channel catfish, walleye and common carp. The centrarchid family of fish (bluegill, pumpkinseed, black crappie, largemouth bass, rock bass and smallmouth bass) comprised 52% by number and 17% by weight of the catch. Statistics for all fish species caught in the 2005 NSCIN trapnet program on the Bay of Quinte are shown in the LOMU 2005 Annual Report (OMNR 2006c).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 39 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
4.2.2 Fisheries Dependent Assessment Programs
Commercial Harvest Assessment
The Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario, including the St. Lawrence River, supports a locally important commercial fishery. Within the last decade, some of the more important commercial species have included yellow perch, lake whitefish, walleye, American eel and brown bullhead (OMNR 2002 c). Fishery dependent data from commercial harvest statistics are compiled from daily catch report (DCR) records and stored in the Commercial Fisheries Harvest Information System (CFHIS) database, which, in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, is managed by the Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association (OCFA).
During routine or annual sampling, fishery dependent biological data from quota species harvested is collected solely for lake whitefish. Other species are sampled for special interests like food quality/safety, contaminants and independent research as needed.
Creel Survey
Recreational angling surveys, which are classified as ‘creels’ by the OMNR, provide data about fishing harvest and effort during open water and winter seasons. The open water creel survey occurs, when funding permits, throughout the walleye angling season (opening weekend to late fall). The winter creel survey usually occurs from late December to late February or early March pending ice conditions. Angling effort is measured using either aerial or on water/ice methods to count boats, anglers and ice huts during both creels. On- ice and on-water angler interviews provide information on catch/harvest rates and biological characteristics of the harvest. Angler creel surveys have occurred on the Bay of Quinte since 1957, and for almost 23 consecutive years. The creel is conducted from Quinte West (formerly Trenton) to just east of Glenora.
4.2.3 Other Monitoring Programs
LOMU and its partners have deployed a variety of other programs to collect fishery independent data or to provide fish habitat information. These “other” programs include mark-recapture (provides estimates of population size and natural mortality by sampling a subset of the population twice; once to ‘mark’ individuals and once to count the number of ‘recaptures’) of walleye and lake whitefish, and other species including salmon and trout, and, when funding permits, short-term projects like out board trawling, larval whitefish assessment and fish diet studies, which have also been used to address specific uncertainties (OMNR 2001b). Information about any of these programs is available from the OMNR.
OMNR’s various partners have also been monitoring fish habitat for many years in the Bay of Quinte, including ‘Project Quinte’, led by DFO. Information regarding fish habitat is necessary in assessing fish populations particularly when the changes in the ecosystem are not related to factors such as climate change, introduced species, or fishing.
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has taken the lead on contaminant loading sampling in the Bay of Quinte. Heavy metal and toxic contaminant concentrations found in fish tissue biologically accumulate up the food chain. When it is consumed; human health
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 40 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan and the well-being of fish and wildlife species is also important to monitor to prevent long- term deleterious side-effects.
Baitfish Harvest Assessment
The harvest of baitfish from the Bay of Quinte is regulated and monitored by OMNR’s Peterborough District – Kingston Area Office with policy direction from OMNR’s Fisheries Section. Management of the bait fish resource in Ontario is co-managed by the OMNR and the Bait Association of Ontario (BAO) through an agreement developed in 1998. Ontario fishery regulations dictate which species can be used as bait, and in which bodies of water; those species not included in the baitfish definition are illegal for use as bait.
The bait resource in much of the province is allocated to harvesters through the exclusive use block system (one harvester per bait harvest area) with block sizes generally much larger in the north than in the south. There are exceptions to the block system, mostly in southern Ontario where the resource is allocated to multiple users harvesting the same area.
All licensed harvesters are required to return annual reports of their activities, including the quantities of fish harvested, and the location as a condition of license. In addition to licensed baitfish harvesters, resident anglers with a valid fishing licence may catch and possess from up to ten dozen baitfish for personal use. This harvest is likely significant, but is difficult to estimate. In some areas, the personal harvest of bait is thought to exceed that of the commercial harvest (OMNR 2006d; BAO 2005).
Contaminant Monitoring
Contaminants are monitored by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to assess heavy metal organochlorine levels in fish destined for food within Canada and abroad. OMNR is a partner with both agencies because of several pieces of legislation engaging OMNR to manage fish harvest in Ontario. As such, the Lake Ontario Management Unit cooperates annually with several agencies to collect fish samples for contaminant testing (Table 13). Samples provided by OMNR are typically obtained from existing fisheries assessment programs on Lake Ontario, Bay of Quinte, Ganaraska River and the St. Lawrence River. Other partners and the aforementioned agencies also collect samples independently of OMNR.
Most of the contaminant data collected in 2005 was by the MOE, and off the contaminant information collected only the MOE data is publicly available (OMNR 2006e). It is published biannually in the Ontario Guide to Eating Recreational Fish (http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/guide/). CFIA contaminant information is used by this agency to regulate fish import and export in Canada and to provide consumption advisories to Canadians.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 41 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 13 – Number of fish samples collected for contaminant analysis by the Ministry of the Environment Ganaraska Thousand Upper Bay of River Islands Species Total Quinte Lake St. Lawrence Ontario River Black crappie 0 0 0 0 Bluegill 20 0 3 23 Brown bullhead 20 0 10 30 Channel catfish 17 0 0 17 Largemouth bass 2 0 7 9 Northern pike 20 0 20 40 Pumpkinseed 0 0 11 11 Rainbow trout 0 20 0 20 Rock bass 1 0 20 21 Smallmouth bass 8 0 20 28 Walleye 20 0 10 30 White perch 14 0 0 14 Yellow perch 20 0 20 40 Total 142 20 121 283 Source – (OMNR 2006e ), LOMU 2005 Annual Report, Contaminant Monitoring
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 42 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
SECTION 5.0 STATUS OF FISH POPULATIONS IN THE BAY OF QUINTE AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Changes to Bay of Quinte’s Fish Community and Ecosystem
The Bay of Quinte is a biologically diverse ecosystem because of its variety of nearshore and offshore habitats and native, introduced and invasive species. This diversity is enhanced further by the Bay’s connectivity to Lake Ontario proper; it is connected to the eastern basin of Lake Ontario at Amherst Island in the east and at the Murray Canal at its northwest end. As a result, the community dynamics of the Bay are highly influenced by the seasonal migration of both prey (e.g., alewife) and predator species (e.g., walleye), which makes these species a shared resource within the greater Lake Ontario fish community.
The number of fish species present in the Bay of Quinte is relatively high, which is indicative of a locally diverse and moderately rich or productive (mesotrophic – the intermediate state of biological productivity in a water body) ecosystem, despite the loss or extinction of wild native species and the introduction of over 160 non-native species to Lake Ontario and the Great Lakes since the late 1800s (Duggan et al. 2003). As a direct result of changes to the Bay’s habitat quality and availability, and an overall shift in trophic status (lake productivity – nutrient concentration, based on phosphorus levels, algae abundance, and depth of light penetration) and a shift in energy production from the pelagic (offshore) to benthic (nearshore) zone, the Bay of Quinte nearshore community is more complex than its pre-1950s community structure (Casselman et al. 1999; Mills et al. 2003; Morrison et al. 2006).
Prior to the 1950s, the Bay of Quinte’s trophic status was considered moderately productive (mesotrophic), and characterized by a fish community that strived in or tolerated cooler, less weedy habitats that contained clean substrates, including lake herring, lake whitefish, walleye, yellow perch and northern pike (Hurley 1986). Many of these native fish populations have since declined because of a multitude of interacting environmental factors that have impacted their habitats, including non-native, invasive species, changes in water levels, and climate change.
The effects of invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, on the Bay of Quinte’s food web have influenced changes in native species behaviour in response to habitat changes caused by the invasion. The zebra mussel’s life-cycle has been linked to observed changes in the nearshore habitats, including altering depth of light penetration, increasing aquatic plant abundances and distribution, and creating a shift in prey availability. The zebra mussel may have also facilitated the establishment of other species through the provision of habitat or food resources (Dugan et al. 2003). For example, Walleye habitat in the shallow upper bay has decreased at the rate of 34 ha/year since the invasion of dreissenid mussels in 1994, while those in the middle and lower bays has remained abundant.
Lakes and rivers are sensitive to changes in climate, and coastal wetlands are particularly influenced by changes in lake level. Fluctuating water levels affect the availability of resources and habitats, species diverstiy and the efficiency of pollution dilution in the lake; small changes in elevation result in big changes in water surface area. Fluctuation of water levels in Lake Ontario is a natural phenomenon driven by complex climatic interactions, and overtime biological communities have evolved in response to them. Lake Ontario’s water levels have been regulated since 1959 by the International Joint Commission (IJC). The loss
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 43 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan of natural fluctuation patterns has impacted wetland plant communities and fish habitats (Wilcox and Meeker 1992). Intervals of high water levels in Lake Ontario broadly coincide with periods of cool, wet climates, such as winter 2007, causing short-term fluctuations in water levels. In contrast, a warming, drying climate could also influence short or long-term periods of drought and a resulting drop in water levels. Higher water levels in the past may have played a major role in the recovery of the lake.
Climate change, which impacts water temperature over time, is a new factor influencing fish and aquatic communities and resource partitioning and feeding relations because, in general, any increase in water temperature affects the abundance and distribution of fish (Shuter and Post 1990; Casselman et al. 1999), available thermal habitat (Magnuson et al. 1988; Lester et al. 2004) and fish growth, recruitment and survival (Casselman 2002; Casselman et al. 2002). Habitat alterations in the food web, therefore, can modify environmental or habitat characteristics (e.g., water clarity) thereby altering fish responses and community structure because changes can create conditions favourable to one species or another and result in shifts in fish community composition (Robillard and Fox 2006).
Throughout the 1940s and 1960s the Bay’s habitat quality was altered and degraded through a resurgence of industrialism that prompted large harvests of natural resources and the onset of ecological pollution. Inappropriate development activities and land use changes, an influx of phosphorus-based nutrients, toxic pollutants and other contaminants, the loss of wetland habitats and a changing climate resulted in an over-productive (hyper- eutrophic) aquatic system which means that the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario proper became excessively enriched with dissolved nutrients and sustained aquatic plant blooms, a loss of clean substrate from sedimentation, and a severe decrease in water quality; an unfavourable environment for cold and cool water species. Fish species that tolerate or strive in warmer, weedier water and mucky substrate, such as bass, sunfish and crappie, increased in numbers in the nearshore communities. The ecological and food web interactions between other species and their habitats here and in the open-water habitat changed as a result.
A rising concentration of phosphorus, which is a limiting nutrient in aquatic plant growth, in the Bay and the lake influenced direct changes to the lake’s trophic status and indirect changes to its fish communities which were influenced by plant growth. As a result, the Bay’s fish community became characterized by high numbers of small fish that had relatively short life spans and the ability to produce a large number of young fish quickly.
By the late 1970s and 1980s phosphorus levels were reduced because of a raised environmental awareness and a shift towards ecosystem management approaches formalized in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1987) (http://www.ijc.org/rel/agree/quality.html). The initiative to reduce phosphorus levels and bring the Bay back from an over-productive to a more moderately productive (mesotrophic) lake ecosystem led to more fish community changes, such as an increasing walleye population in the Bay that resulted in an intense predation of small fishes. Other influences, including annual climatic fluctuations such as extremely cold winters and hot summers, also impacted community structure. For example, a winter-kill event of white perch in 1977-1978 led to a strong year-class of walleye and a fish community characterized by abundant walleye with high growth rates. The subsequent increase in walleye abundance perpetuated the lower numbers of white perch and alewife in subsequent
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 44 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan years (Ridgway, 1990). As walleye abundance increased, growth of young walleye decreased consistent with density dependent effects, i.e., the growth rate of young walleye was dependent upon the number of young walleye present in the population, which in turn affected the distribution and availability of resources – the carrying capacity (Casselman 1999).
By the 1990s, zebra and quagga (Dreissenid) mussels invaded the Bay, which influenced habitat changes in the direction that phosphorus abatement has led the system; that is back towards a mesotrophic system. Zebra and quagga mussels filter feed, altering the seasonal abundance and perhaps diversity of plankton and zooplankton species, which directly competes with the feeding habits of young fish (OMNR Lake Files). By reducing the number of plankton or microscopic algae in the water column, the water becomes clearer, which increases the depth to which sunlight can penetrate, enabling more plant growth, which creates weedier conditions favourable to warm water species such as alewife, largemouth bass, sunfishes and white and yellow perch, which collectively dominate the nearshore fish community in the Bay. Species, such as walleye, that are sensitive to light conditions may alter behaviour to better exploit the new environmental conditions (Chu et al. 2005). New evidence from trawling programs suggests that the main cause for the decline in walleye, since the establishment of zebra mussels, has been decreased survival of young walleye (less than 3 months old), which are independent of the changes in adult growth and abundance (Morrison et al. 2006).
Due to the influences of a variety of anthropogenic activities impacting the Bay, life histories of fish and their ecological interactions, as well as management and restoration efforts, are complex and multi-faceted. Native species recovery and the sustainable management of fisheries in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario needs management and restoration activities that are targeted to achieve ecological benefits at either the community or individual species level to preserve the aquatic biodiversity throughout the lake. Therefore, developing indices to quickly and effectively identify the ecological health of deeper water, nearshore and tributary ecosystems in the Bay of Quinte is important. Furthermore, establishing linkages among these ecosystems and with riparian and terrestrial landscapes will be necessary to provide resource managers with the information they need to effectively manage this globally important freshwater ecosystem (http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/).
Species Specific Trend Monitoring
Assessment monitoring and research over the years by the LOMU have captured the trends in fish population statuses and fishery yields, and the overall changes taking place in the fish community structure and the stability and resiliency of the Bay and eastern Lake Ontario’s aquatic ecosystem. Urbanization and land use practices, habitat loss and degradation, climate change, fish contaminants, loss of native aquatic species, invasive species, conflicts among users, harvest levels, inadequate enforcement of fishery regulations, cormorants and water levels have all been identified by various stakeholders as contributing factors negatively impacting the Bay of Quinte fisheries. In the 2005 Fall Public Survey, respondents recognized the importance of implementing a Bay of Quinte management plan because of the following values and issues connected with the Bay and its fisheries: its local economic importance and preference by anglers; population declines of several targeted species which makes it difficult to find fish; and lack of enforcement to protect fish, fisheries and fish habitat. The respondents also identified those species which are in most need of
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 45 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan management intervention to protect sustainable fish populations and habitat, including walleye, muskellunge, northern pike, bass, Atlantic salmon, perch, eel and lake herring; these ‘target’ species and the significance of their ecological roles within the Bay’s ecosystem and fisheries became the focus of this section.
Since one of the main objectives of this plan is to maintain the quality of the Bay of Quinte’s fisheries by improving habitat quality and angling experience, walleye, the number one targeted species in the Bay by all fisheries, is regarded as a keystone or indicator species within the context of the Bay’s ecosystem and this plan. A keystone or indicator species is a species whose presence or abundance can be used to assess the extent to which the resources of an area or habitat are being exploited. The conservation status of their population refers to its health (ecological response) and abundance (numbers) to paint a picture of the local ecosystem. Since habitat quality directly impacts local biodiversity, the locally rare or ‘at risk’ fish species populations are also keystone indicators of the local ecosystem.
Section 5 is divided into the important fish species that characterize the targeted efforts of the recreational, commercial and First Nations fisheries of the Bay of Quinte. Within the following sub-sections, each species is characterized by 7 themes: life history, current population status, current fishery regulations, ecological significance, socioeconomic importance/human interaction, fishery management tools, and the proposed management objectives. These themes, defined below, highlight the important information collected by LOMU which directs the management and conservation decision-making process.
Life History – for this document, fish life stages are described as egg, free embryo or fry (immediately after hatching), juvenile (no reproductive organs developed and usually prior to first spawning) and adult (fully capable to reproduce). Life history relates to the progression of development stages of an individual fish from embryo (egg) to adult. Within each life stage, fish are categorized based upon similar habitat requirements and tolerances, particularly optimum habitat characteristics that assist in the development, growth and survival of the species to the next life history stage. Water temperature is the most prominent environmental factor that characterizes habitat of many juvenile and adult stages of fish; thermal guilds divided into warm (25°C+), cool (18-25°C) or cold that characterize habitat preferences are usually used to describe fish. In turn, water temperature is interrelated with other environmental factors and habitat features, such as dissolved oxygen concentration, substrate size and condition, numbers and diversity of aquatic plants, pH, nutrient concentration and water clarity.
Species-specific habitat requirements to carry out their life functions differ among fish species, and their habitat requirements vary with each of their life stages. Typical life functions include feeding, resting, hiding from predators, and spawning. Fish require an optimum temperature range (thermal guilds) to sustain the various stages of their life histories. When human activities or natural events alter habitat conditions, temperature and other environmental factors are altered, impacting life histories, population numbers and community structures.
Current Population Status – for the purposes of this document the status of a fish population refers to its conservation status, which includes monitoring and assessing its health, relative abundances (numbers), growth and survival, and overall user satisfaction with the quality of
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 46 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan the fishery, as well as comparing these fisheries statistics with previous years’ data, as indicators of the likelihood of this species continuing to survive. When combined, the various trends through time for each species enable agency staff, and stakeholders, to determine the conservation status of the fish species of interest. It is a simple and straightforward concept, but when one is predicting future status, assumptions about growth and survival of young fish needs to be included making the future status less certain. In the context of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan, population data collected using many of the survey methods previously described in Section 4.2. (Fish Population Assessment in the Bay of Quinte), will be used to develop performance measures by which status will be determined. These measures will be compared against performance targets developed under the guidance of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Council. The targets will reflect the current ecological state of the Bay of Quinte, stakeholder preferences, and management objectives for the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario. Performance measures and targets will form a linkage between the management tools implemented (e.g. harvest regulations, stocking strategies, and habitat improvements) and the plans management objectives.
Current Fishery Regulations – a fishery is a term used to define the relationship between the people who fish and the fish resource. Within every fishery there are unique ecological, economic and social factors to consider, which makes management decisions sometimes complex. A commercial fishery is one that harvests fish for sale; recreational is one that harvest fish for fun; and a subsistence fishery is for food and traditional purposes. It is important to note that fish are the resource, not the fishery.
Ecological Significance – the role each species plays in contributing and consuming energy within a food chain and its relationships with other components of the larger food web defines its ecological significance. For example, zebra mussels may not seem to be an important component of the nearshore food chain because of its non-native status, however, they anchor a great deal of biomass (akin to energy) and also improve habitat for visual predators, which contributes great ecological significance for many species. Top predators, such as walleye, are also important because they are sinks for large amounts of energy, and do to the Bay’s walleye migratory patterns they also drive the way energy flows within the ecosystem or food web between both the nearshore and offshore communities.
According to Lake Ontario’s Fish Community Objectives (FCOs), the habitat zones and food webs are divided into nearshore and offshore zones, and the feeding relationships among fish and other species are called food webs. The base of the food web depends on microscopic plants called algae, which provide energy to grazing animals in the water column called zooplankton near the bottom of the food chain, which form the preliminary food base for macro-invertebrates and young fish for the mid-chain, and eventually the food base for the top-predator(s).
Nearshore habitats are critical to nearly all Lake Ontario fish, as eggs, fry and juvenile life stages of most fish depend on littoral/shoreline habitats during these most vulnerable life stages. The nearshore zone is home to a great number of cool and warm water fishes, including walleye, northern pike, smallmouth and largemouth bass, yellow perch, sunfishes and brown bullhead. Offshore benthic and pelagic species, such as juvenile and adult lake trout, slimy sculpin, lake whitefish, burbot and lake herring, also contribute to the nearshore communities during various stages of their life history or life cycle. The upper Bay of Quinte is almost all nearshore and the mid to lower Bay has very narrow offshore components.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 47 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Socio-economic Importance/Human Interaction – Bay of Quinte supports three types of socially and economically important fisheries: recreational, commercial and First Nation. The recreational fishery, including tournaments, rod & reel clubs, and media productions, contributes the greatest socio-economic impact to local communities because of its interconnection with various business and tourism/recreational infrastructures. From a non- consumptive perspective the Bay of Quinte’s fish and fish habitat also offers aesthetically valued natural features and settings that bring joy to many individuals. The commercial fisheries provide employment, direct and indirect economic gains, and contribute important fisheries and habitat data via their daily catch records. From a traditional perspective harvest of Bay of Quinte fish and interaction with fish habitat is a cultural component of the local First Nations communities.
Fishery Management Tools – fishing regulations are management tools and only one component of fishery management. Regulations are a common set of rules that keep all fishers from doing things that might harm fish populations, harm habitat, or harm people. The rules vary among jurisdictions and management zones. Other management tools include regulations or policy related to other legislation that might impact the sale of fish, protect human health, and direct manipulation of fish populations, such as stocking, or fish removal, and also indirect manipulation through habitat modification. One does not manage wild fish, but rather manages the human interactions with fish and the environment that might impact wild fish.
Fishery Management Objective – objectives are the proposed intentions that managers and stakeholders will opt to achieve the FMPs’ shorter term mission and its longer term vision. The actions outlined in Sections 6 and 7 of this document are implementation options that may be used to achieve the objectives. Ideally, objectives have performance measures so that one can assess whether or not the objective is being achieved once the action has been implemented. For example, the long-term sustainability of walleye as a top predator in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario is part of the vision of maintaining a quality fishery, which means that walleye needs to remain each year as a stable component of the Bay of Quinte’s ecosystem and fisheries. In the shorter term, this might mean keeping adult walleye abundance stable, or trying to acquire more adult walleye through increased production or abundances off young to overcome some environmental driver. The performance measures needed to assess whether objectives are met or not can be quite technical, requiring at a minimum the monitoring of fish populations (numbers), and conflicting issues, values and objectives among stakeholders increases the complexity.
5.1 Walleye
Life History
Walleye or yellow pickerel are a cool water species that require relatively clean waters and are often found in deep (cooler and more turbid—less light), mesotrophic lakes. Walleye derives its name from its characteristic cat-like eyes, which reflect light and allow the walleye to see in low light conditions (they are a light-avoiding species). Walleye is a “seasoned” predator and uses its excellent eyesight to capture prey in murky or agitated water.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 48 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Walleye are known to be dependent on conditions of low light intensity because light affects the location and timing of their feeding activity. Light is considered to be one of the most important determinants of the seasonal and diurnal behaviour of walleye, as well as one of the principle factors determining their natural geographic distribution. In general, light affects fish community dynamics because changes to light regimes trigger habitat conditions favourable for some species. Therefore, light intensity can potentially be viewed as an ecological constraint that determines the relative dominance of walleye in the community since walleye are highly adapted to specific light regimes (Robillard and Fox 2006).
Male walleyes typically sexually mature at age 3 or 4, and females normally mature a year later. During April, adult walleye spawn along the shores and tributaries of the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario, including southern locations on the Black River in New York. At this time of year their optimal habitat is gravel and rock substrate, and light and water temperature are not usually limiting. Based on OMNR tagging studies, it is quite clear that a large majority of walleye spawn in the Bay of Quinte proper and its tributaries.
A large female is capable of broadcasting up to 500,000 eggs, and no parental care is offered by the parents to the eggs or young fish (fry). The eggs are slightly adhesive and when broadcasted over the shoal, the eggs fall into spaces between rocks where they are protected from predators and adverse weather and other environmental conditions. After hatching, the free embryo spends about a week absorbing the relatively small amount of yolk and remains in relatively shallow water. Once the yolk has been fully absorbed, the young walleye begins to feed on invertebrates, such as fly larva and zooplankton, and eventually other fish. During this early juvenile period, walleye also begin to explore different habitats.
After spawning, adult walleye return to offshore locations in search of food, schooling small bodied fish such as alewife (Christie 1972 and 1973). Immature walleye produced in the Bay of Quinte usually remain there until age – 5 years (OMNR 2006a). The bulk of the eastern Lake Ontario walleye population is thought to over winter in the Bay of Quinte.
Genetic studies suggest that walleye in the Bay of Quinte are too genetically similar to discriminate among brood stocks; West Lake, however, appears to be dissimilar and is, therefore, treated as a separate stock. Due to close genetic similarities among walleye in the Bay of Quinte, this population is monitored and assessed as one migratory breeding stock (OMNR 2001c).
Current Population Status
Protection, enhancement, and restoration of historically important, moderately productive (mesotrophic) habitats that support walleye as the top fish predator and keystone indicator species are necessary for a balanced and productive Bay of Quinte ecosystem ( SOLEC 2000). Walleye recruitment, which characterizes the abundance and age structure of the population, is influenced by the habitat carrying capacity, which represents the number of individuals that a natural environment can support that is influenced by environmental factors and species interactions, and natural and fishing mortality, “controls” walleye population sizes and conservation status in the Bay.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 49 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The walleye status in the Bay of Quinte has periodically varied between high and low recruitment periods. Interestingly, the suspected reasons for the high numbers of the 1980s and 1990s were reduced predation on young walleye by older walleye and white perch, which enabled a very large year class (1978) of walleye to be produced. Large year classes began as the Bay of Quinte underwent a period of environmental change, which was primarily driven by phosphorus abatement and pollution prevention measures. Walleye population size peaked in 1980 at about 3 million fish at age 2 and older due to the entry of the 1978 strong (large) year class into the population. The population stabilized at about 1.5 million fish from 1982 to 1996. Currently, this population is about 700,000 fish at age 2 and older. The age composition is broad and balanced extending to at least 23 years of age, representing a mix of fish produced prior to and post Dreissenid mussel colonization.
The colonization of zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissenid) in the early 1990s, and the subsequent increase in water transparency, is suspected to be a major factor for increased mortality of young walleye. It is clear from LOMU trawl data that survival and recruitment of young walleye has declined substantially since the mid-1990s (Morrison et al. 2006). Since 2000, the walleye population has been relatively stable, but at lower levels. When coupled with lower recruitment, fishery harvests and natural mortality continue to lower the number of adults, resulting in less adult fish now than there were in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Production of young walleye (recruitment) has declined likely due to competition for food and predation from visual predators tolerant of light and those preferring weedier habitat (fish that benefit from clearer, weedier waters to hunt like largemouth bass, yellow perch, sunfish, black crappie, gar, northern pike, alewife, white perch and bowfin). Lower production of young walleye results in less fish entering or recruiting to the fishery. Previous concerns about over harvest raised by OMNR in 2001 should not be ignored; however, walleye have shown great resilience in the past and will continue to do so into the future.
Keeping in mind that genetically similar walleye populations are managed as one breeding population and that the Bay of Quinte walleye population dominates eastern Lake Ontario, managers need to monitor all fishing related mortality from all parts of this population’s range. Size limits and walleye migratory behaviour provide fishers with access to a very small portion of the walleye population, which actually protects fish from excessive fishing pressures by fishers. In the summer, for example, the majority of fish targeted in the Bay are young fish because the older, larger fish have migrated out to the lake proper. A small commercial quota of walleye, which is also associated with lake whitefish quota, is prominent in the Bay, and large adult females are protected from this harvest effort at all time. The First Nations fishery occurs almost entirely in the Bay of Quinte southeast towards Glenora; this fishery appears target mostly larger and older mature walleye. Estimates of mortality averaged over long periods of time suggest that mortality from all sources has not changed for adult and juvenile walleye (Morrison et al. 2006).
Current Fishery Regulation
The recreational fishery currently is designated within OFR zone 20 in which an angler with a sport licence can catch up to 4 walleye, one of which can be over 63 cm while the holder of a conservation licence can take 2 walleye one of which can be over 63 cm. The commercial fishery has no walleye quota in zone 1-3, but has about 50,000 lbs of walleye quota for other parts of Lake Ontario including zone 1-4. This fishery is restricted largely to live capture gear and to walleye less than 58 cm (23 inches) due to mercury contamination.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 50 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
New walleye quota allocations for commercial fishers are proposed for zone 1-3 to utilize underused quotas in the Bay; however, the costs and benefits to walleye, ecosystem, stakeholders and managing agencies are under review and advisement with the BQFAC.
Ecological Significance
Walleye rely on the habitat and productivity of the Bay of Quinte for most of its immature and adult life, including reproduction and over-wintering. Walleye are a key top predator and indicator species in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario because of their top- down influences (consuming energy from lower trophic levels) that characterize and structure the food web. Juvenile and adult walleyes are piscivorous, feeding on other fish, typically alewife in the Bay as well as yellow perch or ciscoes, at night on bars and shoals. Their behaviour, abundance, location and seasonal presence or absence can impact survival of many other fish species like alewife, gizzard shad and more. For example, changes in alewife abundance may be largely due to the timing of alewife migration into the Bay in the spring to spawn and migration of walleye out to Lake Ontario (Ridgway, 1990 and Hurley 1986). Walleye also feed heavily on crayfish, minnows, and leeches. Another important new diet item for walleye is the round goby, which is available to all ages of walleye and throughout their range. The diversity of their diet adds to their ecological significance.
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interaction
Walleye is a primary target of all fisheries in eastern Lake Ontario. Each fishery provides socioeconomic benefits to local communities. In an effort to sustain these benefits, and due to their popularity, OMNR governs fisheries using regulations such as daily catch and possession limits for recreational fishers and the use of quotas for commercial fishers.
Recreational fishing activity peaked in the mid 1990s (Tables 14 and15), which is not always in correlation to fish population peaks. Shortly after their peak in abundance, walleye began to drop in numbers, which resulted in lower fishing success. It is clear from OMNR Annual Reports that walleye recreational fishing success bottomed out in the 2000 summer season and 2003 winter season. The poor 2003 winter harvest could have been associated with poor ice conditions because ice fishery harvest varies with ice conditions and is, therefore, not necessarily a good benchmark for trend analysis. The poor 2000 summer harvest is likely related to a combination of environmental factors and lower recruitment. Harvest, however, improved slightly thereafter. The current catch-per-unit effort (CUE) is similar to that of the mid 1990s and appears to be improving, but is dependent on the number of young fish as this fishery targets heavily on immature walleye during the summer months in Quinte. This relatively high CUE also reflects the lower effort exerted by anglers (i.e. fewer fisherman are catching more fish per person). The Bay of Quinte recreational open water angling survey was conducted only during the month of May in 2006. Over 900 anglers were interviewed of which 40% were local, 52% were from Ontario (outside the local area), 8% were from the US and less than 1% was from elsewhere in Canada. Angling effort was targeted nearly exclusively at walleye (98%). Fishing effort was 70,789 angler hours for all anglers and 70,704 hours for anglers targeting walleye. Numbers of walleye caught and harvested were 21,711 and 14,119 respectively. Numbers of walleye caught and harvested per hour by anglers targeting walleye were 0.307 and 0.200 respectively. Over 70% of harvested walleye were age-3 from the 2003 year-class.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 51 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The 2007 ice-fishing monitoring was conducted using eleven aerial flights to count angler and ice-hut activity as well as four on-ice patrols to interview a total of 266 anglers. The survey estimated a total of 99,368 hours of ice-fishing effort, the highest since 2000, despite the short 2007 ice-fishing season. Anglers caught 17,480 walleye of which 11,313 were harvested; the most since 1999. Walleye fishing success rate this winter was high.
Table 14. Angling effort (anglers hours) by all anglers and those targeting walleye and walleye catch, harvest, CUE (fish caught per hour) and HUE (fish harvested per hour), 1993-2006, during May in the Bay of Quinte.
Table 15. Summary of Fishing Effort, Numbers of Fish Harvested and Caught, and Walleye Angling Success during the Bay of Quinte Recreational Ice- Fishery, 1993 to 2007
No survey conducted in 2006
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 52 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
A small amount of recreational fishing harvest occurs in New York managed waters of Lake Ontario. This harvest is monitored, but not accounted for in this document. Catch assessment of age composition clearly indicates that a large proportion of the harvest is of older walleye, which is not unexpected given the migratory behaviour of adult Bay of Quinte walleye.
In contrast, commercial fishing harvest has not been a major contributing factor in fishing mortality since the 1950s (see figure 6), and for the most part harvesting has been less than 20% of its quota annually (OMNR 2007a). This is not an indication of walleye status, but rather a result of license conditions limiting gear and access to walleye. These restrictive license conditions and the elimination and/or limitation of access to areas where the commercial walleye quota could be harvested by the fishery were imposed over time by LOMU in response to the concerns of anglers and angler organizations (OMNR 2003a).
The walleye is also a significant component to First Nations’ traditions and sustenance harvesting for local communities.
Despite all of these fisheries and their associated harvests, walleye remain abundant, diverse in age, successfully produce young, and continue to contribute to fishing among all users. They are still the number one target of recreational fishers in eastern Lake Ontario.
Fishery Management Tools
One of the current LOMU fish community objectives for the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario is to maintain walleye as the key top predator, which is supported by a fishery objective within the Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan that promotes a better balance of top predators. Given the current state of the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario ecosystem, the status of walleye in the future appears to be one that continues to meet this objective, and remains stable even though their numbers are less than in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The management of the walleye population in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario is focused on obtaining the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999). The general goal for all Great Lakes fisheries management is to provide for fish communities based on enduring populations of naturally reproducing fish and on the wise use of stocked fish. In the Bay of Quinte’s nearshore community the objective is for a composition of diverse, self-sustaining, native fish species, with maintenance of existing walleye populations and the expansion of walleye populations into favourable habitats. The Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (SPOF II) (OMNR 1992) provides further guiding principles in walleye management for the Province of Ontario in allowing for sustainable development, limiting the harvest of walleye, advocating natural reproduction, acquiring the best scientific knowledge available, and taking into account the high societal benefits of the Bay of Quinte walleye.
Fish community objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999) proposed that walleye fisheries be maintained at early 1990s catch rates. However, the current Bay of Quinte walleye fishery falls short of attaining early 1990s fishing success because the current state of the entire ecosystem appears to be less favourable to walleye than it was in the early 1990s. Rather than using targets that reflect a walleye fishery that existed before dreissenid mussel
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 53 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan invasion, the BQFAC proposes to develop population performance targets that reflect the current state of the now stabilized walleye population. We propose to use catch data from NSCIN and index gillnetting collected during the last five years (2002-2006), when the walleye population had stabilized, to develop juvenile and adult population targets. Similarly the last five years of index trawl data will be used to develop a recruitment performance target.
In reality, there are two distinct walleye fisheries in the Bay of Quinte, a spring and summer fishery that targets smaller juveniles and a fall and winter fishery which targets larger adult walleye. Therefore population performance targets will need to be developed on both populations. Previously mentioned assessment data (NSCIN, gillnetting, trawling) will be used to develop performance targets for juvenile walleye within the Bay of Quinte while assessment data from index gillnetting in the Kingston Basin of Lake Ontario will be used to develop performance targets for adult walleye.
Based on the last five years of assessment data the following population performance targets were determined. All targets developed in the BQFMP will include the mean catch for the period of interest and the standard error (e.g. 2.5 ± 0.7 walleye / standardized bottom trawl).
Recruitment (Young of the Year (YOY))
The number of YOY walleye taken in bottom trawling gear in any five year period should be at least 5.9 ± 1.0 walleye / standardized bottom trawl. However, four years of zero catches and one year of a relatively large catch could satisfy this target. Ideally recruitment should be somewhat regular to produce a stable fishery. Therefore an additional performance target addressing recruitment patterns was needed. The BQFAC decided on the following target of no more than two consecutive years of zero catches in the assessment gear.
Juvenile Walleye (1 – 4 years old)
Two gear types (NSCIN trap nets and index gillnets within the Bay of Quinte) will be used to monitor the abundance of juvenile walleye. At least 3.8 ± 0.6 walleye per trapnet should be taken during the fall Nearshore Community Index Surveys in any five year period and at least 33 ± 7 walleye per standardized gillnet should be taken during the same time frame. In years when only portions of the bay are sampled (e.g. NSCIN) targets will be adjusted to be area specific.
Adult Walleye ( > 4 years old)
At least 11.5 ± 1.5 walleye per standardized gillnet should be captured in the Kingston Basin in any five year period.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 54 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
It is important to note that the ecosystem of the Bay of Quinte has limits. Not all species can be managed to their respective maximum abundances. If we are to keep walleye as the focus of management within the bay, then some species will need to be managed at somewhat lower population levels. Due to the importance of the walleye fishery, we propose to use the period of the stabilized walleye population (2002-2006) as a reference point for all fish species. That is catch rates for other species during the same period will be used to develop their respective population targets. However, for those species that are present in lower than desired abundances, such as species at risk (e.g. American eel, lake sturgeon), the BQFMP will advocate for increases in catch rates.
An additional target frequently developed reflects angler satisfaction. Other fisheries management plans have used a catch rate target of 0.3 CUE (catch per unit effort) as a representational benchmark of a ‘quality walleye fishery’; a benchmark qualified by angler contentment (Colby et al. 1991). However, this target was developed on Minnesota Lakes and may not represent the attitudes of anglers in the Bay of Quinte. With many years of creel data available from the Bay of Quinte, it was decided that a Quinte specific catch rate target be developed.
To develop the angling target creel data from the last 17 years were analysed and catch rates and release rates were compared. The hypothesis was that release rate was directly related to catch rate. During years with poor catch rates, the release rate should be lower and as fishing improves the release rates should increase. At some point the release rate should level off as most fishers take their allotment. The CUE at which the release rate levels off can be used as an indicator of angler satisfaction (see Figure 7). On the Bay of Quinte this CUE value is 0.25 which also happens to be the average catch rate for the last five years (2002 – 2006).
Figure 7. Release rates vs. catch rates (CUE , numbers of fish per rod hour) of walleye caught in the Bay of Quinte during the open water fishery (May – November). The inflection point indicates the point at which anglers are satisfied.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 55 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Angler Satisfaction Target
Maintain angler catch rates of at least 0.25 fish / rod hour in the open water fishery
Some researchers and managers speculate that increasing habitat for spawning may lead to more walleye recruitment and a larger population. This hypothesis is, however, a long- term prospective and fraught with uncertainty about spawner biomass, carrying capacity, survival of young fish, and other influential variables such as population and community dynamics. Stakeholders have also suggested supplementing the Bay with reared walleye to increase the population abundances. OMNR, however, does not consider stocking over an existing population as a viable method to maintaining walleye in the Bay of Quinte because stocking hatchery-reared fish into a naturally reproducing population creates ecological and health issues for the receiving population and community and does not address the reasons for the population declines (OMNR 2005b).
Proposed Management Objectives
a) Maintain the following population performance targets developed from assessment sampling:
The number of YOY walleye taken in bottom trawling gear in any five year period should be at least 5.9 ± 1.0 walleye / standardized bottom trawl with no more than two consecutive years of zero catch (recruitment).
At least 3.8 ± 0.6 juvenile walleye per trapnet should be taken during the fall Nearshore Community Index Surveys in the Bay of Quinte in any five year period and at least 33 ± 7 juvenile walleye per standardized gillnet should be taken in the bay during the same time frame. In years when only portions of the bay are sampled (e.g. NSCIN) targets will be adjusted to be area specific. At least 11.5 ± 1.5 adult walleye per standardized gillnet should be captured in the Kingston Basin in any five year period – aside from YOY sampling, index netting should contain multiple year classes of walleye.
b) Monitor the degree of satisfaction of anglers and its relationship with walleye abundance and population characteristics using a CUE benchmark of 0.25 walleye rod hour (open water fishery) to represent good walleye fishing.
c) Maximize use of commercial quotas; the current management approach is not useful because harvest has averaged about 20% of the quota for several years.
d) Improve promotion of the wise use of walleye among anglers, commercial fishers (Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Commercial Fishing Operations, DFO) and First Nations so they can collaboratively employ fishing ethics that strive to achieve FCOs.
e) To use legislation and regulation when necessary to protect and promote walleye and the fisheries it supports.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 56 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
5.2 Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass
Life History
Smallmouth bass prefer cooler water temperatures than the largemouth bass and require gravely, clean substrate in shallow waters to reproduce. This species is intolerant to pollution and is, therefore, regarded as a good indicator of ecological changes to its habitat. Largemouth bass on the other hand are tolerant of much warmer and weedier environments and mucky substrate.
Both species spawn in the late spring-early summer. The males construct a nest and guard the eggs and swim-up fry after the female fish leaves (OMNR 2006f). The range of largemouth bass has been extended similar to that for smallmouth bass; largely introduced in the waters of southern Ontario to enhance the recreational fishery. This species, unfortunately, has been documented in many lakes to cause adverse ecological impacts because of its implication in the decline of local fish populations through predation. The warming affects of climate change will benefit the largemouth bass by inevitably extending the distribution range of this species into new habitats.
Current Population Status
Like many other species, the smallmouth bass population within the Bay of Quinte were in decline during the eutrophic conditions of the 1960s. Following the initiation of nutrient abatement programs and the occurrence of very warm summers especially in 1973, smallmouth bass recruitment increased in the 1970s and early 1980s. Abundance declined dramatically through the mid-1980s, and very few smallmouth bass were caught during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Abundance increased during the mid-1990s but has since declined again (Figure 8.). The year-class composition of the increased catches in recent years (1996 to 2000) was comprised of young fish; all fish were from the 1994 to 1999 year- classes, and nearly 50% originated from the 1995 year-class. In 2001 however, no fish from the 1995 year-class were observed.
The low smallmouth bass abundance during the late-1980s and early 1990s may have been due to high competitor abundance (i.e., walleye). In turn, the increase in smallmouth bass abundance in the mid-1990s may be due to lower walleye abundance and favourable weather conditions (warm summers).
Reasons for the current low abundance levels are unclear. However, some contributing factors may include; walleye–smallmouth interactions (as previously mentioned), reduced recruitment resulting from cormorant predation, reduced recruitment due to habitat change (clearer water with increased aquatic plant production conditions more favourable for largemouth bass), and nest predation.
Little is known about the distribution of smallmouth spawning habitat within the Bay of Quinte. Spawning may be widespread or it may be localized in a few primary spawning areas. If spawning locations are localized, these areas and nesting success in these areas may be sensitive to habitat alterations and pre-season angling
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 57 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 8. Smallmouth bass abundance (3-year running average) in Bay of Quinte (Big Bay site) index gillnets, during mid summer 1972 – 2006.
Largemouth bass significantly increased in abundance within the Bay of Quinte in the late 1990s. Presumably, this is related to an increase in suitable habitat as a result of ecosystem changes in the Bay following zebra mussel invasion including clearer water and more aquatic vegetation, as well as favourable climatic conditions (i.e., warm summers). Like the largemouth bass, other centrarchids that associate with aquatic plants have also flourished including pumpkinseed, bluegill, and black crappie (Figure 9). It has been hypothesized that further increases in the population sizes of warm water fishes may occur as a result of climate change and the subsequent warming of the lake (Mills et al. 2003).
Figure 9. Largemouth bass catch rate (number of fish per-targeted angler hour; 3- year running average) in the Bay of Quinte , and combined abundance of pumpkinseed,bluegill, and black crappie (3-year running averages in bottom trawls) in the Bay of Quinte (1972-2002), during summer.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 58 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
With expanding populations of littoral fish species in the Bay of Quinte, a new sampling method was required to track fish community changes. The long-term fish community index netting programs on the Bay– that employed gillnet and bottom trawling gear in offshore areas–were not adequately assessing the expanding fish community in nearshore waters. Therefore, in 2001, the provincially standardized nearshore community index netting (NSCIN, Stirling 1999) program was initiated. The standardized program ensures that results are comparable across years and with other lakes in Ontario. Centrachids were much more numerous in NSCIN trapnets (59% of total catch) compared with index gillnets (9%) and trawls (20%). Work is underway to develop catch targets for small and largemouth bass using this new sampling methodology.
Current Fishery Regulations
The recreational fishery for bass is the main source of human induced mortality for these two species and as such this section will focus on the sport fishery.
Regulatory tools used for smallmouth bass and largemouth bass in southern Ontario include season closures during the winter and the spring-early summer nesting periods, catch and possession limits, sanctuaries, and size limit regulations.
Season Closures
Bass seasons in the lower Great Lakes and the southern portion of Ontario have traditionally been closed during the late spring-early summer to coincide with the spawning season and also during the winter when bass are congregated in over wintering areas. These periods have generally been considered as times when large bass (brood stock) are particularly vulnerable to angling (Ridgway and Shuter 1997, Kieffer et al. 1993). The angling season for smallmouth and largemouth bass in Lake Ontario, including the Bay of Quinte, begins on the last Saturday in June and ends on November 30.
However there is some controversy regarding the use of fixed closed seasons. Fixed season dates cannot respond to variation in spring warming rates and associated bass spawning activities (Kubacki et al. 2002). Some jurisdictions have year-round seasons or promote catch and release fishing during the nesting period to increase angling opportunities. However, large bass are particularly vulnerable during the spawning and nesting period and studies have shown that even catch-and-release fishing of nesting bass can impair reproductive success and subsequent recruitment (Kieffer et al. 1995, Philipp et al. 1997, Cooke et al. 2000). This situation may be more acute in southern Ontario where waters generally have more complex fish communities and, therefore, greater predation.
Catch and Possession Limits
Catch limit is defined as the number of fish an angler is allowed to catch and keep in one day. Fish that are caught and eaten that day as a shore lunch are counted as part of the daily catch limit. The possession limit is the number of fish an angler is allowed to legally possess at any time whether on-hand, in cold storage, or in transit. The concept behind catch and possession limits is to limit the harvest, to equitably distribute the resource among users, and to convey a realistic expectation regarding capacity of the fishery resource. Currently, anglers are permitted to have six (6) bass in their possession with a recreational license and two (2) with a conservation license in the Bay of Quinte.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 59 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Size Limits
Size limit regulations are usually intended to increase the size of fish caught, maximize yield, and protect brood stock while maintaining angling quality at often increased levels of effort. There are three basic types of size limits: (1) minimum size limit whereby all fish below a certain size must be released; (2) slot size limit under which all fish within a designated range must either be released (protected slot) or retained (harvested slot); and (3) maximum size limit where all fish above a designated size must be released.
Considerable research has been done on the effectiveness of various size limit regulations (Wilde 1997, Kerr and Conroy 2002). Several studies have shown that minimum size limits tend to result in high densities of small bass under the size limit (Johnson and Anderson 1974, Keith 1978, Green 1993). This can result in populations characterized with reduced growth rates and increased natural mortality (Ridgway et al. 2002). It may be more advantageous to harvest these smaller individuals to improve growth rates. Protected slot limits have generally been found to restructure bass populations (e.g., increased numbers of larger fish) but have not been shown to increase angler catch rates or harvest (Wilde 1997). Research has indicated the importance of large male and female bass as brood stock (Ridgway et al. 1991, Ridgway and Friesen 1992). Where necessary, maximum size limits should be used to protect key brood stock fish (e.g., fish ≥ 7 years of age). For smallmouth bass this would equate to a 35 cm (14 inch) fish and for largemouth bass this would approximate a 38 cm (15 inch) fish (OMNR 2006f). Whatever approach is selected it is important to note that size- based regulations require a through knowledge of growth rates, maturation schedules and recruitment for fish populations in specific regions of the province.
Fish Sanctuaries
Fish sanctuaries are designated areas where all fishing is prohibited. Sanctuaries can be seasonal in duration or extend for the entire year. They are usually established at times when fish are especially vulnerable to angling (e.g., nesting period). Sztramko (1985) concluded that an established bass sanctuary on Long Point Bay, Lake Erie, prevented anglers from interfering with nesting bass and improved angler success during the legal season. However, for sanctuaries to be effective, a significant number of spawners would need to be protected. Thorough knowledge of the relative importance of specific areas for spawning bass would be required to adequately protect a sufficient number of nest sites. This type of information has not been collected in the Bay of Quinte.
Ecological Significance
Both smallmouth and largemouth bass take a variety of food items from surface waters, the water column, and bottom habitats. There is a dietary progression with increased body size from zooplankton, to immature insects, to crayfish and fishes. As such, both species are top- down structuring predators as adults and bottom-up structuring species when immature, particularly during years characterized with a strong year class. Since both species have very different habitat requirements with respect to underwater structure, their ecological significance is very important within their respective habitats, and collectively they are important within the Bay of Quinte wherever they are abundant.
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interaction
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 60 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Both bass species provide excellent fishing opportunities for the recreational fishery. In recent years, largemouth bass has become the focus of the Bay’s growing tournament fishing events because of its increasing abundance.
Commercial fishers, however, are not allowed to harvest bass.
Fishery Management Tools
The management of bass populations in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario is guided by the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999). The general goal for Great Lakes fisheries management is to provide for fish communities based on enduring populations of naturally reproducing fish. For nearshore communities, like the Bay of Quinte, the objective is for a composition of diverse, self-sustaining, native-fish species, including population levels of smallmouth and largemouth bass that are attractive to anglers. The Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (OMNR 1992) provides further guiding principles in bass management for the Province of Ontario by allowing for sustainable development, advocating natural reproduction, acquiring the best scientific knowledge available, and taking into account the high societal benefits of Bay of Quinte bass.
Currently, LOMU uses their open water angler creel surveys, community index gillnetting, and recently employed nearshore community index netting (trapnetting) to monitor the status of both of these species.
Due to the importance of the walleye fishery, we propose to use the period of the stabilized walleye population (2002-2006) as a reference point for all fish species. That is catch rates for smallmouth and largemouth bass during the same period will be used to develop their respective population targets. Specifically, we propose to use CUE’s from the NSCIN project to develop population targets for these species.
Based on the last five years of NSCIN assessment data the following population performance targets were determined:
Smallmouth Bass have been captured at a rate of .95 ± 0.18 fish per trapnet set (2002 – 2005). Trap data indicates that numbers are depressed. BQFAC supports the implementation of a target for greater catches of smallmouth bass. No firm target has been set for smallmouth bass due to catchability issues with this gear for this species. However the use of the gear for determining relative abundance across years was supported.
Largemouth bass have been captured at a rate of 4.4 ± 0.8 fish per trapnet set (2002 – 2005). Trap net data indicates healthy numbers of largemouth bass in the Bay of Quinte. The BQFAC supports the maintenance of current levels of largemouth bass in the Bay of Quinte. In years when only portions of the bay are sampled (e.g. NSCIN) targets will be adjusted to be area specific
Proposed Management Objectives
a) Population performance targets set using NSCIN Index netting surveys Smallmouth bass catch rates in NSCIN gear should be greater than current levels
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 61 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
> 0.95 ± 0.18 fish per trapnet set Largemouth bass catch rates in NSCIN gear should remain at current levels 4.4 ± 0.8 fish per trapnet set
b) Currently, there are no assessment project focusing on bass populations or harvest. An implementation goal is to improve our understanding of the bass fishery (numbers harvested and population size) and use the data to develop recreational catch rate targets.
c) Maintain current catch and possession limits until targets are developed.
i. 6 fish for holders of a sport fishing licence and 2 fish for holders of a conservation licence (provincial standard).
d) An aggregate catch and possession limit for largemouth and smallmouth bass should be maintained
e) If populations are in need of alternate management approaches (i.e. new closed season dates, fish sanctuaries, size limits), ensure approaches are evaluated and assessed after implementation to ascertain if objectives are achieved. These steps require a sound biological rationale.
5.3 Yellow Perch
Life History
Yellow perch are found both in warm and cool water habitats throughout the Bay of Quinte. They are commonly found in open-water habitat of lakes that have clear water and moderate weed growth. Generally speaking, yellow perch spawn in early spring from mid-April to early May in tributaries or shallow areas of the lake near woody debris or rooted plants so that the egg masses have a surface to adhere to. Their migration to spawn is relatively local to their summer habitat.
Current Population Status
In the Bay of Quinte, yellow perch abundance is determined using standardized fish community index gillnetting, index trawling, and nearshore community index trapnetting programs.
Yellow perch is one of the most numerous and widespread nearshore species caught in the assessment programs. It is most common in and around embayments and much less abundant in open coastal waters of Lake Ontario proper.
Yellow perch abundance was low in the 1980s and increased dramatically during the mid- 1990s coincident with the arrival of dreissenid mussels (Figure. 10). Abundance of age-0 perch increased dramatically beginning in 1995 (Table 16). Presumably this was facilitated by the tremendous increase in aquatic macrophytes, which offered protection from predators and a competitive advantage over openwater species such as alewife, gizzard shad and white perch.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 62 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Yellow perch abundance has fallen somewhat from the mid 1990 levels but remains relatively high (Figure 10). Age-0 yellow perch catches in Bay of Quinte bottom trawls were high in 2005 and 2006 potentially indicating strong year-classes in comparison to long-term data (Table 16). This should translate into a continued high perch population status for the next few years.
Figure 10. Yellow Perch abundance (3 year running average) in Bay of Quinte index gillnets (Big bay site) during midsummer, 1981 to 2006.
TABLE 16. Mean catch-per-trawl of age-0 yellow perch at six Bay of Quinte sites, 1992-2006. Four replicate trawls on each of two to three visits during August and early September were made at each site. Distance of each trawl drag was 1/4 mile.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 63 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
On Lake Erie, yellow perch have increased in abundance and perhaps growth possibly due to the new diet of round gobies. This response of perch to round goby as a food item has not been confirmed in Bay of Quinte, but round goby are nonetheless potentially important diet items.
Current Fishery Regulations
The angling season for yellow perch in Lake Ontario including the Bay of Quinte is open all year round. Historically, anglers were permitted unlimited catches of yellow perch for both sport and conservation licenses. Based on results of a Survey of Ontario Anglers in 2000, 93.7% of respondents (374,799 of 399,831 respondents) support the designation of a catch limit for yellow perch (DFO 2003). New limits are in effect as of 2008, currently the holder of a sport license is permitted to harvest 50 yellow perch per day while the holder of a conservation license is permitted to harvest 25 per day.
Special regulations such as size limits and bait and gear restrictions have not been used in Ontario to regulate the angling of yellow perch. Biologists believe that these restrictions would not be practical to regulate yellow perch recreational fisheries, although they are used extensively for commercial fisheries for yellow perch in Ontario (OMNR 2004a).
Ecological Significance
Yellow perch feed extensively on aquatic insects, and within their first growing season often switch to small fish of any species. Perch fall somewhere in the middle of the food web as they are prey for large fish, but predators of many small fish (including yellow perch) and invertebrates. Due to their prevalence and wide distribution in the Bay of Quinte, they are clearly vital components of the ecosystem.
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interaction
Many anglers do not target yellow perch due to their relatively small size. They are often caught “incidentally” while angling for more preferred species such as walleye, bass or crappie. Angling harvest of Bay of Quinte yellow perch has continued to decline over the past two decades, although 2005 saw a slight increase in angling success (OMNR 2006h).
By far the most important commercial species harvested from the Bay of Quinte in terms of weight and value is yellow perch. Being an important component of the commercial fishery yellow perch harvest is managed through catch quotas. In QZ 1-3 live-capture/non- lethal passive gear (i.e., hoop nets and trap nets) are used exclusively to capture commercial species. However, in QZ 1-4 both live capture/non-lethal passive gear and gill net gear (2 3/16” to 4 ½" mesh size) are used.
The commercial harvest of yellow perch declined from 2000-2004 but has improved in recent years, with harvests from 2006 being the highest in over a decade in the Bay of Quinte (figure 11). In 2006, yellow perch harvest was 168,518 lb, 72% of the quota representing 80 percent of the total catch by weight generating over 70 percent of the total revenue collected from the Bay of Quinte fishery. The landed value of the 2006 Bay of Quinte perch fishery was $251,093.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 64 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 11. Commercial harvest of yellow perch from quota zones 1-3 (upper Bay of Quinte) and 1-4 (lower bay of Quinte), 1994 – 2006.
Fishery Management Tools
In the early 1980s, commercial perch quotas were introduced in response to concerns over heavy fishing pressures and fluctuating yellow perch stocks in Lake Ontario. Until the 1990s, angling harvest of yellow perch was virtually unregulated in most areas of the province, including no regulated closed seasons or daily catch and possession limits. It was not until the last decade that angling regulations were more widely applied for this species. Today, several areas of the province including Lake Ontario have implemented catch limits to control the harvest of yellow perch (OMNR 2004a).
The management of the yellow perch population in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario is guided by the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999). In the nearshore community of the Bay of Quinte the objective is for a composition of diverse, self-sustaining, native-fish species, including sustaining yellow perch populations and their expansion into favourable habitats. The Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (OMNR 1992) provides further guidance to yellow perch management in Ontario by allowing for sustainable development, advocating natural reproduction, acquiring the best scientific knowledge available, and taking into account the high societal benefits of the Bay of Quinte’s yellow perch.
Yellow perch are monitored in detail using fishery independent methods. Angler harvest is not monitored in detail, but total catch by commercial fishers is reported daily. No recent detailed analyses of these fisheries and perch populations have been done. Explicit and quantitative fisheries management objectives for yellow perch should be developed and assessed.
Due to the importance of the walleye fishery, we propose to use the period of the stabilized walleye population (2002-2006) as a reference point for all fish species. That is catch rates for yellow perch during the same period will be used to develop their respective population performance targets. Specifically, we propose to use CUE’s from the index gillnetting and NSCIN project to develop population targets for this species.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 65 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Based on the last five years of assessment data the following population performance targets were determined.
Recruitment (Young of the Year (YOY))
The number of YOY perch taken in bottom trawling gear in any five year period should be at least 309 ± 57 fish / standardized bottom trawl.
Juvenile / Adult Perch
Two gear types (NSCIN trap nets and index gillnets within the Bay of Quinte) will be used to monitor the abundance of juvenile perch. At least 1.8 ± 0.36 perch per trapnet should be taken during the fall Nearshore Community Index Surveys in any five year period and at least 753 ± 66 perch per standardized gillnet should be taken during the same time frame. In years when only portions of the bay are sampled (e.g. NSCIN) targets will be adjusted to be area specific.
Proposed Management Objectives
a) Maintain the following population performance targets developed from assessment sampling:
The number of YOY perch taken in bottom trawling gear in any five year period should be at least 78 ± 26 fish / standardized bottom trawl.
At least 1.8 ± 0.3 perch per trapnet should be taken during the fall Nearshore Community Index Surveys in the Bay of Quinte in any five year period and at least 753 ± 66 perch per standardized gillnet should be taken in the bay during the same time frame.
b) Develop, using current data, angler surveys and commercial harvest statistics, explicit and quantitative fisheries objectives, and/or performance measures for 2009.
c) Maintain a year round open fishing season for yellow perch in the Bay of Quinte recreational fishery. Current seasonal and gear restrictions for the commercial perch fishery will remain however future restrictions may be considered depending on perch population status.
d) Due to the increasing importance of the yellow perch fishery, and the potential for yellow perch to be spread to new waters, with the associated disease issues, the use of yellow perch as bait will be rescinded.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 66 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
5.4 Northern Pike
Life History
Northern pike are large keystone piscivores that are important in “top-down” predatory regulation of the fish community. They can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions but are primarily mesothermal, or cool-water, fish best adapted to shallow (< 12 m), productive, mesotrophic-eutrophic environments (Cassleman and Lewis 1996). They are a common species found in 45% of the total freshwater area of North America (Carlander et al. 1978).
Generally, northern pike spawn in shallow water over vegetation in spring shortly after ice- out, when these shallows have warmed to 8–12°C. The fish tend to migrate up tributaries to flooded marshes and wetlands or shallow shoreline inundations. Optimal spawning substrate is flooded vegetation in a shallow, sheltered area. Grasses and sedges are preferred, but other vegetation may be used (Casselman and Lewis 1996). Spawning success has been linked to water-level changes (Inskip 1982). High water levels at time of spawning with stable levels after the incubation period are associated with large year- classes of northern pike (Johnson 1957). Pike spawning and rearing habitat may be impacted by water level regulation and loss of habitat to wetland removal or change in plant structure (Minns et al. 1996).
As is true for many species, nursery (young-of-the-year) requirements for northern pike are much less thoroughly studied than spawning habitat requirements. This lack of knowledge has led to the misconception that nursery habitat and requirements are probably less limiting and important than spawning habitat requirements. As young pike grow their habitats must expand and their foraging activity must increase making them more susceptible to predation so dense vegetative cover is important in providing them shelter, enhancing survival. Although woody debris and other structures can afford cover and are sometimes important, young northern pike prefer submerged vegetation with some emergent and floating vegetation interspersed. Vegetation density in preferred habitat changes with body size with larger adults preferring more sparsely vegetated habitats than juveniles (Casselman and Lewis 1996). In winter, northern pike tend to occupy deeper habitats as ice cover and die-back of vegetation change the inshore habitat and oxygen depletion commences (Casselman 1978).
Year class strength in the Bay of Quinte is positively related to water temperatures. Casselman et al. 1999 suggests that warm temperatures in the Bay may be unsuitable for large adult pike in the summer.
Current Population Status
Northern pike was once an important commercial species in the lower Great Lakes with annual harvest approaching 1.6 million kgs in the early 1900s. Over the past half century, habitat changes have significantly affected production of northern pike especially in the Great Lakes Basin. Loss of wetlands, reduction of shoreline cover and structure, cultural eutrophication, and siltation have negatively affected water transparency, abundance of macrophyte habitat, and even body condition (Casselman and Lewis 1996).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 67 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
In 2005, 3,047 northern pike were recorded as caught and 748 were harvested during the open water creel recreational fishery in the Bay of Quinte. Catches of northern pike have declined by approximately 26% since the early 1990s and make up only 1.7% of the total angler catch in 2005. Northern pike, however, have not been a major fishery species in the Bay. They are rarely targeted by anglers or commercial fishers and are usually bi-catch. Bay of Quinte index gillnet records also document reduced northern pike abundance. Catches of northern pike in assessment gill nets are about half of what they were in the Bay of Quinte in the early 1990s (Table 17). This perceived decline may be an artefact of warmer water temperatures for researchers have speculated that larger pike may now leave the bay to summer in deeper cooler Lake Ontario habitats. Northern pike catches in index nets are mostly composed of smaller younger fish.
Table 17 – Northern Pike catch per gillnet set in the Bay of Quinte, 1992-2005, (39 species in total caught). Shown are the average catches in 1-3 gillnet gangs set at each of 1-5 depths (range 5- 40 m) during each of 2-4 visits (summer) to each of 3 sites (Big Bay, Hay Bay and Conway).
Species 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean Northern Pike 2.7 4.1 6.8 1.9 2.6 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.0 1.9 Total Catch 1468 1807 1283 1293 828 1006 1011 1154 956 957 923 717 845 927 1084 Number of Sets 36 21 36 24 28 32 30 31 32 36 36 34 34 34 Source: 2005 LOMU Annual Report, Index Fishing Projects (OMNR 2006)
Current Fishery Regulations
Peak spawning generally occurs in the latter part of April. Closed seasons, when present, generally coincide with the spring spawning period (April 1 to early May) to protect fish at a vulnerable time and to eliminate the harvest of spawning fish. Angling for northern pike in the Bay of Quinte currently is open from January 1 to March 31 and also from the first Saturday in May until December 31. Anglers are currently permitted to have in their possession six (6) pike with a sport license and two (2) with a conservation license. Many anglers are believed to fish for northern pike for trophy opportunities.
Generally, northern pike regulations are not reflective of well defined fishing quality objectives. Regulations appear to focus some protection on large northern pike, but few regulations appear to clearly support the production of trophy northern pike (OMNR 2006i). Size limit regulations have been used in an attempt to improve the quality (i.e., increase the size of fish caught) of the fishery, restore a failing fishery, increase the yield from a healthy fishery or maintain an adequate number of females (OMNR 2006i).
Growth rate is probably the most important consideration when selecting a size limit regulation. Knowledge of the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) parameters of a waterbody is essential when determining an appropriate size limit as they can significantly influence the growth rate of northern pike. For example, there is evidence to suggest that large deepwater lakes, which provide thermal refuge as well as pelagic prey may facilitate the growth of larger northern pike (Casselman 1978, Kempinger and Carline 1978, Diana 1987). Anglers should realize that some lakes are not capable of producing trophy opportunities (OMNR 2006i).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 68 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
As of October 2006, commercial harvest of northern pike caught incidentally in QZ 1-3 with non-lethal passive gear (i.e., trapnets) and in QZ 1-4 with non-lethal passive gear and gillnets are permitted on a pilot basis.
Ecological Significance
Northern pike are a top predator in the Bay of Quinte, but their low abundance suggests a less important role than largemouth and smallmouth bass in the Bay. However, due to its persistence in the Bay year round, northern pike may play an important top down structuring role within the nearshore community, particularly along the edge of aquatic plant beds.
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interaction
Northern pike provide substantial recreational fishing opportunities in Ontario because of their province-wide distribution, abundance and vulnerability to angling (OMNR 2006i). The Recreational Fishing Survey (2000) indicates that northern pike ranked second only to walleye in species preference by anglers who fished in Ontario, and in the BQFMP Public Survey (Appendix A) pike was the second most important fish in need of management tactics to sustain its population (OMNR 2003b).
Northern pike have been taken in commercial gear as bi-catch and some netting mortality has been documented. To make use of these fish, the Ministry of Natural Resources has initiated a pilot commercial fishing allowance for northern pike in 2006. This information will help managers assess the value of the fishery and provide insight into the types of catches. It is not anticipated that northern pike will become targeted by the commercial fishery due to their low value.
Fishery Management Tools
The management of the northern pike population in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario is guided by the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999). In the nearshore, like the Bay of Quinte, the objective is for a composition of diverse, self- sustaining, native-fish species including northern pike.
Due to the importance of the walleye fishery, we propose to use the period of the stabilized walleye population (2002-2006) as a reference point for all fish species. That is catch rates for northern pike during the same period will be used to develop their respective population targets. Specifically, we propose to use CUE’s from the NSCIN project to develop population targets for this species.
Based on the last five years of assessment data the following population performance targets were determined.
At least 0.84 ± 0.07 northern pike per trap net should be taken during the fall Nearshore Community Index Surveys in any five year period. In years when only portions of the bay are sampled (e.g. NSCIN) targets will be adjusted to be area specific.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 69 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Proposed Management Objectives
a) Maintain the following population performance targets developed from assessment sampling:
At least 0.84 ± 0.07 northern pike per trapnet should be taken during the fall Nearshore Community Index Surveys in the Bay of Quinte in any five year period.
b) By 2008, develop, using current assessment data, angler surveys and commercial harvest statistics, explicit and quantitative fisheries objectives, and/or performance measures.
c) Maintain current northern pike recreational fishing regulations in the Bay of Quinte.
d) When considering altering recreational fish regulations, including seasons, incorporate the northern pike toolkit regulations as a guideline.
e) Continue to monitor and analyse the pilot commercial harvest of northern pike and assess the potential for a production quota.
5.5 Lake Whitefish
Life History
The lake whitefish is a cold-water species that moves from shallow to deep water as warming occurs and back to shallow water in the cooler months. Lake whitefish spawn in the fall, usually late October through to December in the Lake Ontario basin. Spawning usually occurs in shallow water at depths of less than 7.6 m (25 ft) and often in less than 2 m in the Bay of Quinte over a hard or stony bottom and occasionally over sand. The eggs are deposited at random over the spawning grounds and remain there until they hatch to following spring.
In the Bay of Quinte young whitefish emerge in early April and move offshore and towards the lower bay during May. Their food during early life history is zooplankton, after which they switch to crustacean and later molluscs. Adult lake whitefish may over winter in the Bay where water temperatures are suitable and forage is abundant. The primary diet of adult whitefish, at least historically, is Diporeia sp. a deep water crustacean (Ihssen et al. 1981). By spring, adults have migrated to the lower bay and eastern Lake Ontario.
Current Status
Lake whitefish have long been an important component of the Lake Ontario commercial fishery. Whitefish are typically harvested at spawning time in the fall at two primary locations in Ontario, the Bay of Quinte and off the south shore of Prince Edward County in Lake Ontario. Various other spawning locations exist, which may be used by the commercial fishers.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 70 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Lake whitefish demonstrated very similar trends to walleye in population abundances. During the 1950s and 1960s lake whitefish declined to remnant levels and after 1978 began to recover. During the late 1980s lake whitefish resurged. Many years of successful reproduction ensued until the mid-1990s (Figure 12).
After the invasion of the dreissenid mussels (zebra and quagga), lake whitefish abundance began to decline. During this time, the diet of adult whitefish rapidly changed because Diporeia virtually disappeared. The decline in Diporeia abundance maybe directly related to dreissenid mussel impacts (e.g., direct competition for phytoplankton)(OMNR 2002d). Due to the decline in prey preference, lake whitefish switched to dreissenids and other benthic invertebrates like snails. In association with the shift in diet to dreissenids, was a dramatic decline in lake whitefish body condition, lower reproductive success, and a decline in abundance (OMNR 2002d).
The prevalence of old fish and catches comprising year-classes produced in the late-1980s and early 1990s suggests that mortality of adult fish was not excessive but rather that recent recruitment levels after the mid-1990s were low (OMNR 2006j). However, in 2003 and 2005 relatively high numbers of age-0 (YOY) lake whitefish were captured in index trawls potentially indicating strong year-classes (Table 18). The abundance of lake whitefish age-1 and older remains low relative to that of the early 1990s.
Figure 12. Lake whitefish catch-per-gillnet (sum of catch adjusted to 100 m of each mesh size, 1½ to 6 in), during summer in the Outlet Basin of Lake Ontario, 1972 to 2006
Current Fishery Regulations
There is virtually no recreational fishing effort targeted at lake whitefish. Regulations do exist, however, and this fishery is open year round. Prior to the 2008 recreational fishing regulation changes, anglers were permitted to have in their possession twenty-five (25) whitefish with a sport license and twelve (12) with a conservation license. These numbers have been
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 71 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan reduced and as of 2008, anglers are permitted to have in their possession twelve (12) whitefish with a sport license and six (6) with a conservation license. In 2005, the creel survey indicated only 93 lake whitefish were caught by anglers during the ice-fishery and none during the open-water fishery. These results suggest that some whitefish do over winter in the Upper Bay, which is important data to incorporate into commercial harvest and habitat management objectives.
Lake whitefish are captured in live capture gear (trap and hoop nets) within QZ 1-3 and in QZ 1-4 fishers can use either live capture gear or 4.5 inch stretched mesh gillnets (lethal fishing gear). This is a quota managed species with seasonal conditions imposed on licenses as well.
Ecological Significance
Lake whitefish have been a cyclically abundant species in the cold-water fish community of eastern Lake Ontario, and their populations are highly responsive to environmental and climatic conditions (Miller 1956; Pokrovskii 1960; Christie 1973; Ebener 1997; OMNR 2002d). Adult lake whitefish are bottom feeders and their diet includes small fishes, fish eggs, aquatic insect larvae, clams, snails and plankton. Their bust and boom type of population cycles suggest that they may be important indicators of the lower food web as well as environmental quality. Lake whitefish young of the year may also be important diet items to fish like lake trout, walleye and, for a short period, nearshore predators like yellow perch. However, their ecological significance is poorly understood or at least not well recognized in the Bay. Table 18. Mean catch-per-trawl of age-0 lake whitefish at two sites, Conway in the lower Bay of Quinte and EB03 near Timber Island in eastern Lake Ontario, 1992-2006.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 72 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interaction
Lake whitefish have sustained a valuable commercial fishery on Lake Ontario for over 100 years. The peak commercial fishing season for lake whitefish occurs in the fall and into the winter, providing commercial opportunities at a time when nearshore species may not be harvestable due to their distribution in the Bay.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the commercial lake whitefish fishery has declined significantly (Figure 13). The annual lake whitefish harvest has declined by 93 % since 1996 and the price per pound of lake whitefish has been greatly reduced (OMNR 2006k). In 2006, the Bay’s fall fishery was extremely poor. Summer fishing for lake whitefish occurs in eastern Lake Ontario and targets individuals from both spawning locations (Bay of Quinte and south shore of Prince Edward County/Peninsula).
Fishery Management Tools
Although overexploitation has been known to cause a lake whitefish fishery to collapse, lake whitefish have also shown the capability to recover if fishing effort is controlled (Miller 1956; OMNR 2005c). Most efforts to control the exploitation of lake whitefish have focused on the Lake Ontario commercial fishery. However, given the value of lake whitefish as a sport and food fish, it is felt that a more conservative daily catch limit should be established to ensure sustainability and provide a consistent approach across the province (OMNR 2005c). The management of the lake whitefish stocks in the Bay of Quinte and eastern
Figure 13. Commercial harvest of lake whitefish from quota zones 1-3 (upper Bay of Quinte) and 1-4 (lower bay of Quinte), 1994 – 2006.
Lake Ontario is governed by the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999). The general goal for Great Lakes fisheries management is to provide for fish communities based on enduring populations of naturally reproducing fish.
Commercial harvest allocation has been conservative. Increases in quota were made in conjunction with increases in relative abundance and continued successful reproduction.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 73 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Given that poor year-class strength in recent years negatively impact commercial harvest, a more rigorous management strategy was employed. Estimation of a recommended allowable harvest (RAH), using an age-structured population model fitted to the heterogeneous (diversity) mix of the fishery and index fishing, has provided total allowable catch (TAC) estimates since 2003 (OMNR 2002c). This model has been technically reviewed, and the ensuing challenge is to determine an acceptable level of exploitation for a fish population in which the young of the year fish survival has declined substantially.
The joint effort by fishers and the OMNR to develop a risk based approach regarding quota setting, provides fishers with possible scenarios one of which is the likelihood of their fishery collapsing. Fortunately, the harvest of lake whifefish has declined dramatically and for a variety of reasons, such as purchase price, high gas costs, bad weather, aging fishers, etc., current quotas are not achievable. Critical stock size targets (population numbers) have been estimated, but, due to the slower growth rate of younger whitefish and their abundance, the fishery will likely not fish the population lower than these targets because there is a good possibility that many whitefish hatched after 2002 will never grow to a size accepted in today s market.
Proposed Management Objectives
a) Implement a year-round open recreational fishing season for lake whitefish in Lake Ontario, and continue to assess commercial seasons and reduce existing restrictions as feasible.
b) Implement new recreational fishing regulations to control recreational harvest as required.
c) Use current population indicators and current risk based approach to manage fishery.
5.6 Panfish
For the purposes of this FMP, panfish is a general term that will include the following Bay of Quinte sunfish species: pumpkinseed, bluegill, black crappie and rock bass.
Life History
These panfish are warm water species. Typically, these species have similar life histories, including spawning in the late spring and early summer. The male fish constructs nests for spawning and guards the developing eggs and fry throughout mid summer.
During older life stages, panfish prefer relatively shallow waters with moderate amounts of aquatic vegetation. Panfish often congregate in schools, particularly pumpkinseed and bluegill. Under intense fishing pressure populations, sunfish may become stunted particularly if large nesting males are targeted (OMNR 2004b; OMNR 2005d).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 74 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Current Status
Panfish, particularly pumpkinseed, bluegill and black crappie, increased dramatically during the late-1990s in the Bay of Quinte because of increasing optimal habitat conditions and available resources, and a reduction in predation due to a decreasing piscivore population. Most recently, however, their abundance has declined (OMNR 2006c).
Current Fishery Regulations
Currently, the recreational fishing season is open all year on the Bay of Quinte, and existing closures for sunfish are primarily based on a closure for all fish species for that particular area. In some areas sunfish will provide more, or alternative, angling opportunities as targeted species preference change in response to changing population and habitat conditions, and overall fishing opportunities
In the past, sunfish were not managed using catch limits because fisheries managers wanted to promote their harvest and thereby decrease inter- (between)/intra- (among) specific species competition, increase growth rates, and ensure that sunfish populations were not dominated by small, slow-growing fish. In recent years, an increasing harvest of sunfish in many areas of southern Ontario has raised concerns about the need for catch and possession limits. Angling can impact panfish populations by increasing mortality on older, larger fish thereby altering the size structure of the population (Coble 1988, Parsons and Reed 1998) and resulting in a deteriorated fishery (Jennings and Beard 1994).
Conversely, Beard et al. (1997) found that regulations such as catch and possession limits were ineffective in changing the size structure of bluegill populations except under circumstances of high fishing effort and high growth rates, and then only when the fishery was closed in the spawning season. Based on this research, sunfish catch and possession limits may not work to improve the abundance of large bluegill if the regulations do not protect large males well enough to cause a shift in the age at maturity. Catch and possession limits may even induce anglers to harvest only the largest males via targeting the bluegill spawning areas. The end effect of catch and possession limits could be to reduce the quality of the bluegill resource. Spawning area sanctuaries or protected zones might be a more effective management technique to limit the exploitation of large male sunfish.
In the 2000 survey of recreational fishing in Ontario, many anglers indicated that they believed there should be limits on harvesting sunfish (OMNR 2003b). There have also been petitions for catch limits by concerned anglers (OMNR 2005d). Therefore, in order to recognize the biological limitations of the sunfish resource and acknowledge potential uncertainties about unlimited harvest in fish population responses, the establishment of catch limits could be considered with further research and consultation among stakeholders (OMNR 2005d).
Prior to the 2008 recreational fishing regulation changes, there was no harvest limits on sunfish in Lake Ontario other than for crappie where an angler could take 30 fish with a sport license and 10 fish with a conservation license. As of 2008, the holder of a sport-fishing license can take 100 sunfish and the holder of a conservation license can harvest 50 sunfish. The harvest of crappie remains the same.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 75 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
There are no regulations on the commercial fishery at this time, except for quota on black crappie. A seasonal condition exists primarily to reduce user conflicts.
Ecological Significance
Sunfish are omnivorous (generalist) feeders whose diet switches from zooplankton and other micro-organisms to insects, plant material, snails and small fish (OMNR 2005d). These panfish are prolific and widely distributed, and provide an important prey item for many top predators. These omnivorous fishes have an important role midway in the Bay of Quinte food chain. When sunfish dominate a community, or are introduced to a new habitat in which they were previously absent, they have the potential of suppressing other fish species like walleye and bass, e.g., Rice Lake fish community (KLFAU, Rawson, pers.comm.).
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interactions
All species of sunfish, although small in size, are edible and are caught by many Bay of Quinte anglers, even though they may not be targeted. Persons fishing from shore are not surveyed by OMNR and for these fishers panfish may represent an important part of their catch.
The commercial harvest of panfish has increased in the Bay of Quinte throughout the late 1990s and into the 21st century. In 2005, over thirty (30) metric tonnes of pumpkinseed, bluegill, black crappie and rock bass were harvested from the Bay of Quinte (QZ 1-3 and QZ 1-4). In recent years, black crappie surpassed walleye with respect to their purchase value (2.19 per lbs vs. 2.00 per lbs respectively)(OMNR 2006k).
Fishery Management Tools
Management of the panfish population in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario is governed by the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999). The general goal for Great Lakes fisheries management is to provide for fish communities based on enduring populations of naturally reproducing fish. In the Bay of Quinte’s nearshore community, the objective is for a composition of diverse, self-sustaining, native-fish species including panfish. The Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (OMNR 1992) provides further guiding principles in panfish management for the province of Ontario in allowing for sustainable development, advocating natural reproduction, acquiring the best scientific knowledge available, and taking into account the high societal benefits of Bay of Quinte panfish species.
No performance targets were determined at this time for this group of fishes.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 76 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Proposed Management Objectives
a) Develop, using current data, angler surveys and commercial harvest statistics, explicit and quantitative fisheries objectives, and/or performance measures for this group of fish, preferably on a species specific basis, by April 2009.
b) Continue to help partners promote panfish as a viable alternative to walleye fishing.
c) Monitor the commercial and recreational fishery, and reassess objectives routinely.
5.7 Other Species
For the purposes of this FMP, other fish in the Bay of Quinte includes the following species: bullheads, channel catfish, freshwater drum and the common carp.
Life History
The life histories of bullheads, channel catfish, freshwater drum and common carp are quite different.
The catfish family, which includes channel catfish and bullheads (brown and black), represent warm water species. The channel catfish is found usually in cool, clear, deeper water with sand, gravel or rubble bottoms, whereas the bullheads prefer shallower waters that have abundant aquatic vegetation and sand to mud substrates. During the day, both species are most often found in the protection of rocks or logs. All catfish species feed on or near the bottom during the day and at night. Catfish and bullheads spawn in late spring or summer, during which time the males will build nests from existing holes, undercut banks, log jams or rocks, or near aquatic vegetation, and provide parental care to their eggs and young.
The freshwater drum is usually found in shallow or muddy areas of large lakes and avoids waters with swift current and shallow, weedy areas, but can tolerate high turbidity. The freshwater drum feeds near the bottom and spawns in open waters in spring.
The common carp, an introduced species, prefers shallow, weedy, warm water and muddy substrates. Carp spawn in nearshore habitat in early summer as water temperatures warm.
Current Population Status
The status of each species is not well understood. However, the LOMU 2005 Annual Report clearly shows stable abundances for each species over several years. In fact, after a recent die off of freshwater drum, catches of small drum increased, supporting the observation that drum are at record high levels. Together these species represent a large part of the overall fish biomass in the Bay of Quinte.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 77 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Current Fishery Regulations
There are no current recreational regulations for these species, and the recreational fishing season is open all year, with an unlimited harvest per species.
The commercial fishery targets all of these in both QZ 1-3 and 1-4. There are size limitations because of contaminants due to their food-base of filter-feeders (i.e., molluscs). As well, there are gear restrictions for gillnet mesh size allowed to be used to target these species.
Ecological Significance
All catfish family species in the Bay are native; therefore, they constitute a component of the Bays native biodiversity. Catfish feed on a wide variety of plant and animal material, which includes invertebrates, molluscs, crayfish, crabs, green algae, larger water plants, tree seeds, fishes and, rarely, birds. Channel catfish are highly mobile and may further serve the Bay by moving energy to and from Lake Ontario proper. When they are dominant in a community, the ecosystem is often considered impaired in some way. Therefore, they are important environmental indicators of ecological change. Bullheads have also recently been useful as indicators of contaminants in the Trent, Moira and Salmon River outlets to the Bay of Quinte.
Freshwater drum are important in the Bay of Quinte because they are considered the most abundant species based on biomass and produce a large number of young fish. They also eat Dreissenids, which makes them an important step in a food chain that is now anchored to the bottom of the Bay by Dreissenids. Freshwater drum have the capacity to allow energy to be released that would have otherwise been trapped in these molluscs. Many other fish are suspected to eat drum young of the year.
Common carp are also prolific, but are a non-native species. Carp have the potential to cause extensive damage to habitat (e.g., remove native vegetation), but, for unknown reasons, have never become over abundant in the Bay. Carp are important links to the lower food web for top predators including walleye.
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interaction
This group of fish is clearly important within the Bay of Quinte although they are less than glamorous in many stakeholders’ opinions. All are caught by anglers and by commercial fishers. Catfish, bullheads, carp and drum are all considered coarse fish by the commercial fishery and their value are often related to special interest groups and seasonal demand and as such are not a big component of the commercial catch, however, their cumulative catch in 2006 accounted for about 9% of the revenue generated from Bay of Quinte fisheries. This mainly reflects the importance of brown bullhead as that species accounts for 8% of the revenue alone.
Brown bullheads and channel catfish, collectively, contribute the largest biomass in the Bay of Quinte and are, therefore, important to recognize in this FMP. Although highly undesirable with respect to angling, each species has special groups of stakeholders that target them. For example the brown bullhead is often targeted in the spring when they spawn, and both the bullhead and channel catfish are targeted by the commercial fishery throughout QZ 1-3 and 1-4. Parasitic infestation in brown bullhead has led to a decline in the number of
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 78 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan pounds sold (GLFC 2003).
Freshwater drum are targeted by a diverse, yet small number of anglers, and catches are often not well reported. They are harvested by the commercial fishery as well and are not a quota managed species.
Common carp are also targeted by the commercial fishery and have a catch quota in place in the upper Bay of Quinte.
Fishery Management Tools
Currently, common carp is the only quota managed species in this group and catches of bullhead catfish have seasonal restrictions.
If needed, recreational fishing regulations and other commercial conditions could be deployed to manage these species. At this time none are necessary.
No performance targets were determined at this time for this group of fishes.
Proposed Management Objectives
a) Continue to monitor these species using fishery independent and fishery dependent methods to assess the status of the Bay of Quinte ecosystem, in regards to habitat quality, since these species are linked with all previously mentioned fish species.
b) Continue to work with partners to promote year round angling opportunities.
5.8. Prey fish
For the purposes of this FMP, prey fish in the Bay of Quinte includes all small fish species that can be eaten by another fish, which usually focuses on species like alewife, gizzard shad, rainbow smelt, and yellow perch. This list needs to be expanded to include round goby because in recent years the round goby has become a very important part of the Bay of Quinte food chain, in particular as a diet item for yellow perch, largemouth bass and lake trout (OMNR 2007c). Alewife, smelt, and round goby are all non-native species
Life History
The life histories of prey fish are varied. Some species, such as alewife, are migratory, spending much of the year as adults in Lake Ontario and then returning to the Bay to spawn, whereas the young of the year alewife remain year-round in the bay. The gizzard shad appears to be prevalent in the middle and lower bay in the fall. The many species of minnows, stickleback, sculpin, etc. are not well monitored, but all are important forage species. Their life histories are too diverse to describe and the reader is referred to Scott and Crossman, 1973.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 79 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The round goby is a bottom-dwelling (benthic) fish species. It builds and actively defends nests laid in rocky crevices. They are able to spawn up to 5 times during the mating season. It eats almost solely Dreissenids after attaining a certain size, Itself is a consumable size for almost its entire lifespan, at least for larger species like bass and walleye.
Current Status
Alewife and smelt populations are assessed in hydroacoustic surveys conducted cooperatively by OMNR and the New York State Department of Conservation. The mid- summer abundances of yearling-and-older alewife increased substantially in 2006 following three years of low abundance. The abundance of yearling-and-older rainbow smelt declined following an upswing detected in 2005. Smelt abundance continues to be much lower than levels detected in the late 1990s. The abundances of the three spine stickleback were at a five year high in 2004 and depicted similar abundances that were observed in the late 1990s. Three spine stickleback abundance, however, was not assessed in 2005 and 2006 (OMNR 2006l; OMNR, 2007d).
Current Fishery Regulations
Many of the species mentioned in this section are baitfish, as well and regulations, do apply. There are no regulations for alewife, but there are dip-netting regulations for smelt (see Recreational fish regulations). Recreational and commercial species are often prey fish for at least a short period of their life. In almost all cases, this period occurs prior to each species entry into the fishery, so any regulation on these species often applies to these fish when they are older and larger.
Ecological Significance
Both alewife and rainbow smelt are critically important as key prey species in the Lake Ontario food chain. It is known that the alewife was unintentionally introduced to Lake Ontario via the Erie Canal around 1870 (Smith 1970). Rainbow smelt were introduced into Lake Michigan as a food source to boost native salmonid recruitment and entered Lake Ontario via the Welland Canal. Unfortunately, the rainbow smelt population proliferated in all Great Lakes.
Alewives consume large quantities of zooplankton, competing directly with local, native fish species for food resources. The alewife has been implicated as a primary predator on Cisco and lake trout eggs and larvae, and as a competitor with adult ciscoes. Alewives also produce a prey food base for resident fish and bird predators; however, a diet rich in thiaminase-containing alewife has been implicated with reduced lake trout survival. Thiamine deficiency in lake trout eggs and fry has been linked with early mortality syndrome (EMS). A high alewife diet may also impede Atlantic salmon recruitment and ongoing re- introduction efforts.
Rainbow smelt are very efficient and voracious larval fish predators and are considered a detriment to lake trout restoration initiatives in all Great Lakes. They have been found to impact populations of lake herring, yellow perch, whitefish, bloaters, alewives, slimy sculpin, walleye and lake trout. Their role in the Bay of Quinte is probably minor in recent times because smelt have declined to record low biomass and are restricted primarily to the main lake and outlet basin.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 80 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The round goby’s main diet item is Dreissenid mussels for much of its life (Ghedotti et al 1995). The goby, in turn, has become an important dietary item to many native fishes in eastern Lake Ontario, including lake trout (Dietrich et al, 2006). In this regard, the goby plays an important role in the food chain because it converts energy tied up in molluscs and provides it to higher trophic levels like walleye, yellow perch and bass. For other native benthic fishes like sculpins and darters, the goby may be a detriment as it is an aggressive competitor, feeding on small fish, fish eggs and other invertebrates. Due to their extremely prolific nature and widespread distribution this species is of high ecological significance because of its impacts on local biodiversity.
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interaction
Due to their importance in the Lake Ontario Food-web, the abundance of the species discussed above ultimately impacts populations of economically important fish species. These species are of some socioeconomic importance because many of the legal baitfish species are included in this group. Some species like round goby are a nuisance species, and it is illegal to use them as bait due to their ecological impacts. However, they will readily take a baited hook reducing fishing success for other species because of their aggressive nature.
Fishery Management Tools
Management agencies tend to focus on the prey species that are small bodied schooling fish and have a high reproductive capacity because these fish tend to be the most prevalent diet item in many top predator diets. Species such as alewife, rainbow smelt, gizzard shad and now round goby are key forage fish within the jurisdiction of this FMP. Some are only important seasonally as previously mentioned and some are important also because they are predators of young of the year recreational or commercial fish.
The management of the alewife population in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario is governed by the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999). The general goal for Great Lakes fisheries management is to provide for fish communities based on enduring populations of naturally reproducing fish. More specifically the FCOs call for a diverse prey-fish community with the alewife as an important species in the offshore. An indicator that this objective is being met is for alewife population levels to be above those observed in 1994.
Proposed Management Objectives
There are no specific management objectives for these species, other than continued monitoring via the hydro acoustics and bottom trawling programs. The current Fish- Community targets for prey fish in Lake Ontario include the need for a diverse prey-fish community with Alewife as an important species.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 81 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
5.9 Species at Risk
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) works with many partners—government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and interested individuals— at local, provincial and national levels to protect and recover species at risk. Species at Risk are those species whose populations have diminished significantly because of habitat loss, direct persecution, or ecological changes that have negatively impacted a species life-cycle or habitat. These species are “at risk” of extinction, extirpation, or endangerment globally or within a specific jurisdiction or region.
There are two committees that assess the status of Ontario species, the national Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and the provincial Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). Established in 1977, COSEWIC is made up of species experts from across Canada that identify candidate species, review species' status reports and recommend national species status designations. COSEWIC also maintains and publishes a national list of species designations. At the provincial level, COSSARO members review the COSEWIC status reports and assessments for those species that occur in Ontario. COSSARO then makes recommendations to MNR on the appropriate provincial status of the species. Provincial status designations are then identified on the MNR's Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. A list of fishes at risk in the Bay of Quinte region is included in Table 18. Species at risk status designations used by both Canada and Ontario include:
• Extinct—a species that no longer exists anywhere, • Extirpated—a native species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario, but still occurs elsewhere, • Endangered—any native species facing extinction or extirpation in Ontario, • Threatened—a native species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario • Special Concern—a native species that is sensitive to human activities or natural events.
In addition to administering fish habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has been given the responsibility for the administration of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as it relates to aquatic species. Section 32 of SARA protects the residences and individuals of Schedule 1 extirpated, endangered or threatened SARA species from negative impacts resulting from human-made activities or works.
As of June 30th, 2008 Ontario’s new Endangered Species Act, 2007 will come into effect. Compared to Ontario's previous legislation, the new act provides broader protection provisions for species at risk and their habitats, greater support for volunteer stewardship from private landowners and partners, a stronger commitment to recovery of species and more effective enforcement provisions.
If a species is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species, the Bill prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing, taking, possessing, transporting, collecting, buying, selling, leasing, trading or offering to buy, sell, lease or trade a member of the species, or selling, leasing, trading or offering to sell, lease or trade anything that is represented to be a member of the species. Some of these prohibitions also apply to parts of a member of the species, and to things derived from a member of the species.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 82 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
If a species is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or threatened species, the Bill prohibits damaging or destroying the habitat of the species. This prohibition also applies to an extirpated species if the species is prescribed by the regulations. The regulations may specifically prescribe an area as the habitat of a species but, if no habitat regulation is in force with respect to a species, “habitat” is defined to mean an area on which the species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry on its life processes.
Local occurrences of species at risk and population trends correlate with areas of ecological impairment or conservation conflicts; therefore, species at risk fish in the Bay of Quinte watershed are managed as indicator species of the health of the ecosystem and used as a barometer for local issues.
This section focuses primarily on species that may or may not be directly targeted by fisheries within the Bay of Quinte and include: American eel, lake sturgeon, redhorse suckers and Atlantic salmon. These species have a long history of importance to local fisheries and communities, particularly for food and commercial products and traditional use by First Nations in the Bay of Quinte. Other species at risk found either in tributaries or the main lake are also important components of the Bay of Quinte ecosystem, but will not discussed in detail. A complete list of species at risk is provided below (see Table 19).
Life History
American eel have a complex life cycle. They are a catadromous species, which means that sexually mature individuals (adult eels) migrate downstream to the sea where ultimately they spawn. American eel is presently considered a panmictic population throughout its range, that is, there is no detectable genetic heterogeneity among individuals or sub-groups in the population. The most recent research on genetic characteristics of the population (Wirth and Bernatchez 2003), based on sampling from several widely-separated locations within the overall distribution and on analytical techniques which have shown genetic substructure in populations of other fish species, confirmed this conclusion. Results of the genetic work are consistent with the general picture of the life cycle of the species: all mature adults spawn together in one area and larvae and juveniles from this single spawning population are the source of eels throughout the northwest Atlantic range (American Eel Management Plan 2007). After eggs hatch, leptocephali (larvae) are dispersed by oceanic currents along the Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico. Four life stages of American eel can occur in freshwater. The glass eel stage makes the transition from the marine to freshwater environment. The elver is the early freshwater phase. The yellow phase is the growth phase, which lasts several years during which the eels move upstream, becoming progressively older the further upstream they are found. Finally there is the sexually mature silver phase, which migrates back downstream to the ocean and then to the Sargasso Sea to breed and die. Elvers reaching the Gulf of St. Lawrence are near the northern extreme of the species range, and may be nine years old by the time they have migrated approximately 1,400 km upstream to Lake Ontario as yellow eels. Eels will generally feed for 10 to 15 years before starting their migration back to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. American eels are unique in that nearly every life stage is targeted by commercial fisheries.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 83 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 19. Status of “Rare” fishes in Lake Ontario and their designations (as of December 31, 2007) under the Ontario Endangered Species Act at Risk (ESA 2007) and the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA).
Lake sturgeon adults migrate into Lake Ontario tributary streams to spawn in late May to late June (Houston, 1987). The St. Lawrence population (the closest population studied) spawn from May 17 to June 22 (LaPan et al., 1994). The lake sturgeon is one of the longest-lived and slowest to mature freshwater fish species. Generally speaking, males mature between the ages of 8-19 years, while females mature between the ages of 14-23 years (Houston, 1987). Spawning is periodic and does not occur yearly with males spawning once every 2-7 years and females spawning once every 4-9 years.
Adult migration to the spawning beds begins just prior to, or soon after spawning rivers are free of ice. Lake sturgeon spawn in rivers or rapids at the base of impassable falls (Scott and Crossman, 1973); in large clean rubble areas of up welling current; outside bends and rapidly moving water of rivers near dams; or in lakes on rocky shoals (Auer, 1982). Spawning lake sturgeon display strong homing tendencies and are capable of lengthy migrations of often up to 129 km (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Eggs are shed over several days and are scattered by river currents eventually becoming adhered to rocks and logs.
Upon hatching, larvae can be up to 8mm in length (Scott and Crossman, 1973). The larvae are then nourished by the yolk sac for 9-18 days. Larvae remain in the substrate for about 16 days, after which they emerge and begin feeding (Scott and Crossman, 1973). The juveniles reside on gravely shoals near the river mouth (Scott and Crossman, 1973), or in the shallower waters of the rivers for up to two years (Houston, 1987).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 84 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
The female lake sturgeon does not reach sexual maturity until 14-23 years old and may live up to 80 years. In 1953, a 154 year old lake sturgeon was caught in Lake of the Woods, Ontario.
River Redhorse are late-maturing, long-lived and large-bodied suckers that requires large interconnected riverine habitat to fulfill the need of all life stages. They are found in both lake and riverine habitats but require access to suitable riverine spawning habitat: moderate to swift current, riffle-run habitat and clean coarse riverbed. Canadian populations of river redhorse reach sexual maturity at an older age than more southern populations. Along the Trent River, males in spawning condition were 5 to 16 years old while females were 7 to 16 years old. The spawning period for Canadian populations begins in late May or early June and ends in late June (Reid 2003) at water temperatures ranging from 15 to 20ºC. Both sexes were observed in spawning condition once water temperatures reached 15.5°C (early June) in the Trent River (Reid 2003).
It has been reported that river redhorse excavate spawning redds (Hackney et al. 1967). Shallow depressions roughly 10-15 cm deep and 50-75 cm long have been observed during river redhorse spawning along the Trent River (S. Reid unpubl. data). However, Jenkins (1970) suggests that these apparent redds are merely an artifact of aggressive mating and not a depression dug prior to spawning.
Little is known about the population demographics of the river redhorse in Canada. Generally, large-bodied sucker species with similar reproductive tactics and biology (late age at maturity, longevity and seasonal spawn) may experience low juvenile survivorship most years, with recruitment relying on a relatively few successful spawning bouts by a given individual in its lifetime (Winemiller and Rose 1992; Healey 2002). Fertilized river redhorse eggs hatch relatively quickly: 6 days at 24°C (Jenkins 1970) and 5 days at 18.5°C (S. Reid unpubl. data). Larval drift is important for the dispersion of redhorse species to suitable rearing habitats (D'Amours et al. 2001). For example, the nursery habitat for YOY river redhorse in the Richelieu River is 21 km downstream from the spawning site in the basin of Chambly (Vachon 1999a). Atlantic salmon have a complex life history typically described as progressing from egg to alevin to fry to parr to smolt to grilse to adult to kelt. The Lake Ontario Atlantic salmon, unlike those in eastern Canada, probably did not migrate to the Atlantic Ocean but instead completed its life cycle within the Lake Ontario watershed, with egg through smolt stage in rivers and smolt through adult and kelt stages within the lake. The life history of Lake Ontario Atlantic salmon was probably similar to that of the species in general, although local adaptations such as in run timing are unknown.
Lake Ontario salmon in particular were observed to spawn on gravel shoals in clear, cold streams with rather steep gradients (Parsons 1973). Conditions appropriate for such spawning grounds are typically found at the upstream side of riffles or gravel bars where the concentration of fines is low (10-15% by weight) and permeability is high (>900 cm·h -1) and thus dissolved oxygen levels are high (Peterson 1978). Spawning runs, in Lake Ontario tributaries, typically began in October (Goodyear et al. 1982) and spawning typically began in mid-November; but an April/May run was known to occur in streams west of Toronto (Huntsman 1944).
Alevins emerge from the egg and they usually remain near the incubation area
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 85 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
(unless taken downstream as drift) until the absorption of the yolk sac is complete. After yolk sac absorpsion, the young salmon , now called fry, prefer habitat similar to the spawning areas and may remain there or disperse to similar habitat (riffles with coarse substrate) within 200 m downstream of the redd (Beall et al. 1994). Atlantic salmon parr may reside in the stream for 1-3 years before out migrating to lake Ontario as smolts to feed in the faster growing lake environment. Onset of smolting is largely dependant on growth rates in the stream environment. Atlantic salmon will exist in the lake environment and mature into sexually reproducing adults within 2-3 years. Atlantic salmon are do not necessarily die are their first spawning (semelparous) event as most pacific salmon species do, but can complete multiple spawning events over many years (iteroparous).
Current Status
American eels were once much more abundant and widely dispersed (Casselman 2003). For example, they were found throughout the Mississippi system in substantial numbers and provided important native fisheries (Casselman 2003). Now they are rarely seen in that system. Declines over the past three decades occurred over the majority of the range but are particularly dramatic and most obvious in the past decade. The abundance of American eels in Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River (LOSLR) has been monitored at an eel ladder at the R.H. Saunders Hydroelectric Dam at Cornwall Since 1974. In 2006, approximately 8,960 American eel migrated upstream during the entire period of ladder operation. This number is much lower that the numbers of eel observed during the early 1980s (over 1-million eels per year during 1982 and 1983).
The American eel was once an important commercial fish in Lake Ontario, contributing to more than 50 % of the total landed value of the entire Lake Ontario commercial fishery. Records of commercial fisheries list catches of eel as early as 1886, and during the 1980s and early 1990s, the American eel was one of the top three species in commercial value to Ontario's fishing industry (OMNR 2007e). Commercial fisheries for American eel in Ontario waters focused on maturing yellow eels in Lake Ontario, Bay of Quinte, the Upper St. Lawrence River, and Lake St. Francis (LOSLR area). Licensed gear included trap nets, hoop nets, eel “set” lines, electrofishing, eel pots and seine nets. Due to growing concern over the status of American eel in the LOSLR area, the Province of Ontario closed all commercial eel fisheries in 2004. Recreational fishing for eel in the Province of Ontario was closed in 2005.
Since the commercial and recreational fisheries are closed, the fishery management plan needs to focus on how to best monitor, protect and restore populations of this species. The American eel has been “recommended” by COSEWIC for designation as a nationally “special concern” species at risk (SARA Registry 2007; OMNR 2007e). Its status is currently under review to be registered as a Schedule 1 species, which would provide legal protected status under the SAR Act.
Lake sturgeon once a very abundant species in Lake Ontario supporting a large commercial fishery during the 1800s and early 1900s is now considered rare to uncommon globally (NatureServe Explorer 2003); proposed as a species of special concern on the MNR’s provincial Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List; and proposed as threatened nationally by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). The current status is poorly understood.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 86 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
In the Bay of Quinte, lake sturgeon are caught periodically in LOMU assessment programs. They were noted as a species of concern in the Trent, below Dam #1 during a review of a Hydro-electric Generation development. In a conservation report on the Lower Trent Region, low lake sturgeon abundance was reported below Lock 6, between Locks 6 and 7, and above Lock 7 in the Trent River system. Research level restoration activities currently exist in New York, but there are none in Ontario. Lake sturgeon spawning has been reported in the Salmon and Trent rivers.
Ontario lake sturgeon populations have been greatly reduced and even disappeared completely from many locations over the last century. Currently there is no fishery (commercial or recreational) for lake sturgeon in the Bay of Quinte due to low population numbers . Effective July1 2008, the province has taken measures to protect lake sturgeon province-wide through the implementation of a zero catch and possession limit on recreational fishing. The province will reduce the commercial quotas across the province to zero in 2009. Traditional use of lake sturgeon by Aboriginal peoples for subsistence and ceremonial purposes will not be affected.
Since lake sturgeon still use Bay of Quinte tributaries to spawn, this FMP may best serve sturgeon by addressing monitoring and protection/restoration needs
In Canada, the River Redhorse is found only in southern Ontario and southwestern Quebec. In Ontario, the river redhorse is found in the Mississippi, Ottawa, Grand, Thames, and Trent rivers, and the Bay of Quinte. Population sizes are unavailable, however, large numbers of spawning adults (50+) have been identified in the Trent River and individuals are periodically taken in assessment gear from multiple Bay of Quinte sites. Their current status is poorly understood because they are rarely monitored and currently there are no research level restoration activities in the Bay of Quinte.
The Lake Ontario population of Atlantic salmon are currently listed as extirpated on the MNR’s provincial Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List; and proposed as extirpated nationally by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Historically Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario were so abundant that catches were measured in barrels of fish rather than in numbers of individual fish. The large numbers of Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario began to show marked decline iin the mid-1800s and were no longer present before 1900 (Parsons 1973, Scott & Crossman 1973). The colonization of Upper Canada (land-use and over harvest) in the late 1700s led to the demise of the Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario. Since then there have been several attempts to strengthen, and now to re- establish, a population of Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario however, attempts at stocking non-native populations have continued to be unsuccessful in establishing reproducing populations. In 1995, OMNR established a formal plan to investigate the feasibility of restoring self-sustaining populations of Atlantic salmon to the Lake Ontario basin (Bisset et al. 1995). The plan was designed to systematically explore the factors considered to be most important to the successful restoration of self-sustaining populations. This research was successful in identifying best bet streams (Credit River, Cobourg Brook, and Duffins Creek). Restoration attempts are now focussed on these streams. However, if successful the program will expand to include many more streams.
Current Fishery Regulations
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 87 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
American eel and lake sturgeon are not allowed to be caught in the Bay of Quinte and Redhorse sucker harvest is not monitored and there are no fishing regulations for them. Atlantic salmon are not allowed to be targeted by anglers in tributary streams. In Lake Ontario, including the Bay of Quinte, one Atlantic salmon (minimum size of 63 cm) is allowed to be harvested per day on a sport fishing licence and zero harvest for a conservation licence.
Ecological Significance
Historically, the American eel possessed the largest range of any fish species in the western Hemisphere, and had a dominant position by numbers and biomass in many habitats it occupied. It was a key stone predator in the nearshore community of the Bay of Quinte and probably provided the only source of production from the Atlantic Ocean. Although the species is widespread, eels from the Lake Ontario, St. Lawrence River (LOSLR) are particularly important to the population as a whole. A unique feature of American eels is that their sex is thought to be environmentally determined, likely through density-dependent mechanisms (Krueger and Oliveira 1999). All of the eels in Lake Champlain, the upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario are female, likely due to low rearing densities. Silver eel that migrate from the LOSLR are all large females, larger and more fecund than those from other systems. It is estimated that USLRLO eels represent approximately 27 – 67% of global spawning output for this species (calculations are based on unproven methodologies and may be an overestimate; for that reason a range of values is provided – COSEWIC 2006a)
Lake sturgeon were historically abundant in the Great Lakes with spawning populations using many of the major tributaries, connecting waters, and shoal areas across the basin. Prior to European settlement of the region, they were a dominant component of the nearshore fish community, with populations estimated in the millions in each of the Great Lakes (Baldwin et al. 1979). The Lake sturgeon is a benthivore (bottom feeder) and plays an important ecological role as a nutrient cycler. It’s particular role as an important mulluscivore (consumes molluscs (clams)) may prove beneficial following the zebra and Quagga mussel invasion.
Like all sucker species, the river redhorse plays an important, yet underrated, role as a nutrient cycler in aquatic ecosystems. It transfers energy (i.e. nutrients) from the benthic food web (where it feeds) to the pelagic food web (where it is preyed upon). The river redhorse is also one of few freshwater fishes that feed extensively on molluscs and therefore perform a unique ecological function (Portt et al. 2003). French (1993) suggested that if river redhorse were found in sufficient numbers, they could possibly be used as a means of biological control of zebra mussels where their ranges and habitats overlap.
The Atlantic salmon was an important species ecologically, functioning in the movement of nutrients from the lake into its tributaries, and as a top predator in both the rivers and the lake. There are several other fish species at risk in the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario (Table 18), which have significant ecological roles within the food web and, because of their rare occurrences or extirpation due to population stress from environmental intolerances, are excellent indicators of ecological imbalances or degraded ecosystem health.
Socioeconomic Importance/Human Interaction
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 88 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
American eel and lake sturgeon have a long history as a food and commercial product for residents of the Bay and eastern Lake Ontario, as well as global markets for sturgeon caviar. Eels were also a highly valued fish resource for Aboriginal people, particularly the St. Lawrence Iroquois, who depended upon them as winter and travelling food.
The Atlantic salmon was known as the "king of fish" and highly valued by First Nations, and provided food for First Nations and settlers alike, and enabled the creation of a fishery employing thousands of people. Several recent watershed fisheries management plans have identified the public's interest in restoring naturally sustaining populations of Atlantic salmon (COSEWIC 2006b).
Fishery Management Tools
Due to the rarity of most of these species, for the most part less concrete targets have been selected. For example, Lake sturgeon and Atlantic salmon have only periodically been captured in assessment gear. Lake sturgeon have been captured in only three of the past fifteen years of assessment gillnetting and Atlantic salmon in only two of the last fifteen years. Therefore our targets will simply be increases in catch and increases in the frequency of catch.
A bi-national recovery team is leading the development of restoration targets for American eel. As such the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan will adopt the team’s performance targets. These targets will likely include a specific number of yellow eels ascending the eel ladder at the R.H. Saunders Hydroelectric Dam at Cornwall and catch targets from standardized electrofishing and bottom trawling surveys. Targets will be developed based on catches from a period preceding declining abundance (late 1970s). These targets are currently under review.
Of the species covered in this section, only river redhorse are captured with regularity in assessment gear. Although in low numbers, river redhorse have been captured annually in NSCIN netting assessments in the Bay of Quinte. Therefore, as with most other species previously discussed in this FMP, we propose to use CUE’s from the NSCIN project to develop population performance targets for river redhore in the Bay of Quinte. The period of the stabilized walleye population (2002-2006) will be used as a reference point for river redhore abundance in the Bay of Quinte. That is catch rates for river redhorse during the same period will be used to develop performance targets.
Improve on the following performance target for river redhorse taken during the fall Nearshore Community Index Surveys in any five year period.
0.1 ± 0.03 river redhorse per trap net
In addition to targets developed from assessment gear, a reporting requirement should be implemented in recreational fishery creels and commercial fishery daily catch records for species at risk.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 89 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Proposed/Recommended Management Objectives
a) Improve on the population performance targets developed from assessment sampling.
b) Improve biodiversity in the Bay of Quinte and increase the abundance of these species
c) Adopt and implement American eel performance targets when identified by the Great Lake Fishery Commission recovery team.
d) Review the need to close fishing for all redhorse sucker species in this FMZ.
e) Include questions about SARs in creel and in commercial catch reporting and sampling.
f) Provide information to OMNR biodiversity section, DFO SAR section and other partners.
g) MNR will act as project lead when drafting management and recovery plans for species found or previously found in the Bay of Quinte.
h) Continue to monitor abundance of American eel and consider the possibility of opening fishery subsequent to improved status.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 90 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Section 6 MAJOR ISSUES AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Major issues concerning Bay of Quinte fisheries were identified by the public during open houses, the BQFMP public survey, and through meetings and ongoing discussions. These issues have been prioritized by the planning team in order to identify implementation options that will link to the species specific performance measures identified in Section 5 and the FMP goals and objectives in Section 2. The purpose of this section is to identify actions to effectively direct management efforts towards sustainable quality fisheries, an ecological diverse and healthy ecosystem, and community based partnerships. More information on the issues identified by the public is available in Appendix 1 – Summary of Public Input.
Primary issues are those that are both within the scope of the management plan and have been identified by the public as a high priority concern. The top primary issues are:
1. Quality of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries 2. Non-Compliance to Fishing Regulations and Enforcement Efforts 3. Future of Fisheries Assessment on the Bay of Quinte
Secondary issues are within the scope of the FMP, but are identified by the public as having a relatively low priority. The secondary issues are:
4. Increasing Stakeholder and Agency Partnerships 5. Invasive Species 6. Resource-related Education and Communication
Tertiary issues are those that have been identified by the public, but are not a primary focus of the FMP, and may be dealt with indirectly through addressing primary and secondary issues as well as through other programs and initiatives. The tertiary issues are:
7. Fish Habitat and Water Quality 8. Climate Change 9. Colonization and Proliferation of Double-crested Cormorants 10. Contaminant Levels in Fish 11. First Nations Fisheries 12. Walleye Stocking 13. Fish Pathogens 14. Restoration Projects
The following provides a general description of each issue, followed by the potential strategies and actions to address the issue.
6.1 Primary Issues and Proposed Management Actions
Primary issues are those that both are within the scope of the management plan and have been identified by the public and management as a high priority concern. The top primary issues are:
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 91 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
6.1.1 Quality of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries
A quality fishery from managers’ perspective is defined as having balanced abundances (numbers) of fish per species and recruitment rates that are able to sustain the population over-time, as well as a healthy ecosystem with diverse habitats to sustain these populations over time. Balanced abundances not only relate to relative numbers in the various populations, but also to a stable and diverse age distribution and stable recruitment within a population.
From the user’s perspective, a quality fishery or enjoyment of the fishing experience consists of three major components: 1) catching fish; 2) the possibility of catching the big one; and 3) the possibility of eating what you catch. The quality of the fisheries is also interrelated to the overall health of the Bay of Quinte’s environment because a healthy ecosystem implies healthy and edible fish, stable or increasing recruitment and exploitable populations (or a rise in CUE/HUE), and ultimately satisfied fishers and local economies.
Quality of Recreational fishery
The 2005 BQFMP Public Survey indicated a general dissatisfaction with current fishing success in the Bay of Quinte. Most of the respondents emphasized their displeasure with the changing fish habitat, in particular, clearer and weedier waters, which has resulted in lower catches and targeting at smaller sized fish. In addition, there is some frustration over not ‘finding’ fish. Due to altered habitat conditions, CUE has decreased and many anglers have had to compensate by changing their fishing approach, including: Extended trip durations and increased trolling and drifting to locate fish; Targeting new species that are easier to catch because of increasing population size or easier to find, such as bass, crappie and sunfishes, or because of less stringent catch limit regulations; Fishing deeper, which includes a shift in equipment and bait type; Moving to new areas to find fish; and An increased effort to capture and release to compensate for low population numbers of specific species.
Quality of the Commercial Fishery
The common complaint from the commercial fishery has been the reduction of quotas and restrictive license conditions which further reduces access to quota available per license holder. When coupled with changes in the ecosystem and reduced abundance of some species, the ability to make a living has been reduced.
The commercial fishers believe that angler and angling organization opposition to commercial fishing which led to restrictive license conditions has further reduced access. Together with the IITQ system, which led to a reduction in quota available per license holder, these factors caused the declining trends in the fishery from an effort viewpoint.
For 2006 and 2007, OMNR implemented a quota pool system whereby only season and gear restrictions, the market price for fish, and weather, would limit ones ability to catch fish
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 92 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
to the limit of the total allowable catch for a given quota zone. This system is still under review.
Management Tools to Improve Quality of Fisheries
Currently, there are no quantifiable targets provided to MNR to support or refute the quality of the recreational fishery. Based on anecdotal evidence, the recreational fishery is actually improving substantially and has done so for the past 2-3 years. However, past management objectives were sometimes difficult to understand by the non-management community. In some cases, scientific studies suggested species-specific objectives to be ineffective in sustaining exploitable populations. Other objectives designed prior to learning new characteristics of the fish or fishery had become obsolete. Current management implications, however, include improving communications with the public and stakeholders in regards to the fishery regulations, new science, management options, and stewardship. How to determine the level of satisfaction for anglers and the needs of commercial fishers, as well as the interests of the First Nations, is of primary interest to OMNR for the future of Bay of Quinte’s fisheries.
Table 20 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 20 – Management Options for Maintaining the Quality of Fisheries in Bay of Quinte Strategy Available Management Tools
1. Continue to improve all a) Implement the FHMP to improve quality of habitat and angling ecosystem components experience. and functions. b) Prevention of new non-native invasive species. c) Encourage fisheries to aid in controlling numbers of nuisance species like white perch. 2. Continue monitoring a) See Issue three for more details. assessments. b) Continue fishery dependant / independent sampling programs to characterize the Bay of Quinte’s Fishery, and acquire biological information and long-term data trends for management opportunities: . Eastern Lake Ontario Index Gillnetting and Bottom Trawling; . Bay of Quinte Nearshore Trapnet Program; and . Pelagic zone to monitor for invasive species, and stock assessments. c) Assess availability and population demographics of prey fish, including recruitment data and fishable biomass forecast recruitments (YOY and benthic fish). d) Sample non-migratory and migratory walleye. e) Obtain species-specific information on live-release mortality (winter and depth). f) Continue Fish Tagging programs (mark- recapture efforts) in the Bay. g) Continue to seek resources to implement annual creel surveys in the Bay of Quinte.
3. Monitor new fishing a) Regular voluntary reporting (creel, diaries, email) to assess regulations and the stakeholder sentiment. effectiveness of new b) Develop and produce educational materials (e.g., State of the
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 93 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
ecological framework (new Resources reporting to educate, empower and engage the fisheries management public) that explain in detail the new fishing regulations that zones). apply to the Bay of Quinte. c) Implement or enforce new regulations. d) Monitor the new recommended seasons and creel and size limits for all regulated recreational fish species in each of the new zones. e) Monitor effects of regulation changes on fishers and fish populations, especially for regulations proposed to meet any of the above objectives. 4. Monitor the quality of the a) Determine from fishers, what quality parameters are relative to fishing experience. them and then identify the targets.
5. Review CUE management a) Focus CUE management on age 2 and older fish, and strategies for all species. incorporate age 1 information into population modelling or management decisions. b) Maintain all CUEs at or better than recent levels. c) Maintain the index gear CUEs at a 5 year average (2002 – 2006) except for species at low abundance (e.g. species at risk).
6. Provide communication a) Host annual forum to communicate state of fish populations, and education fisheries, other species, new regulation changes, target opportunities to make achievement,etc., and the progress of implementing this people aware of ecosystem strategy itself. Slated as action item for new Zone 20 Council and regulation changes. b) Continue to post on EBR for 60 days. 7. Reduce the potential of a) Need to monitor for non-targeted species harvest and release exploitation of other non b) Consider options to reduce harvest of non-targeted species if targeted species. there is potential to harm fish population, such as posters, seasonal or spatial or gear type restrictions, or implementing new regulations. 8. Promote additional angling a) Such as largemouth bass, pan fishes, northern pike, carp and opportunities. bowfin. b) Encourage partners to promote angling tournaments for other species.
9. Continue to work closely a) Review and monitor commercial regulations. with Commercial Fish b) Continue reporting by Commercial Fishers. industry c) Continue seasonal extension of the Lake Whitefish fishery in Quota Zone 1-2, eastern Lake Ontario, to increase commercial harvest opportunities and consider similar opportunities elsewhere. d) Implement harvest control strategies.
6.1.3 Non-compliance with Fishing Regulations and Enforcement Efforts
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 94 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Non-compliance of fishing regulations and low enforcement efforts is a key issue identified through the public input survey. Among the most frequent infractions are possession limit and size limit violations, as well as fishing out of season, which are all regarded as non- compliance with the current Fisheries Regulations. The OMNR has recently cut back funding for enforcement activities across the province and there is currently less than one Conservation Officer available for the entire Bay of Quinte area.
Due to limited capacity for enforcement activities, there is a need to consider other options to assist current efforts. One option is to consider a risk-based-evaluation approach for enforcement activities that is focused on the management objectives of this FMP. This approach would deal with activities that have the potential to cause the greatest amount of negative impact on the achievement of these objectives. One option would be to consider increasing surveillance activities during the spawning runs, or assessing commercial harvest in perch nets. Another option to improve enforcement efforts would be to increase stakeholder involvement in reporting suspicious or illegal activities to Conservation Officers and/or police.
Table 21 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 21 – Management Options to Improve Enforcement Efforts Strategies Management Tools Available 1. Review a) Review current enforcement levels and adjust, if necessary, by enforcement providing more conservation officer effort to the Bay of Quinte effort on the Bay fishery. of Quinte. b) Ensure that the Bay of Quinte fishery becomes a high priority for conservation officer effort at critical times of the year. c) Conduct planned enforcement blitzes at various locations on or around the Bay of Quinte during both the summer and winter open seasons to target possession limit and size limit violations. 2. Provide improved a) Generate regular reports summarizing actual enforcement hours public awareness spent on the Bay of Quinte. of enforcement b) Increase media reporting of OMNR enforcement efforts by the efforts on the Bay development of a standard news release protocol for reporting of Quinte. enforcement activities and court results.
3. Encourage a) Maintain/pursue a deputy conservation officer program to involvement of provide additional enforcement coverage. community groups b) Inform and encourage the public to participate in programs such in enforcement as Crime Stoppers or OMNR TIPS reporting line (1-877-TIPS-OMNR) activities. when they believe they’ve witness an infraction.
6.1.4 Future Fisheries Assessment on the Bay of Quinte
The Bay of Quinte has supported excellent First Nations, commercial and recreational fisheries, and the annual long-term data currently maintained for reporting on and in support of these excellent fisheries by the OMNR has been invaluable to managers and scientists. There has also been a long tradition in sharing this information among stakeholders, partners and other management agencies. OMNR and those people interested in the Bay of Quinte need to work together by deploying and promoting long
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 95 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
and short-term monitoring, participation in fisheries surveys on the water and through questionnaires, and information sharing; therefore, providing, more frequently, an understanding of the status of the fishery, fish populations and ecosystem. The culmination of this collaborative approach should suggest to all participants how their joint efforts are contributing to the objectives of this plan and providing the basis for the plan to be modified when necessary.
Table 22 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 22 – Management Options for Future Fisheries Assessment
Strategies Available Management Tools
1. Determine new long- a) Continue to encourage independent scientific reviews of fish term and essential data population assessment techniques to determine essential needs to monitor the data sets and desirable data sets that are best suited to success of new fishing assess Bay of Quinte fish populations and evaluate the regulations, and success of new fishing regulations. continue with existing b) Monitor the status of Bay of Quinte fish populations and assessment protocol. responses to new fishing regulations.
2. Continue essential a) Design a long-term data collection strategy for the Bay of dependent and Quinte and seek funding sources to begin implementation. independent b) Continue creel survey and other standard assessments that assessment techniques. have been conducted over the past 40 years on the Bay. c) Continue with long-term data collection and determine data needs and formulate strategies to collect this information to follow changes in habitat conditions, community structure and population dynamics. 3. Work with partners to a) Work with partners (agencies, stakeholders and academia) Increase community to identify opportunities for local involvement in assessment. involvement in For example, Conservation Authorities, DFO, Stakeholders, assessment and academic institutions may provide opportunities for management. research.
4. Consider new research a) Conduct a science and socio-economic impact study – to and assessment projects determine the benefits to local economy, each fishery or programs to improve (livelihoods), recreational opportunity vs. the potential risks our understanding of each pose to any other user groups, etc. the fishery and the b) Improve the commercial harvest, e.g., increase the number dynamics of the fish of fish caught thereby improving assessment and reducing population. error. Improved allocations (changes to TAC) – TACs (total allowable catch) are set based on sampling fish taken from the population, but this information is not available to OMNR because the quota/TAC are not being caught. c) Monitor the commercial harvest and success of new trapnet quota transfer in the Bay. d) Develop and monitor commercial licensing to reduce inactive licenses or unused quotas. OMNR feels that the current quota is sustainable, but the quota is tied up between too many fishers or unavailable due to season restrictions.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 96 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 22 – Management Options for Future Fisheries Assessment
Strategies Available Management Tools
e) Assess potential regulations experimentally to benefit Quinte and the province. f) Continue research on life history, habitat status and stressors on American Eel, Cisco species and Atlantic Salmon.
6.2 Secondary Issues
Secondary issues are within the scope of the FMP, but are identified by the public and agency staff as having a lower priority.
6.2.1 Increasing Stakeholder and Agency Involvement
Increasing public and stakeholder involvement refers to stimulating interactions between the public and stakeholders interested in Bay of Quinte’s fisheries and ecosystem and the decision-making body or agencies, which include surveys, focus groups, feedback on discussion documents, public consultation, dialogue, workshops, advisory boards and partnerships. Engaging the public and stakeholders with Bay of Quinte specific information and program awareness, and soliciting their knowledge, best advice and participation, will promote a transparent and accountable planning process, improve stakeholder trust and confidence in the regulatory system, and stimulate active involvement and on-going partnerships with local communities.
Table 23 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 23 – Management Options to Increase Stakeholder and Agency Involvement Strategy Available Management Tools 1. Ensure Bay of a) Create seats on the proposed new committee for Lake Ontario Quinte fisheries management to incorporate stakeholders, which representation on represent a local scope within this broadly based committee. FMZ 20 fisheries b) Increase networking opportunities. committee. c) Increase access to information. d) Proposed network group to identify new issues and propose solutions. 2. Increase positive a) Enhance communication efforts to involve stakeholders and media coverage. promote positive image of the Bay of Quinte fishery and the socioeconomic opportunities it presents. b) Use media to inform public about dangers of fish disease and fish transfer, and promote prevention of new non-native invasive species entering or leaving the Bay.
3) Provide outreach a) Schedule regular angler and commercial fisher outreach meetings programs to the to exchange information. public. b) Invite all stakeholders to attend open houses to disseminate information. c) Invite local experts to sit on steering committee, and work with FMP
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 97 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
planning team, BQFAC and community stakeholders to consult with public. d) Host annual forum to communicate state of fish populations, fisheries, other species, new regulation changes, target achievement, etc., and the progress of implementing this strategy itself.
6.2.2 Invasive Species
The spread and proliferation of invasive species has been described by the science community as the number one reason negatively impacting progress towards meeting many of our ecological objectives on Lake Ontario (Biodiversity workshop #2, Kingston,ON, 2006).
Most invasive species—undesirable plants and animals, including pathogens, that are not native to a system—have been increasing steadily in numbers, particularly as commerce in the Great Lakes region has become more global and dynamic (Figure 14). Invasive species cause enormous ecological and economic damage to the region. Invasive species such as quagga and zebra mussels, common carp, white perch, alewife, rudd, fish hook and spiny water fleas, and now round goby have changed the very nature of the Bay of Quinte forever. A large component of the area’s aquatic plant community is also non-native, which impacts fish and wildlife habitat forever by altering form and eventually function of the ecosystem, e.g., flood attenuation.
According to published reports, 162 non-native species have become established in the Great Lakes region since the late 1800s (Duggan et al. 2003). Twelve of these species have entered the Great Lakes since 1990, around the time ballast water exchange guidelines— designed to protect the lakes against invasion—went into effect. Once a species invades and takes hold, the species becomes a permanent fixture of the ecosystem (Belore et al. 2006) Although ballast water in ships is an obvious mode of transportation, there are other ways non-native species are introduced to new habitats, including the aquarium and pond fish trade, live fish (for food) market, and interconnected water ways. Since the lake is closest to the Atlantic and large metropolitan areas, Lake Ontario remains extremely vulnerable to new invaders, underscoring the critical need to prevent the introduction of new organisms.
A new provincial regulation (under the federal Fisheries Act) prohibits the possession of certain live invasive fish species. This will help reduce the rate of spread of non-native species such as the round goby to inland waters by way of bait buckets. The ban on possession of live invasive fish means that some species currently sold live in food markets must be imported freshly killed or frozen. This legislation will hopefully help prevent introductions of new invasive species into Ontario waters.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 98 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 14 – Cumulative number of Non-native Invasive Species identified in Lake Ontario, exclusive of oligochaetes.
(Note - Least-squared nonlinear regression was used to fit the line (NIS = 1+ 0.0002*post-1830 years2.863). Inset: cumulative number of submerged aquatic macrophyte and algal species in Lake Ontario.)
Table 24 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 24 – Management Options for Invasive Species Strategy Available Management Tools 1. Increase awareness a) Work with the “Invading Species Awareness Program” (Ontario about preventing Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Federation of invasive species Anglers and Hunters) to take proactive measures to limit the spread or spread of aquatic invasive species. introduction. b) enhance communication efforts. 2. Work to Improve a) Encourage the Federal government to develop legally binding regulations and ballast water and sediment management regulations that prevent awareness the spread of aquatic invasive species into and within the Great regarding ballast Lakes basin. water discharge. b) Need to group local champions for this cause.
6.2.3 Resource-Related Education and Communication
Increased awareness about resources and their management practices improves stakeholder involvement in the planning and implementation of the Fisheries Management Plan. The public is continually looking for improved ways to access information (i.e, web- based access or electronic documents).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 99 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 25 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 25 – Management Options for Resource Related Education and Communication Strategy Available Management Tools 1. Increase Education a) Develop Lake Ontario and Bay of Quinte Website and respond to and Communication all inquiries in a timely manner. efforts with the Public. b) Conduct annual reporting and outreach initiatives to allow both OMNR and the public to keep up to date with fisheries concerns and issues in the Bay of Quinte. Integrate with new Zone 20 - wide reporting initiative. c) Encourage anglers and the general public to contact OMNR if and when they have concerns regarding the fisheries resources of the Bay of Quinte. d) Work with community partners to prepare a public education /communication program. This program would be developed in conjunction with community partners to be run in the schools and in the community at large. 2. Address existing a) Respond to specific input received during the public input phase public concerns of the Bay of Quinte FMP review through a fact sheet entitled, related to the Bay of “Frequently Asked Questions”. Circulate this fact sheet through Quinte Fishery. the Bay of Quinte mailing list (e.g., survey).
6.3 Tertiary Issues
Tertiary issues are those that have been identified by the public and agency staff, but are not a primary focus of the FMP, and may be dealt with indirectly through addressing primary and secondary issues or through other programs and initiatives, such as the Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan (BQRAP 2007), which addresses habitat issues including water quality.
6.3.1 Fish Habitat and Water quality
Through the public open houses and the public input survey, one of the main issues is the protection of fish habitat along the shorelines of the Bay of Quinte and its tributaries. Some of the indirect activities that have significant impact on coastal wetlands and littoral/shoreline habitats include contamination from storm water runoff, dumps, industry, septic systems and sewage treatment plants, and water levels. Direct impacts to fish habitat include obstructions to migration or the removal or destruction of spawning beds and nursery and feeding areas.
Many of these issues relating to fish habitat are currently being addressed through the Fish Habitat Management Plan (FHMP) that has been prepared by Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan committee. The intent is to address site specific habitat issues and provide recommendations on protection and restoration projects throughout the bay. The Habitat Plan contains excellent background information that does not need to be repeated in this document. Public input has been encouraged through the Habitat Plan process to date and you are encouraged to obtain further information at (http://www.bqrap.ca/).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 100 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
It is important to ensure that both the Fish Habitat Management Plan and the Fisheries Management Plan for the Bay of Quinte work together in a collective manner in order to concentrate efforts on priorities and not duplicate effort.
Where possible, the Bay of Quinte FMP and FHMP committees should work with partners around the lake to explore or research the impacts of potential new water level management plans proposed by the IJC. A recent water levels study failed to show definitive impacts of previous and simulated proposed water level management plans on the organisms studied, except for one area, coastal wetlands, and the Bay of Quinte is directly connected to the largest provincially significant wetlands of Lake Ontario (BQRAP 2007).
Table 26 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 26 – Management Options for Fish Habitat and Water Quality Strategies Available Management Tools 1. Work with BQRAP in the a) Update and improve the existing fish habitat information preparation and for the Bay of Quinte. implementation of the Fish b) Conduct a fish habitat assessment needs analysis for all Habitat Management Plan for species, including walleye, on Bay of Quinte. the Bay of Quinte. c) Include in a Bay of Quinte education initiative, a module that focuses on the importance of shoreline habitat and the importance of complying with restrictions to work in or around the water.
2. Evaluate the current water a) OMNR will request a response to the public advisory level management system at committee recommendations from the agencies meeting fisheries needs. involved in water level management.
3. Improve the Water Quality in a) Continue to work with the Ministry of Environment to the Bay. determine the present water quality status of Bay of Quinte/Lake Ontario, and to ensure future water quality assessments are implemented. b) Increase public awareness of water quality issues as they relate to the Bay of Quinte. 4. Encourage and direct public a) Increase awareness of shoreline property owners of input on fish habitat management practices that protect fish habitat during management to the FHMP. shoreline development activities. b) Promote the need for public involvement in the detection and reporting of unauthorized shoreline development.
6.3.2 Climate Change
The role of the local climate and global climate change are not new stressors, but the direction of change and its potential impacts provide new ways to consider future management plan initiatives for the Bay of Quinte area. In recent years, summer and early winter inshore water temperatures have increased significantly in Lake Ontario, paralleling global warming and temperature extremes, particularly those associated with El Niño and La Niña, and increasing water temperatures are expected with regards to global warming. Fish community dynamics and their habitat will be affected by a changing climate, and the
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 101 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan warming impacts on fish species may be either positive or negative depending on species specific thermal requirements and changes in thermal habitat (Mills et al. 2003)
While climate change is constantly raised at public and informal meetings, the public input survey indicated, as do some scientific communities, that some still believe that it is not an issue. At this point in time, we can not determine exactly what the effects of climate change will be, and it is only prudent to remain cognizant and vigilant about this issue and put in place monitoring systems to help us assess the ongoing affects and adapt our management strategies to new stressors to the fish population.
Table 27 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 27 – Management Options for Climate Change Strategies Available Management Tools 1. Establish a long-term a) Maintain a long-term index program, including some monitoring program to supplemental monitoring will help in observing effects determine climate change in of environmental change and allow for more the Bay of Quinte and to responsible management of fish resources into the assess impacts in order to future. adapt management b) Support the BQRAP FHMP in efforts to better monitor direction as needed. water temperature at more locations.
2. Provide Information to the a) Work with partners to develop and implement a public about the effects of communication strategy about climate change. climate change.
6.3.3 Colonization and Proliferation of Double-Crested Cormorants
The Double Crested Cormorant was first observed in Canadian waters in 1938. The species was near extinction in the 1970s as a result of reproductive failure and other drastic impacts from toxic chemicals (Weseloh and Ewin 1994). From 1973 to 1993, however, the cormorant population dramatically increased because of pollution abatement efforts and an abundance of alewife, their primary food base. The cormorant is now more numerous on the Great Lakes than at any other time in its previously recorded history.
Figure 15 – Geographic extent of the 2000 and 2001 Bay of Quinte cormorant program Source – Edwards and Stewart 2002
The cormorant population in the Bay of Quinte area has led to a variety of concerns including perceived competition with
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 102 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan recreational and commercial fishermen, documented alteration and destruction of natural vegetation and nest trees, and impacts on other colonial water bird populations (OMNR 2002d). Cormorants have also been linked to an increase in parasites (the tremetode Hysteromorpha triloba) in brown bullheads, which reduces their commercial marketability.
OMNR initiated a cormorant program for 2000 and 2001 to examine the impact of double- crested cormorant feeding on small fish in the vicinity of Presqu’ile Provincial Park and the Bay of Quinte area (Figure 15). The working hypothesis was that cormorant feeding activity and related impacts on the fish community would diminish as a function of the distance from the nesting colony. The study revealed that the impact of cormorants in the Bay of Quinte area may be an issue to fisheries stakeholders, but it remains, at present, an issue on a localized scale. Recent management initiatives at Presqu’ile have reduced cormorant numbers and should lessen cormorant impacts on fisheries.
Table 28 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 28 – Management Options for Cormorants Strategy Available Management Tools 1. Cooperate with other a) Conduct an updated literature search on the impacts of stakeholders currently cormorants on freshwater fish populations and present results researching the to public (bass, alewife, perch, walleye). impacts of cormorants b) Participate in a lake-wide nest count during the spring, and in the Bay of Quinte future counts. and share key findings c) Encourage local colleges and universities to undertake with public. detailed studies on the Bay of Quinte cormorant population, which may include population dynamics, diet, foraging behaviour, and impact on recreational and bait-fish fishery. d) Produce a fact sheet that includes relevant findings from existing literature and a status report on cormorants on Lake Ontario and within the Bay of Quinte. 2. Provide Information to a) Work with partners to develop and implement a the public about the communication strategy about cormorants . cormorants. b) Update stakeholders as new information becomes available.
6.3.4 Contaminant Levels in Fish
Monitoring of contaminants in fish for both recreational and commercial fisheries has occurred in the Quinte area for more than 15 years (see MOE recreational fish consumption guidelines introduction for an excellent rationale of their program). The main objective of this type of monitoring is prevention of consumption of food (fish flesh) that contains concentrations of chemical contaminants higher than that published in Health Canada guidelines (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/. Contaminants in fish have also been studied in walleye, whitefish and other species inhabiting the Bay of Quinte to assess potential fish and ecosystem health impairments.
Table 29 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 103 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 29 – Management Options for Monitoring Contaminants Strategy Available Management Tools 1. Cooperate with the a) Continue to partner with MOE and CFIA. MOE and CFIA to b) Continue to provide data and samples to research monitor contaminants collaborations/initiatives assessing impacts of contaminants in fish destined for food, on fish and the food chain. and support other stakeholders currently researching the contaminant levels in fish and share key findings with public.
2. Provide Information to a) Communicate information from the “Guide to Eating Ontario the public about Recreational Fish” to stakeholders regarding consumption contaminant levels in advisories. fish. b) Update stakeholders when new advisories are published. c) Work with partners to develop and implement a communication strategy about contaminant levels in fish. d) Update stakeholders as new information becomes available.
6.3.5 First Nations Fisheries
It is important that all stakeholders recognize that First Nations must have a significant role in the management of the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario fisheries. Fisheries management and harvesting are integral components of First Nations’ tradtions. The extent of First Nation fisheries on the Bay of Quinte is poorly documented making management decisions difficult. Nevertheless, The first nations community are concerned about the long- term health of the fish community.
Various First Nations take fish for subsistence needs throughout the year, however, there is limited information available on the First Nations fishery harvest or their management activities, and there is a need to gain a better understanding of First Nations’ use and to increase dialogue among all stakeholders. One of the actions recommended by the public is to create a forum to encourage partnership among local First Nations’ communities, local agencies and stakeholders in order to work together and understand each others needs and issues. As the ecosystem changes in the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario continues to induce continued strong changes in the fish communities, it is paramount that fishery managers understand all fishery harvests and sources of mortality to ensure sustainable fisheries management in face of pervasive and rapid changes.
Table 30 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 104 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 30 – Management Options for First Nations Issues Strategies Available Management Tools 1. Pursue partnerships with a) Establish a relationship with First Nations towards enhanced First Nations to enhance management of the Bay of Quinte fishery sustainable b) Continue to encourage a sustainable fishing agreement management the Bay with First Nations. of Quinte fishery.
2. Provide assistance to a) Provide assistance to First Nations in attaining fishery the First Nations to information and help transfer/communicate information to acquire First Nations their communities. fishery data, and help b) Encourage and assist with essential data collection on the transfer this information First Nations fishery. to communities and the c) Encourage the reporting of catches. broader public.
3. Increase Education and a) Design and implement a communication and education Communication efforts strategy with First Nations that explains the current fishing about First Nations’ practices used by the First Nations on the Bay of Quinte, harvest and including treaty rights, effects of gillnets and spearing on management practices fish stocks, and efforts being made to protect fish stocks.
6.3.6 Walleye Stocking
Stocking of walleye in the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario has long been a suggested approach to increasing their abundance. However, studies have shown that walleye abundance is not increased by ‘supplemental stocking’ in water bodies that have some natural reproduction (Kerr et al. 1996). Natural reproduction by walleye is substantial in the Bay of Quinte. Recent disease related issues in the lower Great Lakes further warrant extreme caution about collecting fish eggs, moving fish and stocking (see recent news release from OMNR Friday Jan 6, 2007). Because of the perpetual production of high quality walleye in the Bay of Quinte, the potential risks (disease, genetic and others) posed by stocking to the natural walleye population in Quinte and continued excellent fishing opportunities, the OMNR has not supported walleye stocking as a management option for the Bay of Quinte.
Table 31 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 31 – Management Options for Stocking Walleye Strategies Available Management Tools 1. Continue current a) Implement a moratorium on new stocking facilities for Bay practice to not stock of Quinte and expansion of existing facilities. the Bay of Quinte. b) OMNR will continue to communicate the lack of ecological merit behind stocking into Quinte and other parts of Lake Ontario with naturally reproducing walleye populations. c) Work with Bay of Quinte stakeholders on the issue of stocking walleye in Bay of Quinte. 2. Continue ongoing a) Seek funding sources to facilitate an independent risk
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 105 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
assessment of stocking assessment that evaluates the benefits and costs and risk of needs. stocking Bay of Quinte, and use the conclusions from this review to make a decision on the need to stock walleye in Bay of Quinte. 3. Direct community a) Identify and promote other projects that can be undertaken conservation efforts by local conservation groups. toward other lake stewardship initiatives.
6.3.7 Fish Pathogens
Fish are hosts to a large number of parasites and disease, but many of these parasites, as far as is known, do not cause harm to the fish. Outbreaks of diseases occur when there is an imbalance between the fish host, the pathogen or disease agent, and the environment. Fish are strongly affected by environmental conditions and temperature is probably the most important abiotic (non-living) factor controlling the population dynamics of parasites and the outbreak of disease. Being a cold-blooded animal, a fish will acclimate to a specific water temperature and it that water temperature changes, the fish must acclimate again, which is energy consuming and stressful (Cornell University 2006). Light, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, salinity and possibly water current and water chemistry have a lesser influence (Lemm 2002). As well, other living organisms in the environment may exude influences on the abundance of fish parasites, and parasitic transmission may be influenced by the diet and rate of food intake of the fish host. Long-term climatic and biotic (living) changes in the environment can lead to alterations in the parasitic fauna and parasites have been known to increase or decrease in relevance over time.
Some known pathogeons in the Bay of Quinte include:
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) – Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) virus is an extremely serious pathogen of fresh and saltwater fish, and is causing an emerging disease in Lake Ontario. Due to its high mortality and severe economic consequences, VHS is classified as a reportable disease by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). In the past, VHS was a concern solely for salmonids species in European commercial aquaculture facilities; however, the recent outbreak in the Great Lakes region appears to be a new strain of the virus. It has been responsible for several species die-offs including walleye, muskellunge, smallmouth bass, northern pike, yellow perch and several panfish. The virus transmits easily between fish and infected fish may show physical signs that mimic symptoms of other fish diseases. Bay of Quinte is in the Infected Zone, which means that within this Infected Zone live bait fish will not be allowed to be commercially harvested or transported north of this zone or to United States markets (see Section 4).
Heterosporis sp. (Microsporidea: Pleistophoridae), a previously unknown parasite that severely degrades yellow perch flesh, has recently been detected in the eastern Lake Ontario region. The infection has the appearance of “freezer-burn” in the flesh of the fish. The rate of infection is currently low. Local commercial fishers and fish buyers have observed that up to a maximum of about 10 % of some catches were infected in 2001. An increased infection rate could lead to reduced marketability of yellow perch (OMNR 2002c).
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 106 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Glugea hertwigi – Of the fish disease pathogens introduced into the Great Lakes, Glugea hertwigi, a protozoan, caused extensive mortality in rainbow smelt in Lakes Erie and Ontario in the 1960s and 1970s. A second pathogen, bacterial kidney disease, has been implicated in the massive mortalities of Pacific salmon in Lake Michigan in recent years. Two other introduced pathogens cause salmon whirling disease and furunculosis, but they occur mainly in fish hatcheries where crowding makes fish vulnerable to outbreaks of disease.
Table 32 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 32 – Management Options for Fish Pathogens Strategies Available Management Tools 1. Monitor fish disease a) Continue to monitor for existing and new incidences of outbreaks and pathogen in the Bay of Quinte. distribution and b) Prevent the introduction of new fish and wildlife species and impacts in the Bay. dumping of foreign water into the Bay of Quinte/ c) Maintain/promote mandatory reporting mechanisms of ill fish. d) Random inventories during creel. 2. Establish a a) Communication planning and network for disease outbreaks. Communication Plan to notify the public about disease outbreaks.
6.3.8 Fish Restoration Programs
MNR, LaMP and the GLFC recognize restoration of native species as a key component to attaining their ecological objectives. In the Bay of Quinte, this directly relates to American eel, lake sturgeon, and lake trout. Due to the connection between the Bay and the lake, restoration efforts for Atlantic salmon, ciscoes and other native species are also important to the FMP (these species have been or still are present in the Bay). The objectives for this type of work are not always directly obvious to fishers or stakeholders; however, promoting a healthy, properly functioning ecosystem will provide better habitat for the entire diversity of species in the Bay of Quinte.
Table 33 provides a list of strategies and management tools to be considered:
Table 33 – Management Options for Fish Restoration Programs Strategy Tactic 1. Support the restoration a) Increase efforts in rearing and stocking Atlantic salmon to of Lake Ontario’s Lake Ontario stream tributaries and continue work on native fish species. existing restoration plan for the recovery of the Atlantic salmon (completed spring 2006). b) Collect current information regarding the status of the species in Lake Ontario, in particular American eel, lake trout, and lake sturgeon, to increase abundance and restore viable populations back to the Bay of Quinte and eastern Lake Ontario. c) Develop strategy to rehabilitate native coregonids to the Lake Ontario basin to diversify prey-fish communities.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 107 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 108 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Section 7 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS AND BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
Sections 5 and 6 provide a list of fishery management tools and proposed implementation options to address species specific and the fundamental objectives of the FMP to address issues and concerns that were identified by public and agency stakeholders and through on-going discussions with members of the BQFAC Planning Team. The purpose of this section is to provide possible tactics under umbrella implementation themes that have the potential of addressing the FMP’s goals provided the appropriate funding and resources, which are provided as a guideline, are available. It is the OMNR’s intention to provide a separate implementation plan with a descriptive outline of each action, including performance benchmarks, to be implemented and monitored in the Bay of Quinte and its connectivity to the objectives listed throughout the BQFMP, once support and money have been secured. Maintaining a transparent and accountable process is a guiding principle of this document.
One key constraint opposing a timely implementation of the proposed Bay of Quinte Fisheries management objectives is the availability and appropriate distribution of limited budget and staff resources to fulfill the FMP’s obligations. It is, therefore, crucial to the success of the FMP that other initiatives and programs developed by stakeholder partners be recognized, supported and incorporated into the BQFMP’s implementation strategy to compliment the objectives of this plan and not duplicate other local efforts and activities. It is also important to address/tackle those issues of immediate concern and importance first, which may provide the best results within the current financial and resource concerns facing the fishery. As well, it is important to recognize that a task may be addressed at a later date, or may not be achievable within the time frame of the current BQFMP.
The following proposed management actions lists those activities that are essential to maintaining the long-term data collection and monitoring efforts that help to predict and manage changes to the ecological health and population status of individual species and their habitat, and that support new research to address these changes and education initiatives to involve stakeholders in local stewardship initiatives. The following fishery management initiatives were proposed based on an assessment of the following criteria: Physical and Jurisdictional Scope of the Fisheries Management Plan; Prioritized issues plaguing Bay of Quinte and proposed strategies to address those issues as per public opinion; Available annual funding and staff resources assigned to lake management units; and The guiding principles of OMNR’s operational mandate and policies.
The funding requirements to fulfill these management actions are immediate and, in addition to regular annual work planning, will take place during the implementation phase of this management plan over the next five years. The FMP implementation plan is limited to what programs exist, and there may be more objectives and actions to be considered. Therefore, until funding and support are secured, the FMP proposes the following optional management actions that could happen in the Bay, based on existing programs. Confirmed BQFMP projects will be provided in a separate implementation plan.
7.1 Proposed Management Action 1 – Continue Assessment of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 109 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
A significant backbone resource to the Bay of Quinte FMP is the availability of long-term data derived from assessment practices over the past 40+ years. These data provide information on the fisheries and other ecosystem characteristics, and provide quantitative estimates of parameters that help to measure changes to fishery health. a) Main Support Costs (staff) – the key funding item for this plan are salary dollars to support one coordinator for the duration of the plan; that is a commitment of about 60- 70 k per year for 5 years. Second to this, is a commitment from this person to be able to support the planning team and steering and/or implementation committee. Additional costs are about 5 K per year for 5 years. Reporting, open houses and informal meetings are clearly defined as important secondary items in this plan and need support as well; probably about 2 k per year. Minimum Estimated Funding Required – Main support costs: $67,000 to $77,000 per year Additional costs: $7,000 per year b) Index Netting Programs – are provincially standardized index netting protocols that incorporate gillnets and bottom trawling gear to sample offshore fish communities to provide a baseline estimate of fish species population status, biological characteristics of each species, and long-term trends. The continued implementation of these programs is vital in understanding real versus perceived effects of regulation changes and changes to ecosystem, and will, therefore, contribute to the adaptive management of the lake, and plays an integral role in determining the long-term data assessment needs for the Bay of Quinte’s offshore fish community. Opportunities for partnership with commercial fishing industry could help reduce costs. Minimum Estimated Annual Funding Required: $58,000 c) Nearshore Community Index Netting (NSCIN) – is a provincially standardized nearshore community index netting protocol, which utilizes trapnets to sample nearshore communities to evaluate fish species abundances and biological characteristics. The continued implementation of this program is vital to understand the community dynamics of the expanding nearshore fish community diversity and the changing habitat structure of the littoral zone in the Bay of Quinte. This program is also important in acquiring abundances of population expansions of invasive species. Opportunities for partnership with commercial fishing industry could help to reduce costs. Minimum Estimated Annual Funding Required: $23,000 d) Open Water and Winter Angler Creel Survey – angler interviews provide angler efforts and biological characteristics of the harvest, which are both important contributions to the Bay of Quinte’s long-term data collection. Angler creel/surveys are the best mechanism at this time to estimate harvest levels, and also represent an important continuous data set on the Bay. The continued implementation of creel programs, which incorporates the local knowledge and captures the needs of the resource user, is important for the sustainable management of exploitable stocks and maintaining satisfied fishers. Immediately following regulation changes, this program will be critical in order to monitor the effects of the changes to harvest levels. Without creel data prior to regulation changes, success of new regulations at reducing harvest levels cannot be properly evaluated. Minimum Estimated Annual Funding Required: $44,300 (Open Water), $10,000 (Winter)
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 110 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan e) Commercial catch sampling and daily catch record administration – the commercial fishery harvests walleye annually. Currently there is no biological sampling of walleye within this fishery. Biological sampling would greatly assist in determining the catch by age within the commercial fishery for walleye. Minimum Estimated Annual Funding Required: $5,000 f) Future Assessment and Research Needs (round gobies) – there is an immediate need for continued independent scientific research on the impacts of invasive species and climate change to offshore and nearshore fish community structure, food web dynamics, and habitat conditions. Continued research and collection of data from other assessment units, stakeholders and academics is important to determine which data sets are critical for population diagnose for the Bay to Quinte community. There is also a need to conduct a science and socio-economic impact study of invasive species and climate change with public and agency stakeholders.
Past data sets from the Bay of Quinte would be evaluated during the scientific review in the context of essential needs for population diagnosis and desirable data sets that should continue with help from partners. The final product from the scientific review would be a report on what fisheries data sets are required to manage the lake, which are desirable and should be continued through partnerships, and which are redundant and should not be continued. All future fisheries assessment work on Bay of Quinte is dependent on the completion of this scientific review. Minimum Estimated Funding Required: $30,000 g) Government to Government Partnership – to establish a formal partnership with local First Nations’ communities to establish a cooperative management strategy for the Bay of Quinte, this would include the exchange of harvest reports and long-term data, as well as assistance with short-term data collection. h) Stakeholder FMP Implementation Assessment Programs – this would essentially be an on-going effort by the OMNR to engage the public and stakeholder opinion regarding their impression of the quality of the Bay of Quinte fishery. The program would involve developing an on-line reporting mechanism to encourage stakeholders to communicate their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the progress of the FMP in the Bay of Quinte, and enable OMNR to post their bi-annual assessment of the fishery status and research, and allow reporting of target achievement which may implicate future management decisions. This program would ensure accountability by all users.
7.2 Proposed Management Action 2 Promotion and Enforcement of New Fishing Regulations
a) Education and Communication Package – funding is required to develop and produce educational tools, such as a ‘species fact sheet’ that explain in detail the new 2007 fishing regulations that will apply to each exploitable species in the Bay of Quinte. New information on fishing seasons, catch and possession limits, size limits, and requirements for cleaning and packaging fish when size limits apply must be effectively transferred to Bay of Quinte anglers. In addition, conservation issues and wise use of the fishery must be continually promoted. Educational material focusing on these regulation changes is crucial to the success of the new regulations and the sustainability of the Bay of Quinte fishery.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 111 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Minimum Estimated Funding Required: $10,000
b) Increased Enforcement Campaign – on the Bay of Quinte during the initiation of new regulations is critical to achieving the target harvest reduction and assuring compliance. Existing conservation officers will have to redirect their efforts to the Bay, or indict training officers or the local police force, to assist with responding to infractions and post infractions on the BQFMP website. Minimum Estimated Funding Required: $10,000
7.3 Proposed Management Action 3 Improved Communications and Community Involvement
a) Formation of a Bay of Quinte Sub-Committee within the New Zone 20 Advisory Council– a key recommendation from the Public Advisory Committee (BQFAC) was the formation of a Zone 20 Bay of Quinte Sub-Committee that would have a meaningful role in the management and assessment of the Bay of Quinte. An independent consultant will be required to draft a terms of reference for this board, and then initiate its formation.
Minimum Estimated Funding Required: $ 15,000
b) Host annual public forums – to keep communication lines open with recreational, commercial and First Nations’ fisheries. Public Forums would be held lake-wide for all of Zone 20 including the Bay of Quinte. Minimum Estimated Funding Required: $3000
c) Increase the promotion of voluntary reporting of non-creel catches – especially during derbies, and infractions. Post various restoration or monitoring programs on-line which could be assisted by qualified or enthusiastic local stewardship groups or key stakeholders. Similar programs are promoted by the local Conservation Authorities to assist where funding is lacking, especially with habitat restoration. A fact sheet could be prepared and distributed about what you can do to stop the spread of invasive species and pathogens, the impacts of climate change, and protecting local biodiversity. Minimum Estimated Funding Required: $ 10,000
Scheduling Implementation
The total funding required to begin implementation for the first five years of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan (2008-2012) is estimated to be $1.14 million. Without this funding, essential initiatives for successful implementation of the plan outlined above will not be possible. Table 34 provides a summary of costs and a schedule for implementation.
Figure 34 – Summary of FMP Implementation Costs Annual Funding 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1. Continue Fisheries Assessment a) Main Support Costs $67,000 to $77,000 b) Index Netting Programs $58,000 c) Nearshore Community Index $23,000
Netting
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 112 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan d) Open Water and Winter Creel $44,300 Open Water
Survey $10,000 Winter e) Commercial Catch Sampling $5,000 f) Future Assessment and $30,000 - - - - - Research Needs (round gobies) g) Government to Government $5,000 - - - -
Partnerships h) Stakeholder Implementation $7,500 - - - Assessment Program 2. Promotion and Enforcement of New Fisheries Regulations a) Education and $10,000
Communication Package b) Increased Enforcement $10,000
Campaign 3. Improve Communication and Public Involvement a) Formation of Bay of Quinte $15,000 - - - -
Sub-Committee within the New Zone 20 Advisory Council b) Host Annual Public Forums $3,000 exc. advertising - c) Increase Promotion of $10,000 In.advertising
Voluntary Reporting of Non- creel catches Total Annual Funding $286,800 +/- Requirements
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 113 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Section 11 REFERENCES
Adams, J. 1912. Ten thousand miles through Canada. Methuen and Co., Ltd., London. 3 10 p.
American Eel Management Plan (Draft). 2007. Canadian Eel Working Group Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Assel, R.A. 2003. Great Lakes Ice Cover, First Ice, Last Ice, and Ice Duration: Winters 1973-2002. NOAA TM GLERL-125. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor.
Auer, N.A., 1982. Identification of larval fishes of the Great Lakes basin with emphasis on the Lake Michigan drainage. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Special Publ. 82-3, 744 p.
Baldwin, N. S., R. W. Saalfeld, M. J. Ross, and H. J. Buettner. 1979. Commercial fish production in the Great Lakes 1867-1977. Technical Report No. 3. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. 187 pp.
BAO (Bait Association of Ontario), 2005. The Commercial Bait Industry in Ontario, Statistical Report. Bait Association of Ontario, Fisheries Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Beall, E., J. Dumas, and D. Claireau. 1994. Dispersal patterns of survival of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) juveniles in a nursery stream. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 51: 1-10.
Beard, T. D., Jr., M. T. Drake, J. E. Breck, and N. A. Nate. 1997. Effects of simulated angling regulations on stunting in bluegill populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:525-532.
Belore, M., J. Black, S. Chong, A. Cottrill, J. Hoyle, B. Locke, L. Mohr, and B. Morrison. 2006 (March). 2006 Project Completion Report, Review of Assessment Programs for Great Lake’s Whitefish. Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Bisset, J., J. Bowlby, M. Jones, B. Marchant, L. Miller-Dodd, S. Orsatti, L. Stanfield. An Atlantic salmon restoration plan for Lake Ontario. February 1995.
BQRAP (Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan). 1993. Time to Act - The Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 Report. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Kingston, Ontario. 257 pp.
BQRAP (Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan). 2005. Backgrounder ~ Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan. Prepared by M. Ewaschuk and Edited by S. Crabbe. 84 pp.
BQRAP (Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan). 2007. A Fish Habitat Management Plan
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 114 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
for the Bay of Quinte. Prepared by the Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee. 67p.
Carlander, K.D., Campbell, J.S., and Muncy, R.J.. 1978. Inventory of percid and esocid habitat in North America. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 11: 27–38
Casselman, J.M. 1978. Effects of environmental factors on growth, survival, activity, and exploitation of northern pike. Am. Fish.Soc. Spec. Publ. 11: 114–128.
Casselman, J. M., and C. A. Lewis. 1996. Habitat re-quirements of northern pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement 1):161-174
Casselman, J.M., K.A. Scott, D.M. Brown, and C.J. Robinson. 1999. Changes in Relative Abundance, Variability, and Stability of Fish Assemblages of Eastern Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte - the Value of Long-term Community Sampling Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manage. 2 (3): 255-269.
Casselman, J.M. 2002. Effects of Temperature, Global Extremes, and Climate Change on Year-class Production of Warmwater, Coolwater, and Coldwater Fishes in the Great Lakes Basin. American Fisheries Society Symposium 32: 39- 60.
Casselman, J.M., D.M. Brown, J.A. Hoyle, and T.H. Eckert. 2002. Effects of Climate and Global Warming on Year-class Strength and Relative Abundance of Smallmouth Bass in Eastern Lake Ontario. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 31: 73-90.
Casselman, J.M. 2003. Dynamics of resources of the American eel, Anguilla rostrata: declining abundance in the 1990s, Pages 255-274, chapter 18, in K. Aida, K. Tsukamoto, K. Yamauchi, editors. Eel Biology, Springer-Verlag Tokyo.
Chapman, L.J., and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
Christie, W.J. 1972. Lake Ontario: effects of exploitation, introductions and eutrophication on the salmonid community. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 29:913-929.
Christie, W.J. 1973. A review of the changes in fish species composition of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Technical Report No. 23, 65 pp.
Chu, C., C.K. Minns, J.E. Moore, and E.S. Millard. 2004. Impact of Oligotrophication,
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 115 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Temperature, and Water Levels on Walleye Habitat in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 13 (4): 868-879.
Coble, D. W. 1988. Effects of angling on bluegill populations: Management implications. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8: 277-283.
Colby, P.J., C.A. Lewis, and R.L. Eschenroder. 1991. Status of walleye in the Great Lakes: case studies prepared for the 1989 workshop. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Special Publication No. 91-1.
Cooke, S. J., D. P. Philipp, J. F. Schreer, and R. S. McKinley. 2000. Locomotory impairment of nesting male largemouth bass following catch-and-release angling. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20 : 968-977.
Cornell University Press 2006. Cornell scientists identify deadly fish virus in the Northeast United States , June 2006.
COSEWIC 2006a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada. Ottawa. x + 71 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).
COSEWIC 2006b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Atlantic salmon Salmo salar (Lake Ontario population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 26 pp.
Crewe, H.C. 1971. Pre-Columbian fishing on the Great lakes. Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Dept. Anthropology, manuscript. 13p.
Cudmore, B., and N. Mandrak. 2007. The Baitfish Primer – A Guide to Identifying and Protecting Ontario’s Baitfishes. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada).http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/CENTRAL/pub/baitfish- on/index_e.htm
D'Amours, J., S. Thibodeau, and R. Fortin. 2001. Comparison of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), Stizostedion spp., Catostomus spp., Moxostoma spp., quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus), and mooneye (Hiodon tergisus) larval drift in Des Prairies River, Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1472-1489.
DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2003. 2000 Recreational angler survey (preliminary survey results). Ottawa, Canada
Diana, J. S. 1987. Simulation of mechanisms causing stunting in northern pike populations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116: 612-617.
Dietrich, J., B.J. Morrison, and J. A. Hoyle. 2006. Alternative Ecological Pathways in the Eastern Lake Ontario Food Web—Round Goby in the Diet of Lake
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 116 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Trout.Great Lakes Res. 32:395–400.
Duggan, I.C., S.A. Bailey, R.I. Colautti, D.K. Gray, J.C. Makarewicz, and H.J. MacIssac. 2003. Biological Invasions in Lake Ontario: Past, Present and Future. State of Lake Ontario (SOLO) – Past, Present and Future. Ecovision World Monograph Series. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society. 17 pp.
Ebener, M. P. 1997. Recovery of lake whitefish populations in the Great Lakes. Fisheries 22(7):18-20.
French, J.R.P. 1993. How well can fishes prey on zebra mussels in eastern North America. Fisheries 18(6):13-19.
Ghedotti, M.J., J.C. Smihula, and G.R. Smith. 1995. Zebra Mussel Predation by Round Gobbies in the Laboratory. Journal of Great Lakes Resources, 21(4):665-669.
GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, MI. (Supersedes 1994 version.)
GLFC (Great Lakes Fisheries Commission). 2003. Update Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. 7 pp.
Goodyear, C.S., T.A. Edsall, D.M. Ormsby Depsey, G.D. Moss, and P.E. Polanski. 1982. Atlas of the spawning and nursery areas of Great Lakes fishes. Volume eleven: Lake Ontario, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC FWS/OBS- 82/52
Green, D. M. 1993. Evaluation of experimental angling regulations for bass. Federal Aid for Fish Research. Final Report. Project FA-5-R. Cornell University Biological Field Station. Bridgeport, New York. 99 p.
Greenland, G. 1974. Fishing on North Lake Erie Shoreline. OMNR, Regional Office, London, manuscript.
Hackney, P.A., W.M. Tatum and S.L. Spencer. 1967. Life history study of the river redhorse, Moxostoma carinatum (Cope), in the Cahaba River, Alabama, with notes on the management of the species as a sports fish. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of the Game Fisheries Commission. Pp. 324-332.
Healey, B.D. 2002. Draft conservation assessment for the greater redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi) in the Great Lakes States National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 28 p.
Houston, J. J. 1987. Status of the lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in Canada. Canadian Fiesld-Naturalist 101(2): 171-185.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 117 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Huntsman, A.G. 1944. Why did the Lake Ontario salmon disappear? Trans. R. Soc. Can. 38 (Ser. 3, Sect. 5): 83-102.
Hurley, D.A. and W.J. Christie. 1977. Depreciation of the warmwater Fish community in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34: 1849 – 1860.
Hurley, D.A. 1986. Fish Populations of the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, before and after phosphorous control, p 201-214. In C.K. Minns, D.A. Hurley, and K.H. Nicholls [ed.] Project Quinte: point-source phosphorous control and ecosystem response in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 86:270p.
Inskip, P.D. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: northern pike. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS–82/10.17.
Ihssen, P. E., D. O. Evans, W. J. Christie, J. A. Reckahn, and R. L. Desjardine. 1981. Life History, Morphology and Electrophoretic Characteristics of Five Allopatric Stocks of Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in the Great Lakes Region. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1790-1807.
Jenkins, R.E. 1970. Systematic studies of catostomid fish tribe Moxostomidae. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 799 p.
Jennings, M. J. and T. D. Beard. 1994. Are we putting the pinch on panfish? Wisconsin Natural Resources. August 1994: 17-21.
Johnson, D. L. and R. O. Anderson. 1974. Evaluation of a 12 inch length limit on Largemouth bass in Philips Lake, 1966-1973. p. 106-113 In J. L. Funk [ed.]. Symposium on Overharvest and Management of Largemouth Bass in Small Impoundments. Special Publication 3. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland.
Keith, W. 1978. Pros and cons of minimum size limits on black bass. Arkansas Game and Fish 10(3) : 18-21.
Kempinger, J.J., and R.F. Carline. 1978. Dynamics of the northern pike population and changes that occurred with a minimum size limit in Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin. American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 11: 382-389.
Kerr, S. J., B. W. Corbett, D. D. Flowers, D. Fluri, P. E. Ihssen, B. A. Potter, and D. E. Seip. 1996. Walleye stocking as a management tool. Percid Community Synthesis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 79 p.
Kerr, S. J. and H. Conroy. 2002. A literature review of bass (Micropterus spp.) regulations in North America. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 118 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Kieffer, J. D., M. R. Kubacki, F. J. S. Phelan, D. P. Philipp, and B. L. Tufts. 1993. Impacts of angling stress on nesting male smallmouth bass: Implications for catch and release angling.
Kieffer, J. D., M. R. Kubacki, F. J. S. Phelan, D. P. Philipp, and B. L. Tufts. 1995. Effects of catch-and-release angling on nesting male smallmouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124 : 70-76.
Koelz, W. 1926. Fishing industry of the Great Lakes. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. (1925): 553-617.
Krueger, W.H., and K. and Oliveira. 1999. Evidence for environmental sex determination in the American eel, Anguilla rostrata. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55:381-389.
Kubacki, M. F., F. J. S. Phelan, J. E. Claussen and D. P. Philipp. 2002. How well does a closed season protect spawning bass in Ontario? America Fisheries Society Symposium 31: 379-386.
Lake-Wide Management Plan 2006. Lake Ontario Lake-wide Management Plan (LaMP) Status Report. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). vii + 235 pp.
LaPan, S.R., A. Schavione, R.M. Klindt, W.F. Krise, M.N. DiLauro, and K. Fynn-Aikins. 1994. Reestablishment of lake sturgeon in tributaries of the St. Lawrence River, 1993.Minutes, Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Lake Ontario Committee. Niagara Falls, ON, 29-30 March 1994, 421-430.
Leisti, K.E., Millard, E.S. and Minns, C.K. 2006. Assessment of submerged macrophytes in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, August 2004, including historical context. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2762. 81 pp.
Lemm, L.P. 2002. Characterization of the Canadian Commercial Walleye Fishery. Master’s of Science Thesis, North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science. 106 pp. (on-line)
Lester, N., Dextrase, A.J., Kushneriuk, R.S., Rawson, M.R., and Ryan, P.A. 2004. Light and Temperature: Key Factors Affecting Walleye Abundance and Production. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 133: 588–605.
Magnuson, J.J., Meisner, J.D., and Hill, D.K. 1988. Potential Changes in the Thermal Habitat of Great Lakes Fish after Global Climate Warming. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 119: 254–264.
Minns, C.K., R.G. Randall, J.E. Moore, and V.W. Cairns. 1996. A Model Simulating the Impact of Habitat Supply Limits on Northern Pike, Esox lucius, in Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53 (Suppl.1): 20-34.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 119 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Miller, R. B. 1956. The collapse and recovery of a small whitefish fishery. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 13(1): 135-146.
Mills, E.L., J.M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J.D. Fitzsimons, G. Gal, K.T. Holeck, J.A. Hoyle, O.E. Johannsson, B.F. Lantry, J.C. Makarewicz, E.S. Millard, I.F. Munawar, M. Munawar, R. O’Gorman, R.W. Owens, L.G. Rudstam, T. Schaner, T.J. Stewart. 2003. Lake Ontario: Food Web Dynamics in a Changing Ecosystem (1970- 2000). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 471-490.
Mills, E.L., J.M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J.D. Fitzsimons, G.Gal, K.T. Holeck, J.A. Hoyle, O.E. Johannsson, B.F. Lantry, J.C. Makarewicz, E.S. Millard, I.F. Munawar, M. Munawar, R. O’Gorman, R.W. Owens, L.G. Rudstam, T. Schaner, and T.J. Stewart. 2005 (March). A Synthesis of Ecological and Fish-Community Changes in Lake Ontario, 1970-2000. GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission), Technical Report 67. 92 pp.
Morrison, B., J.N. Bowlby, J.A. Hoyle, and S. LaPan. 2006. The Status of Walleye in Lake Ontario Since 1990. Unpublished. Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
National Library of Canada 1858. Collection of Colonial Government Journals: Appendix to the sixteenth volume of the journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada (25th February to 16th August, 1858), 1st session of the 6th Provincial Parliament of Canada.
NatureServe Explorer 2003: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.6. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 1992. Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries – SPOF II – An Aquatic Ecosystem Approach to Managing Fisheries. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto, Ontario. 22 pp.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 1999. Eastern Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte, Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit 1998 (Ch. 3,). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2001a. Bay of Quinte aboriginal spear fishery, Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2000 (Chp. 9). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2001b. Lake Whitefish Populations in Eastern Lake. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2000 (Chp.12). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 120 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2001c. Genetic Structure of Spawning Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) Populations in and near the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. Annual report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2000 (Chp. 11). Glenora Fisheries Station. Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2002a Model simulation of walleye in eastern Lake Ontario. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2001 (Chp.15). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2002b Bay of Quinte Nearshore Fish Community. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2001 (Chp.9). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2002c Lake Ontario Commercial Fishery. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2001 (Chp.5). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2002d. Resurgence and Decline of Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) Stocks in Eastern Lake Ontario, 1972 to 1999, LOMU Annual Report 2001 (Ch. 11, 8 pp). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2002e Lake Ontario Cormorant studies. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2001 (Chp.10). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2003a. Two decades of commercial fishery management on Lake Ontario, 1981-2001. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2002 (Ch. 10). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2003b. 2000 Survey of Recreational Fishing in Ontario: A Descriptive Analysis. Peterborough, Ontario. 238 pp.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2004a. Regulatory Guidelines for Managing the Yellow Perch Sport Fishery in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 121 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2004b. Regulatory Guidelines for Managing Crappie Sport Fisheries in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2005a. Communications. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2004 (Ch. 11). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2005b. Walleye State of the Resource (SOR) Report for Southern Region. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2005c. Proposal for Managing the Lake Whitefish Sport Fishery in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, OMNR. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2005d. Regulatory Guidelines for Managing Sunfish (Lepomis spp.)Sport Fisheries in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006a. Eastern Lake Ontario and Bay of Quinte Fish Community Index Gillnetting. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2005 (Ch. 2). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006b. Eastern Lake Ontario and Bay of Quinte Fish Community Index Trawling. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2005 (Ch. 2). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006c. Bay of Quinte Nearshore Community Index Netting. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2005 (Ch. 2). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006d. Regulatory Guidelines for Bait and Gear Restrictions in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006e. Contaminant Monitoring. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2005 (Ch. 6). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006f. Regulatory Guidelines for
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 122 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Managing the Recreational Fishery for Largemouth and Smallmouth Bass in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006g. Research Activities: Lake Trout Diet. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2005 (Ch. 9). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006h. Recreational Fishing Surveys. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit 2005 (Ch.3). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006i. Guidelines for Managing the Recreational Fishery for Northern Pike in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006j. Staus of Major Species. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit 2005 (Ch.1). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006k. Commercial fishery. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit 2005 (Ch.4). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006l. Lake-wide Hydroacoustic Assessment of Prey Fish. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit 2005 (Ch.2). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2007a. Commercial fishery. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2006 (Ch. 4). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2007b. 2007 Commercial Bait License Issuing Guidelines for VHS Control in Ontario. Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Canada.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2007c. Trophic Role of Round Goby in the Bay of Quinte. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, 2006 (Ch. 8). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 123 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2007d. Lake-wide Hydroacoustic Assessment of Prey Fish. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit 2006 (Ch.2). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2007e. Native Species Rehabilitation. Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit 2006 (Ch.7). Glenora Fisheries Station, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Parsons, J.W. 1973. History of salmon in the Great Lakes, 1850-1970. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Tech. Pap. No. 68.
Parsons, B. G. and J. R. Reed. 1998. Angler exploitation of bluegill and black crappie in four west-central Minnesota lakes. Fisheries Investigational Report 468. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota. 35 pp.
Payne, N.R. 1963. The Life History of Yellow Walleye, Stizostedion vitreum (Mitchill), in the Bay of Quinte. M.A. Thesis, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ont.40p.
Peterson, R.H. 1978. Physical characteristics of Atlantic salmon spawning gravel in some New Brunswick streams. Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep. No. 785.
Philipp, D. P., C. A. Toline, M. F. Kubacki, D. B. F. Philipp, and F. J. S. Phelan. 1997. The impact of catch-and-release angling on the reproductive success of smallmouth bass and largemouth bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17 : 557-567
Pokrovskii, V. V. 1960. Basic environmental factors determining the abundance of the whitefish. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Population Dynamics of Fishes. Moscow, USSR. 9 pp.
Portt, C., G. Coker and K. Barrett. 2003. Recovery plan for fish species at risk in the Grand River watershed.
Reid, S.M. 2003. Trent-Severn Waterway river redhorse and channel darter research (SARRF02-70), 2002 (Final Report). Prepared for the Trent-Severn Waterway. Ridgway, M.S., D.A. Hurley, and K.A. Scott. 1990. Effects of Winter Temperature and Predation on the Abundance of Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 16:11-20.
Ridgway, M. S., B. J. Shuter, and E. E. Post. 1991. The relative influence of body size And territorial behavior on nesting asynchrony in male smallmouth bass. Journal of Animal Ecology 60 : 665-681.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 124 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Ridgway, M. S. and T. G. Friesen. 1992. Annual variation in parental care in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Environmental Biology of Fishes 35 : 243-255.
Ridgway, M. S. and B. J. Shuter. 1997. Predicting the effects of angling for nesting Male smallmouth bass on production of age-0 fish with an individual-based model. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17 : 568-580.
Ridgway, M. S., B. J. Shuter, T. A. Middel, and M. L. Gross. 2002. Spatial ecology and density dependent processes in smallmouth bass: The juvenile transition hypothesis. American Fisheries Society Symposium 31:47-60.
Robillard, M.M., and M.G. Fox. 2006. Historical Changes in Abundance and Community Structure of Warmwater Piscivore Communities Associated with Changes in Water Clarity, Nutrients, and Temperature. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63: 798-809.
Rostlund, E. 1952. Freshwater fish and Fishing in Native North America. U.C.L.A. Pub. Geog., Univ.California Press, 314p.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184.
Shuter, B. J. and J. R. Post. 1990. Climate, population viability and the zoogeography of temperate fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 314- 336.
SOLEC (State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference), 2000. Nearshore & Open Water Indicators, Walleye (and Hexagenia), SOLEC Indicator # 9. SOLEC Implementing Indicators (Draft for Review, November 2000). State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. (www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/).
SMITH, S. H.1970. Species interactions of the alewife in the Great Lakes. Trans. Amer. Fish.Soc. 99(4): 754-765.
Stewart, T.J., R.E. Lange, S.D. Orsatti, C.P. Schneider, A. Mathers, M.E. Daniels. 1999. Fish-community objectives for Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC). Special Publication 99-l. 56 pp. Stirling, M. 1999. Manual of Instructions: Nearshore Community Index Netting (NSCIN). Lake Simcoe Fisheries Assessment Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sutton West, Ontario.
Sztramko, L. K. 1985. Effects of a sanctuary on the smallmouth bass fishery of Long Point Bay, Lake Erie. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5 : 233- 241.
Trent University Native Studies. 2002. Bay of Quinte Walleye Fishing Dispute. [online].
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 125 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Available from http://www.trentu.ca/academic/nativestudies /courses/nast305/20012002/ index.html
Trigger, B.G. 1969. The Huron: farmers of the north. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 130p.
Vachon, N. 1999a. Écologie des juvéniles 0+ et 1+ de chevalier cuivré (Moxostoma hubbsi), une espèce menacée, comparée à celle des quatre autres espèces de Moxostoma (M. anisurum, M. carinatum, M. macrolepidotum, M. valenciennesi) dans le système de la rivière Richelieu. Mémoire de maîtrise en sciences biologiques, Montréal, Université du Québec à Montréal. 191 p.
Weseloh, D. V. C., and P. J. Ewins. 1994. Characteristics of a rapidly increasing colony Of double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) in Lake Ontario: population size, reproductive parameters, and band recoveries. J. Great Lakes Res. 20(2): 443-456.
Whillans, T.H. 1977. Fish Community Transformation in three bays within the lower Great Lakes. MSc. Thesis, Dept. Geog.,Univ. Toronto, Toronto Ont. 328p.
Wilcox, D.A., and Meeker, J.E. 1992. Implications for faunal habitat related to altered macrophyte structure in regulated lakes in northern Minnesota: Wetlands, v. 12, p. 192–203.
Wilde, G. R. 1997. Largemouth bass fishery responses to length limits. Fisheries 22(6) : 14-23.
Winemiller, K.O. and K.A. Rose. 1992. Patterns of life-history diversification in North American fishes: implications for population regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:2196-2218.
Wirth, T., and L. Bernatchez. 2003. Decline of North Atlantic eels: a fatal synergy? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 270 (1516): 681-688.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan 126 July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Appendix A – Summary of Stakeholder Survey
127 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan July, 2010 Final Version Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Public Survey – Fall 2005
What is happening on the Bay of Quinte?
Why is the Bay of Quinte important to you? What is important about the fish community? What are t he issues t hat current ly fa ce Ba y of Quinte f isheries? What is y our future vis ion for t he fishery in the Bay of Quinte? How can you b est participate in the Fish Management Planning process?
The Ministry of Natural Resources is preparing a Fi sheries Management Plan ( FMP) for the Bay of Qui nte area. The Fi sheries Management Plan wi ll be designed t o sust ain t he fisheries resource into the future while still providing benefits to the public.
How will this happen? Through open houses and t his survey we will identify key issues facing Quinte fisheries and then develop strategies to address t hem. The purpos e of t his survey was to gather ideas and views from the resource use rs (respondents here after) on the issues and actions for the management of fish communities in the bay and to obtain suggestions on how the public would like to be involved in the process.
Survey Results
This survey was distributed to a variety of stakeholders and various venues in which the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) was involved. A total of 116 surveys were returned, including 47 from participants at the Spring Fishing Show in February 2006 and 40 from the Toronto Sportsmen’s Show in March 2006; the remaining 29 surveys were collected at the Bay of Quinte FMP open house and via mail response.
Figure A – Percentage (%) of 116 Responses to the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan Survey
Percentage % of 116 Responses to the Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan Survey
Mail and BQFMP Open House Toront o Sport smen's 25% Show 34%
Spring Fishing Show 41%
It is important to note that there were many surveys that were incomplete as either portions of questions were skipped or entire questions were ignored completely. In these cases the summaries were provided based on the number of people who answered the question.
The following summary highlights the most popular responses and summarizes the various suggestions and ideas proposed by survey respondents.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 2 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Part One – About Your Values and Concerns…
Question 1 – Circle the number that best reflects your perception about changes in the fish populations listed below.
Table 1.1 reflects the 116 respondents’ perception regarding changes to the population abundances of Bay of Quinte fishes. Those responses highlighted in yellow bring to your attention answers which are equal to or similar to other responses. Figure 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 present the results to graphically.
Table 1.1 – Perceptions of Population Changes of Bay of Quinte Fish
Fish Species Less No More No No Abundant change Abundant Opinion Response (% of 116 (% of 116 (% of 116 (% of 116 (% of 116 Surveys) Surveys) Surveys) Surveys) Surveys Walleye/Pickerel 60 (52 %) 26 13 10 7 Largemouth Bass 17 36 (31 %) 35 (30 %) 13 15 Smallmouth Bass 18 45 (38 %) 24 (21 %) 13 16 Northern Pike 18 34 (29 %) 25 (22 %) 17 22 Muskellunge 26 (22 %) 20 5 35 (30 %) 30 Lake Whitefish 17 16 7 45 (39 %) 31 Yellow Perch 22 (19 %) 31 (27 %) 21 15 27 Sunfish 7 38 (33 %) 23 (20 %) 21 27 Black Crappie 8 31 (27 %) 18 30 29 Rock Bass 10 37 (32 %) 18 22 29 Shad 20 (17 %) 20 7 38 (33 %) 31 American Eel 18 9 4 51(44 %) 34 Channel Catfish 9 26 8 41 (35 %) 32 Carp 3 19 28 (24 %) 33 (28 %) 33 Smelt 29 (25 %) 10 6 40 (34 %) 31 Round goby 3 7 47 (41 %) 30 29 Other(s) 6 2 9 (8 %) -- 99
Public Survey, Fall 2005 3 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 1.1 – Changes in Fish Population in the Bay of Quinte
Changes in Fish Population in the Bay of Quinte
120
s 100
80 Less Abundant 60 More Abundant 40
Number ofResponse 20
0 s t ss e ie p er ye a ik ge sh ch fish as ad Eel el e Bass P ar m th B un er un pp B Sh C S th l itefi S ra O Less Abundant el h can d Goby Wall k w P C ock n outh s o R No change lmou ell NorthernMu Y lack Ameri Rou mal Lake W B More A bundant LargemS Channel Catfish No Opinion Fish Species No Response
Figure 1.2 – Changes in Walleye Population in the Bay of Quinte
Changes in Walleye Population in the Bay of Quinte
No Response No Opinion 6% More 9%
Abundant
11% Less
Abundant 52% No change 22%
Public Survey, Fall 2005 4 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 1.3 – Changes in Round Goby Population in the Bay of Quinte
Changes in Round Goby Population in the Bay of Quinte
Less No Response Abundant No change 25% 3% 6%
More Abundant No Opinion 40% 26%
Summary
• Species with Less Abundance – 52 % Walleye • Species with More Abundance – 41 % Round Goby • Species with No Change – 38 % Smallmouth Bass • No Opinion – 44 % American Eel (this species is now rarely observed in the Great Lakes basin due to habitat and climate changes, barriers to migration, and harvest)
• Other species identified included Lake Herring, Lake Trout and Salmon (species unspecified), White Perch, Quillback, Freshwater Drum, Bullhead, Gar and Northern Pike.
• Only 6 % of the respondents did not provide a comment regarding perceived changes to the Bay of Quinte Walleye population.
• Overall, < 30 % of surveys had no comment or opinion for most species except Walleye and Bass.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 5 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 2 – What fish species do you feel is in most need of management action and why?
Table 2.1 prioritizes, in descending order, the fish species that should receive management action immediately. Table 2.2 lists respondents’ perceptions on the causes of the declines to particular Bay of Quinte fish species. Table 2.1 – Fish Species in Need of Management in the Bay of Quinte
Number of Fish Species in need of Management Responses out Average % of 126 of 116 Surveys Comments Walleye/Pickerel 73 58 % Muskellunge 8 6 % Northern Pike 8 6% Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass 7 5% Trout and Salmon 7 5% Perch 5 4 % Gobies 4 3 % Lake Whitefish 3 2 % American Eel 2 1 % Black Crappie 2 1 % Cisco/Lake Herring 2 1 % All 2 1 % Smelt 1 < 1 % Bullhead 1 < 1 % Rock Bass 1 < 1 % Multiple Responses 11
No Response 20
Figure 2.1 graphically displays the species which received the most responses for management, and Figure 2.2 graphically displays in descending order the prominent reasons (‘proposed causes’) for management of the Bay of Quinte Fisheries.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 6 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 2.1 – Fish Species in Need of Management in the Bay of Quinte
Fish Species in Need of Management in the Bay
of Quinte
All 2% Other Fish Species 40% Walleye/ Pickerel 58%
Table 2.2 highlights various reasons for fisheries management needs in the Bay of Quinte, in particular the Walleye population. Of the 96 respondents that identified a species in need of management priority, a total of 108 individual comments were provided; 17 % of those respondents who listed more than one species contributed additional comments. The percentages listed in Table 2.2 reflect the 108 individual comments provided rather than the total number of surveys (116) collected.
Figure 2.2 graphically displays the top 19 issues that are perceived by respondents to be important reasons for management in the Bay.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 7 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 2.2 – Reasons for Management in the Bay of Quinte Reasons for Management Number of % of 108 Responses Comments Bay of Quinte’s Popularity – economic base for local communities and 25 23 % angler preference Population Decline – catching fewer fish or hard to find the fish 23 21 % Over-harvesting by all Users 14 13 % Native Harvests 7 6 % Smaller Fish 7 6 % Invasive Species – zebra mussels and gobies 7 6 % Low Food-base (low prey population abundances) 5 5 % Predators and Competitors – changing the food web 3 3 % Quotas/Limits – too high 3 3 % Cormorants 2 2 % Presences of Slot Size 2 2 % Lack of Stocking – Walleye/Pickerel 2 2 % Protect Ecosystem – ecosystem approach to manage all fish species 2 2 % Ice-fishing 1 < 1 % Polluted Streams 1 < 1 % Lack of Enforcement 1 < 1 % Political Influence 1 < 1 % Tournaments – capture and release 1 < 1 % Lake Access for Salmonids 1 < 1 % No Comment Provided with Species Listed 25 No Response to Survey 20 Multiple Responses 10
Public Survey, Fall 2005 8 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 2.2 – Reasons for Management in the Bay of Quinte
Reasons for Management in the Bay of Quinte
Lake Access for Salmonids 1
Tournaments – capture and release 1
Political Influence 1
Lack of Enforcement 1
Polluted Streams 1 t
Ice-fishing 1
Protect Ecosystem – ecosystem approach to manage all fish species 2
Lack of Stocking – Walleye/Pickerel 2
Presences of Slot Size 2
Reasons for Managemen for Reasons Cormorants 2
Quotas/Limits – too high 3
Predators and Competitors – changing the food web 3
Low Food-base (low prey population abundances) 5
Smaller Fish 7
Invasive Species – zebra mussels and gobies 7
Native Harvests 7
Over-fishing 14
Population Decline – catching fewer fish or hard to find the fish 23
Bay of Quinte’s Popularity – economic base for local communities and angler preference 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Responses
Summary
• According to 116 respondents, 58 % believe that Walleye should receive management priority.
• Out of the 116 surveys, 9 % listed more than one species for management priority and 17 % did not respond to the question.
The top reasons for managing Bay of Quinte include: • 23 % – Popularity and Angler preference of Bay of Quinte’s fishery and its importance as an economic base for local communities;
• 21 % – Population declines of walleye, muskellunge, perch and lake herring, which makes it harder to find fish and results in fewer catches; and
• 13 % – Over-harvest by all users. Public Survey, Fall 2005 9 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 3 – Circle the number that best reflects your opinion on the seriousness of each of the following issues that affect the Bay of Quinte Fish Populations.
Table 3.1 identifies the top ‘very serious’ issues in descending order impacting the Bay of Quinte fisheries. Table 3.1 – Very Serious of Issues Affecting Bay of Quinte Fish
Issues Very Serious Cormorants 71 Invasive species 67 Over-harvest of fish by First Nations 65 Illegal fishing activities 51 Loss of wetlands 48 Loss of native aquatic species 46 Over-harvest of fish by commercial industry 45 Fish habitat loss and degradation 44 Effects of urbanization and land use practices 39 Contaminant levels in fish 34 Conflicts among resource users 27 Sea lamprey 27 Inadequate enforcement of fishing regulations 25 Water level fluctuations 25 Over-harvest of fish by recreational anglers 22 Climate warming 14 Others 8
Figure 3.1 – Very Serious Issues Affecting Bay of Quinte
Very Serious Issues Affecting the Bay of Quinte
Other(s) 8 Climate warming 14 Over-harvest of fish by recreational anglers 22 Water level fluctuations 25 Inadequate enforcement of fishing regulations 25 Sea lamprey 27 Conflicts among resource users 27 Contaminant levels in fish 34 s Effects of urbanization / land use practices 39
Issue Fish habitat loss / degradation 44
Over-harvest of fish by commercial industry 45
Loss of native aquatic species 46
Loss of wetlands 48
Illegal fishing activities 51
Over-harvest of fish by First Nations 65
Invasive species 67
Cormorants 71
0 1020304050607080 Number of Responses
Public Survey, Fall 2005 10 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 3.2 – Various Levels of Seriousness of Issues Affecting Bay of Quinte Fish
Issues Moderately Somewhat Not an No No Serious Serious Issue Opinion Response Inadequate enforcement of fishing 26 34 18 5 8 regulations Climate warming 38 39 9 6 10 Conflicts among resource users 42 21 5 10 11 Contaminant levels in fish 27 32 9 5 9 Effects of urbanization and land use 34 21 10 5 7 practices Fish habitat loss and degradation 28 23 5 4 12 Illegal fishing activities 31 9 8 8 9 Cormorants 14 8 -- 12 11 Invasive species 27 8 2 4 8 Loss of native aquatic species 31 16 2 9 12 Loss of wetlands 27 16 6 7 12 Over-harvest of fish by commercial 26 14 14 5 12 industry Over-harvest of fish by First Nations 15 11 10 7 8 Over-harvest of fish by recreational 22 41 20 3 8 anglers Sea lamprey 19 29 11 16 14 Water level fluctuations 27 26 15 10 13 Others 1 ------107
Summary The top ‘very serious’ issues in the Bay of Quinte include: 1. Increasing Cormorant population and their impacts on fish abundances; 2. Invasive species influential changes to the food chain and community dynamics; 3. Concerns regarding First Nations’ harvest during walleye spawning season; 4. Illegal fishing activities occurring within the basin; 5. Loss of wetlands and other natural areas; 6. Degradation of fish habitat; 7. Over-harvest by commercial industries; and 8. The impacts from increasing urbanization along the shoreline.
Other issues of concern not listed in the tables or figures include: • Lack of government action • Slot sizes • Lack of government support • Water clarity towards the recreational • Weeds angler • Lack of safe Fishways
Public Survey, Fall 2005 11 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 4 – Circle the number that best reflects your opinion on the importance of the following actions to improve the Bay of Quinte fisheries.
Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 prioritize the importance of specific actions, in descending order, proposed by the government agencies to improve the Bay of Quinte fisheries. Table 4.2 lists the same actions, but with additional scores indicating lesser importance.
Table 4.1 – Importance of Various Management Actions to Improve Bay of Quinte Fisheries
Actions for the Bay of Quinte Great Importance Reduce over harvest by First Nations 69 Restore degraded fish habitat 60 Increasing public awareness of the ecosystem 55 Reduce over harvest by commercial industry 52 Promote catch and release 48 Provide more stocked fish to improve sport fishing opportunities 47 Enhance enforcement activities 42 Regulated seasonal sanctuaries 32 Reduce over harvest by recreational anglers 26 Changes to fishing season(s) 12 Others 7
Table 4.2 – Other Levels of Importance of Various Management Actions to Improve Bay of Quinte Fisheries
Actions for the Bay of Quinte Moderate Some Not No No Importance Importance Important Opinion Response Restore degraded fish habitat 29 14 3 1 9 Provide more stocked fish to 22 20 15 5 7 improve sport fishing opportunities Increasing public awareness of the 34 12 3 3 9 ecosystem Reduce over harvest by 27 15 8 4 10 commercial industry Reduce over harvest by First 16 15 3 5 8 Nations Reduce over harvest by 36 30 18 -- 6 recreational anglers Enhance enforcement activities 36 18 4 5 11 Promote catch and release 32 17 8 5 6 Changes to fishing season(s) 27 30 32 6 9 Regulated seasonal sanctuaries 33 22 8 9 12 Others ------109
Public Survey, Fall 2005 12 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 4.1 – Actions of Great Importance to Improve Bay of Quinte Fisheries
Actions of Great Importance to Improve Bay of Quinte Fisheries Other(s) (specify) 7
Changes to fishing season(s) 12
Reduce over harvest by recreational anglers 26
Regulated seasonal sanctuaries 32
Enhance enforcement activities 42
s
Issue Provide more stocked fish to improve sport fishing opportunities 47
Promote catch and release 48
Reduce over harvest by commercial industry 52
Increasing public awareness of the ecosystem 55
Restore degraded fish habitat 60
Reduce over harvest by First Nations 69
0 1020304050607080
Number of Responses
Summary
The top 3 actions of greatest importance to improve the Bay of Quinte fisheries include: 1. Reducing the over-harvest of fish by First Nations; 2. Restoring degraded fish habitat; 3. Increasing public awareness regarding ecosystem conservation.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 13 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 5 – What specific action(s) should be taken to improve the fishery of the Bay of Quinte?
Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 identify the specific actions suggested by respondents to be implemented to improve the fishery of Bay of Quinte as well as their experiences in the Bay. A total of 152 comments were scored for 20 suggested actions.
Table 5.1 – Suggested Actions to Improve the Fishery of Bay of Quinte
Suggested Actions to Improve the Fishery of Bay of Quinte Number of Responses (152) Ban or Monitor Native Harvest of Spawning Walleye/Pickerel (report all catches) 34 Improve Enforcement of Regulations (more presence on the lake) to Protect Fish 21 Improve Education 14 Reduce Cormorant Populations 12 Reduce Commercial Harvest 11 Improve Fish and Wildlife Habitat (wetland protection and restoration) 10 Restore the Walleye/Pickerel Population through Stocking 9 Promote Capture and Release 8 Lower Limits and Quotas 7 Change Slot Sizes 5 Improve Regulations 4 Reduce Overall Harvest by All Users 3 Manage Invasive Species (monitor ship ballast water and carp) 3 Improve Water Quality 3 Reduce Watershed Pollution (ban herbicides) 3 Require Industry Licensing for the Bay 1 Tags to Monitor Fish and their Movements 1 Enforce Legal Boating Speeds 1 Improve Movement of Fish (fish ladder improvements or alterations) 1 Increase Community Involvement 1
Summary The top ‘specific actions’ suggested by respondents include: • 22 % –Banning or monitoring the Native harvest of spawning Walleye and a recommendation that all their catches be reported; and • 14 % – Improving enforcement of fishing regulations, including more enforcement presence in the Bay to protect fish from illegal activity.
Of the 116 respondents, 27 % (31) chose not to respond to Question 5.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 14 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 5.1 – Specific Actions to Improve the Fishery of the Bay of Quinte
Specific Actions to Improve the Fishery of the Bay of Quinte
Increase Community Involvement 1
Improve Movement of Fish (fish ladder improvements or alterations) 1
Enforce Legal Boating Speeds 1
Tags to Monitor Fish and their Movements 1
Require Industry Licensing for the Bay 1
Reduce Watershed Pollution (ban herbicides) 3
Improve Water Quality 3
Manage Invasive Species (monitor ship ballast water and carp) 3
Reduce Overall Harvest by All Users 3
Improve Regulations 4
Change Slot Sizes 5 Actions
Lower Limits and Quotas 7
Promote Capture and Release 8
Restore the Walleye/Pickerel Population through Stocking 9
Improve Fish and Wildlife Habitat (wetland protection and restoration) 10
Reduce Commercial Harvest 11
Reduce Cormorant Populations 12
Improve Education 14
Improve Enforcement of Regulations (more presence on the lake) to Protect Fish 21
Ban or Monitor Native Harvest of Spawning Walleye/Pickerel (report all catches) 34
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Number of Responses
Public Survey, Fall 2005 15 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Part Two – About Your Fishing Experience on the Bay of Quinte…
Question 6 – What types of fishing have you participated in the Bay of Quinte over the last five years?
Table 6.1 displays the number of responses associated with the different types of fishing listed as occurring on the Bay of Quinte, and Tables 6.2 and 6.3 focus on the ‘very often’ or ‘never’ types of fishing participation. Those scores highlighted in yellow bring to attention results with closely similar scores. Figure 6.1 graphically displays the variation in responses.
Table 6.1 – Types of Fishing Participation in the Bay of Quinte Over the Past 5 Years Types of Fishing Very Often Little Never No Often Response Boat fishing – open lake 21 35 33 14 13 Boat fishing – near shore area, stream mouths 24 40 24 12 16 Charter Boat/Guide assisted fishing 3 2 7 74 30 Shore fishing – shore, piers, break-walls, docks 10 14 33 36 23 Stream (tributary) fishing 6 6 24 54 26 Commercial license 5 -- -- 80 31 Tournament 5 9 14 58 30 Ice fishing 5 15 32 43 21 Other(s) ------116
Table 6.2 – Types of Fishing with ‘Very Often’ Participation
Types of Fishing Very % of 116 Surveys Often Boat fishing – near shore area, stream mouths 24 21 % Boat fishing – open lake 21 18 % Shore fishing – shore, piers, break-walls, docks 10 9 % Stream (tributary) fishing 6 5 % Commercial license 5 4 % Tournament 5 4 % Ice fishing 5 4 % Charter Boat/Guide assisted fishing 3 3 %
Table 6.3 – Types of Fishing with ‘No’ Participation
Types of Fishing Never % of 116 Surveys Commercial license 80 69 % Charter Boat/Guide assisted fishing 74 64 % Tournament 58 50 % Stream (tributary) fishing 54 47 % Ice fishing 43 37 % Shore fishing – shore, piers, break-walls, docks 36 31 % Boat fishing – open lake 14 12 % Boat fishing – near shore area, stream mouths 12 10 %
Public Survey, Fall 2005 16 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 6.1 – Types of Fishing Participation in Bay of Quinte Over the Past 5 Years
Types of Fishing Participation in Bay of Quinte Over the Past 5 Years
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 Number ofResponses Number 20
10
0 Very Often
Often Boat fishing – Boat fishing – Charter Shore fishing Stream Commercial Tournament Ice fishing open lake nearshore Boat/Guide – shore, piers, (tributary) license Little area, stream assisted breakwalls, fishing None mouths fishing docks No Response Types of Fishing
Summary
The top 2 responses for types of fishing participation in the Bay include: 1. Boat fishing near shore or at stream mouths (21 %); and 2. Boating in the open lake (18 %).
Commercial Licensing (69 %) and Charter Boats (64 %) were cited as having the least participation within the past 5 years in the Bay of Quinte Area.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 17 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 7 – How many fishing trips (or outings) do you take on average per year in the Bay of Quinte?
Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1 reflect the average number of fishing trips to the Bay of Quinte in a year. A total of 109 comments were captured from 116 respondents, accounting for 94 % of the surveys. Table 7.1 Number of Fishing Trips per Year
Number of Fishing Trips per Year in the Bay of Number of % of 116 Quinte Responses Surveys Less than 5 trips per year 41 35 % 5 to 9 trips per year 26 22 % 10 to 24 trips per year 13 11 % 25 to 50 trips per year 13 11 % More than 50 trips per year 12 10 % No Response 7 6 % Did not fish in the Bay Quinte 4 3 %
Figure 7.1 – Average Number of Annual Fishing Trips in the Bay of Quinte Area
Average Number of Annual Fishing Trips in the Bay of Quinte Area
Did not fish in the No Response Bay of Quinte 6% 3% Greater than 10 trips 33%
Less than 10 trips 58%
Summary
• 58 % of the respondents chose to organize less than 10 fishing trips per year in the Bay of Quinte Area. • 33 % of the respondents plan for greater than 10 trips to the Bay. • Only 3 % did not fish in the Bay of Quinte in the past year.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 18 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 8 – On average, what is the length of your fishing trip(s) in the Bay of Quinte? Did you stay overnight in the Bay of Quinte?
Table 8.1 lists the average length of each fishing trip into the Bay of Quinte. Figure 8.1 shows the average percentage (%) of respondents participating in these various fishing excursions. Table 8.2 presents the number of respondents staying overnight in the Bay of Quinte Area. Only 81 respondents commented on Question 8, accounting for 70 % of the total surveys.
Table 8.1 Fishing Trip Duration
Length of Fishing Number of
Trip Responses 2 to 3 days 33 < 6 hours 15 6 to 12 hours 8 >18 hours 8 3 to 5 days 4 >5 days 4 Weekly >7 Days 5 Longer than a Month 3 12-18 hours 1
Figure 8.1 Length of fishing Trips in the Bay of Quinte
Length of Fishing Trips in the Bay of Quinte
Greater than a Month 4% Less than a Full Day 40%
Less than a Week 56%
Public Survey, Fall 2005 19 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Table 8.2 – Overnight Stays in the Bay of Quinte Area
Overnight Stay(s) in the Bay Number of % of 116 of Quinte Area Responses Responses Yes 71 61 No 45 39
Figure 8.2 – Percentage of Surveyors that Stay Overnight in the Bay of Quinte Area
Percentage (%) of Surveyors that Stay Overnight in the Bay of Quinte Area
No 39% Yes 61%
Summary • 56 % of the 81 respondents have fishing excursions which last for a week or less. • 40 % fish for less than a full day in the Bay. • Only 4 % of the respondents fishing trips extend beyond a month; most of these respondents cited that they had cottages in the area or were full-time residents. • 61 % of the respondents stayed overnight in the Bay of Quinte Area.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 20 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 9 – Which fish do you prefer to fish for in the Bay of Quinte?
Tables 9.1 and 9.2 ranks the preferred targeted fish species, in order of fishing popularity, in the Bay, as well as how many of these targeted species were consumed in a year. Figure 9.1 summarizes the results. Table 9.1 – Fishing Preference
Number of % of 116 Surveys Rank Fish Species Responses 1 W alleye/Pickerel 45 39 % 2 Largemouth Bass 22 19 % 3 Smal lmouth Bass 14 12 % 4 Yellow Perch 12 10 % 5 Black Crappie 7 6 % 6 Sunf ish 7 6 % 7 Channel Catfish 6 5 % 8 W hitefish 5 4 % Other Number of Rank Fish Species Responses 1 Fresh water Drum 3 2 Nor thern Pike 10 Salmo n 1 Brown Trout 1 Bullhead 1 Carp 1
Table 9.2 – Consumption of Fish Meals Last Year
> 20 meals 6-20 meals (% of 1-5 meals (% of No Fish Species (% of 116 surveys) 116 Surveys) 116 Surveys) meals Walleye/Pickerel 6 (5 %) 20 (17 %) 48 (41 %) 19 Largemouth Bass 1 (< 1 %) 5 (4 %) 25 (22 %) 43 Smallmouth Bass 1 (< 1 %) 5 (4 %) 20 17 %) 43 Yellow Perch 2 (2 %) 9 (8 %) 27 (23 %) 32 Black Crappie 1 (<1 %) 2 (2 %) 9 (8 %) 49 Sunfish -- 4 (3 %) 5 (4 %) 50 Channel Catfish -- 1 (< 1 %) 3 (3 %) 55 Whitefish -- 2 (2 %) 8 (7 %) 50 Other > 20 meals 6-20 meals (% of 1-5 meals (% of No Fish Species (% of 116 surveys) 116 Surveys) 116 Surveys) meals Freshwater Drum -- -- 1 2 Northern Pike -- 1 4 2 Salmon ------Brown Trout 1 ------Bullhead 1 ------Carp ------1
Public Survey, Fall 2005 21 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 9.1 – Number of Fish Meals Consumed from the Bay of Quinte Last Year
Number of Fish Meals Consumed from the Bay of Quinte Last Year
60
50
40 > 20 meals 6 to 20 meals 30 1 to 5 meals No meals 20 Number of Meals 10
0
s s ie h rel ass a rch p fish e B B nfis t efish h u a t t uth S C w Pe Whi llo nel ye/Pick e n e allmo Y all m Black Crap ha Lake W Largemou S C Fish Species Summary
• Walleye/Pickerel is the preferred targeted species during fishing excursions, accounting for 39 % of the surveys, and has the highest average of meals annually.
• Other preferred fish in descending order include Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Yellow Perch, Black Crappie and Sunfish.
• Freshwater Drum, Northern Pike, Salmon, Brown Trout, Bullhead and Carp were listed as ‘other’ fishing preferences.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 22 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 10 – My favourite area to fish in the Bay of Quinte is?
Table 10.1 lists the favourite Bay of Quinte fishing areas in descending order of popularity.
Table 10.1 – Bay of Quinte Fishing Areas Figure 10.1 – Bay of Quinte Number of Bay of Quinte Location Responses Area 3 45 Area 2 39 Area 1 37 Area 4 12 Area 5 9 I do not fish in the Bay of Quinte 3
Figure 10.2 – Favourite Areas to Fish in the Bay of Quinte
Favourite Areas to Fish in the Bay of Quinte
I do not fish in the Areas 4 & 5 Bay of Quinte 14% 2%
Areas 1, 2 & 3 84%
Summary
• 84 % chose Areas 1, 2 and 3 as the most popular areas to fish in the Bay. • 28 surveys had multiple responses to this question indicating that 24 % of the visitors to the Bay of Quinte enjoy venturing about the Bay.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 23 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Question 11 – What type of fishing license did you have in 2005?
Table 11.1 and Figure 11.1 lists the various types of fishing licenses issued in Ontario and what percentage of respondents possess each type of license for the 2005 fishing season. Approximately 3 % of the surveys commented on multiple licensing; therefore, the percentages were scored based on the total 104 comments received.
Table 11.1 Ontario Fishing Licenses
Number of % of 104 Fishing License Responses Comments
Sport 78 75 % Conservation 15 14 % Commercial 5 5 % Senior 5 5 % Charter 1 1 % Fishing License Number of Responses Multiple 4 No Response 16
Figure 11.1 – Types of Fishing Licenses
Types of Fishing Licenses
Commercial Conservation 5% Charter 14% 1%
Senior 5%
Sport 75%
Public Survey, Fall 2005 24 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Summary • Resident Sport license accounted for 75 % of the respondents.
• Due to several responses that identified the Sport license as ‘Full’, ‘Regular’, ‘General’, ‘Standard’, or ‘3 Year’ so there was some interpretation involved in this analysis.
• Resident Conservation license accounted for 14 % of all 116 surveyed.
• Surveys that identified a ‘Seasonal’ license were lumped into the Resident Conservation category.
• Only 3 % of the 116 surveys (4) possessed multiple licenses, such as Commercial and Sport.
Question 12 – What type of fishing equipment do you use on the Bay of Quinte?
Table 12.1 and Figure 12.1 lists the various types of fishing techniques used in the Bay of Quinte. Table 12.2 and Figure 12.2 presents the types of fishing equipment used in a season. Eighteen (18) respondents chose not to comment on this question and the 98 that did offered multiple responses. Table 12.1 Fishing Techniques
Types of Fishing Techniques Number of Responses Spinning 33
Bait-casting 14 Trolling 10 Jigging 9 Shore 2 Fly 2
Drifting 1
Table 12.2 – Types of Fishing Equipment
Types of Fishing Equipment Number of Responses Rods & Reels 45 Boat 28 Live (worms & minnows) or Artificial Bait 16 Downriggers 8 Tackle, Lures, Hooks 8 Cranks & Spoons 6 Planer Boards 6 Harness 4 Nets (gill, hoop and trap) 4 Poles 2 Auger 2 ATV 1
Public Survey, Fall 2005 25 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 12.1 – Types of Fishing Techniques
Types of Fishing Techniques
Shore Fly
Drifting 3% 3% Baitcasting Trolling 1% 20% 14%
Jigging 13%
Spinning
46%
Figure 12.2 – Types of Fishing Equipment
Types of Fishing Equipment Used
Nets, Harness, Poles, Tackle, Auger & ATV Boat Lures, 10% 22% Hooks & Downriggers 12%
Cranks, Spoons & Planar Boards 9%
Bait Rods & Reels 12% 35%
Public Survey, Fall 2005 26 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Summary • 46 % of 98 respondents’ comments prefer Spin-fishing techniques. • 34 % chose Rods & Reels as the most popular type of fishing equipment. • 22 % chose to use a boat when fishing.
Question 13 – Has your fishing approach changed over the past 5 years on the Bay of Quinte?
Tables 13.1 and 13.2 identify whether or not fishing approaches have changed over the past 5 years on the Bay of Quinte and, if so, how have approaches changed. Figures 13.1 and 13.2 display the information graphically.
Table 13.1 Fishing Approach Changes Changed Fishing Number of Approach Responses No 57 Yes 46 No Response 13
Table 13.2 Particular Changes to Fishing Approaches Types of Changes in Fishing Approach Number of Responses No Response 49 Water Clarity – fishing deeper 17 Everything 1 Trip Duration Longer – harder to find fish 12 Fishing Technique – more trolling and drifting 10 Species Targeted – quotas and easier catches 7 Type of Equipment 6 New Area – move with the fish 6 Bait Type 4 Fishing in the Weeds 4
Public Survey, Fall 2005 27 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Figure 13.1 – Changes to Fishing Approaches within the past 5 Years
Changes to Fishing Approaches within the Past 5 Years
No Response 11%
No Yes 49% 40%
Figure 13.2 – Types of Changes to Fishing Approaches
Types of Changes to Fishing Approaches
Everthing 1
Bait Type 4
Fishing in the Weeds 4
Equipment 6
New Area: move with the fish 6
Species Targeted: (quotas and easier catches) 7 Fishing Approaches
Fishing Technique: increased trolling and drifting 10
Trip Duration Longer: harder to find fish 12
Water Clarity: fishing deeper 17
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of Responses
Summary • 49 % of the respondents confirmed that their fishing approaches had not changed and 40 % suggested that their fishing approaches had changed; not a large discrepancy between the comments.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 28 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
• Of the 67 respondents who commented on changes to their fishing approach, 25 % fished deeper due to changes in fish habitat (e.g., increasing water clarity) • Most of the respondents emphasized their displeasure with the changing fish habitat, the low numbers and small sizes of their targeted fish, and the frustration of not ‘finding’ fish. • 49 or 42 % of the 116 respondents did not comment on this question.
Part Three –About Public Involvement…
Question 14 – How would you like to receive notice of future meetings or information about the Bay of Quinte?
Table 14.1 lists the current types of information mediums available to improve communication with the public. Eighty-two (82) respondents commented on Question 14, and 20 % provided multiple responses for a total of 132 comments.
Table 14.1 Types of Fisheries Information Mediums
Information Medium Number of Responses % of 132 Responses Newsletter – by e-mail 37 28 % Newspapers & Outdoor Magazines 29 22 % BQFAC website 24 18.2 % Radio & TV 11 8.3 % Other websites 10 7.6 % Personal Contact (telephone) 7 5.3 % Other 8 6.1 % Open Houses & Public Meetings 6 4.5 % Multiple Responses 23 No Response 34
Summary
The top preferred means of receiving information include: • 28 % – Newsletters via e-mail or Internet; • 22 % – Newspapers and outdoor magazines; and • 18 % – BQFAC website.
• Other websites included species specific sites, Fish Ontario, Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters (OFAH), Ontario Federation of Naturalists (OFN) and Quinte Fishing.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 29 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
• Only 34 surveys, approximately 29 % of the 116 surveys did not provide comment for question 14.
• Other suggestions for information distribution were information packages via Canada Post (‘snail-mail’), Fax and email.
Question 15 – How could we improve your involvement in the preparation and implementation of the Fisheries Management Plan?
Table 15.1 highlights the various suggestions on how Fisheries managers can improve public involvement in the preparation and implementation of the Fisheries Management Plan.
Table 15.1 Improving Community Involvement
Suggestions for Improving Community Involvement Number of Responses (116 surveys) Information and Education: Information packages and newsletters via the Internet, email or 15 mail (live release and how to get involved) Education Tools 4 Consultation: Open Discussion via meetings or interviews 5 Consult the Recreational Public and Tourists via Tournaments & 6 Derbies Stakeholder Workshops for input from Commercial Anglers 3 Surveys 3 No Response: 65
Summary • 16 % of the respondents want more information about the fisheries, management options and regulations and educational programs and tools for resource users to promote conservation were the most important ways to improve public involvement. • 15 % chose consultation and open discussions with the resource users and community stakeholders was the next most important process towards increasing public involvement. • 56 % of the respondents chose not to respond.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 30 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Part Four – About You...
Question 16 – Please indicate your major interest in the Bay of Quinte fisheries and/or affiliation with a group or organization.
Table 16.1 identifies the various areas of interests or affiliation with groups or organizations in the Bay of Quinte fisheries. Table 16.1 Bay of Quinte’s Areas of Fishing Interest
Area of Interest Number of Responses Recreational Angler 104 Recreational Boater 16 Environmentalist or Naturalist 15
Shoreline Property Owner 8
Other 8 Commercial Fisher 7 Tourism Related Business 4 Fishing Related Business 3 Fish Hatchery Owner or Operator 3
Municipal Representative --
Surveys with Multiple Responses 36 No Response 9
Figure 16.1 – Area of Interest in the Bay of Quinte
Area of Interest in the Bay of Quinte
120 104 100
80
60
36 40
16 15 20 12
Number Responses of 88 7 4 330 0
t r s r s e her to th s nes a ive at sponse O usi y Owner B nt esponses Re t d Business d se R o e e r Oper e e o or Naturali N oper lat r tipl ist r e e epr R n ul tal e P w M n Commercial Fi g O Recreational Angler Recreationalen Boater in h y icipal R er n nm Tourism RelatFis h ro Shoreli c Mu at Envi H sh Fi Fishery Interest
Public Survey, Fall 2005 31 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Summary • 90 % of the respondents are Recreational Anglers. • Other areas of interest, in descending order, include: recreational boater; environmentalist or naturalist; shoreline property owner; and commercial fisher. • 7 % of the respondents listed ‘other areas of interest or affiliations’ with the Bay of Quinte fisheries, which included: marine construction; Fishing Show producer; Fisheries consultant and seasonal contracts; community-based stewardship groups; and tournament anglers.
Question 17 – My principle home location is...
Table 17.1 and Figure 17.1 list the principle home location of each respondent.
Table 17.1 Respondents’ Home Location
Home Location Number of Responses Toronto & GTA 47 Other 37 Bellville 8 Prince Edward County 6 Trenton/Brighton 4 Kingston 2
Ottawa 2
Napanee/Desoronto 1
United States 1
No Response 8
Figure 17.1 – Respondents’ Home Location
Respondent's Home Location
Tr enton/Brighton, Kingston & Napanee/Desoro Ottawa nto & USA No Response 7% 2% 7% Toronto & G TA 40% Bellville & Prince Edward County 12%
Other Ontario Locations 32%
Public Survey, Fall 2005 32 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Summary • 40 % of respondents reside in Toronto and the GTA area. • Only 1 % represented fishers from the United States. • Other home locations included towns and cities southwest, northwest and northeast of the Bay of Quinte.
Part Five – Additional Comments …
Question 18 – Please provide any additional comments, suggestions or advice that has not been addressed by this survey.
The following list provides additional comments, suggestions or advice provided by 25 respondents, approximately 25 % of the total 116 respondents surveyed.
• Enforce the same fishing regulations for all resources users to reduce impact on spawning walleye, sanctuaries and lake basin populations – First Nations fishing rites should be reviewed and reflect current issues; therefore, all users should be licensed. • Increase funding to hire more Conservation Officers to improve enforcement of regulations in the Bay and on the lake. • Reinstate the Cormorant cull. • Create regulations to prevent untreated boat ballast water from entering Lake Ontario. • Need more Action on the part of the government – MNR’s management role and capabilities are unclear and resource users are losing faith in the government. • Consider the impacts of regional development on the fish populations of the Bay of Quinte. • Consider closing the Walleye fishing seasons or enforce stricter limits and size of fish captured – promote capture & release and monitor tournament rules and regulations. • Educate the resource users and the next generation to protect the Earth’s resources. • Need to clarify to the public those responsible for monitoring and managing invasive species in the province. • Consider the changing environment in management decisions. • Continue involving the Public in the decision-making process.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 33 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Summary The most popular suggestion, commented on by 7 respondents (28 % of 25), is to improve fishing regulations that reflect current conditions and include all resource users and to improve enforcement practices so that these regulations are respected, regarded and obeyed.
Part Six – Conclusion
What is Happening to the Bay of Quinte Fishery?
In conclusion, according to the information queried from the surveys, the populations of native fish species, in particular Walleye, in the Bay of Quinte are subjected to many stresses including a changing environment and climate; preferential harvesting; invasive species; loss of habitat, spawning grounds and migration routes; pollution; stocking; predators; over-use or mis-use; and changing management regimes. The resource users are concerned with the increasing difficulty in finding fish, the reduction in size and numbers of fish, and the obvious changes to the habitat, such as clearer water, more weeds, more invasive species and the over-harvest of fish by particular user groups
The most important suggested uses of time, efforts and resources by the government would be to involve the resource users in the decision-making process to re-define fishing regulations; hire more enforcement officers for the Bay to enforce obedience of fishing regulations; continue to provide educational information to the public regarding ecosystem health, natural population fluctuations, Native Fishing rights, the implications of a changing environment on the resources, and how the public can become lake stewards to protect these highly valued and precious natural resources.
In general, the public is enthused to participate in the process of appropriately managing the resource and the resource users.
Public Survey, Fall 2005 34 Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Appendix B – Terms of Reference
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan July, 2010 Final Version
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan
Appendix C – Community Involvement Framework
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan July, 2010 Final Version Community Involvement Framework …community involvement Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan leads to better resource management decisions
The Community Involvement Framework (CIF) is a program designed to ensure the involvement of each person who is interested in the health of the Bay of Quinte fisheries. The framework identifies a series of steps to engage the public throughout the planning process in order to promote ownership of the plan and their active involvement in implementing priority actions in the future. The framework is adaptive in nature and is to be used as a toolkit of opportunities and approaches to be utilized in the evolving nature of the planning process.
An integral component of the CIF is the Figure 1 – Roles and Responsibilities in involvement of the BQ Fisheries Advisory Community Involvement Committee (BQFAC), which was formed in April 2002 as a multi-representative team · Provide and confirm that reports to the Minister of Natural BQFMP Steering Committee direction on community Resources. The mandate of the BQFAC is involvement to provide input and advice, and make recommendations to the Minister of Natural Resources (MNR) about the sustainable BQFMP · Support BQFAC and management of fish communities and Planning Te am respond to public fisheries in the Bay of Quinte and Eastern Lake Ontario. The role of the BQFAC in · Coordinate involvement community involvement is to provide BQ Fisheries · Liaise with community recommendations about community Advisory · Engage input outreach, to identify best approaches to Committee · Ensure response to consult with the broader community, public is made communicate information to the broader public, and seek innovative promotion and marketing opportunities.
The Community Involvement Framework compliments the direction provided by the Communications Plan by identifying how and when to contact members of the Community and how to promote an involvement process that is open, transparent and clearly understood.
The framework will ensure community members know where to obtain information, who to contact, and when to be involved in public meetings or surveys to ensure their ideas and opinions are considered in the process in a timely and effective manner. The framework also provides opportunities that promote two way dialogues to ensure that proper information is flowing out to the public and opportunities are provided to ensure community input is received, discussed and considered.
The essence of community involvement is to promote partnerships among managers and resource users in order to work together on formulating recommendations and decisions about fisheries management on the Bay of Quinte.
Specifically, the framework identifies: • The principles and objectives of community involvement; • Who to contact; • How and when to engage community members in the planning process; and • A series of approaches and tools to be used to engage two way dialogues with the public.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan AppC 1 Community Involvement Plan – November 2005 Principles of Community Involvement
The principles of community involvement in the Bay of Quinte FMP include:
• Involve all members of the community – All potential members of the Bay of Quinte community must be made aware of the process and opportunities provided for their review and input. • Respect – Ensure that respect and consideration is given to all people and comments. • Awareness – Employ the best approaches to ensure maximum awareness of the process. • Two Way Dialogue – Opportunities must be provided for a two-way exchange of information and views. • The Community Plays a Vital Role – Stakeholder groups and the public play a vital role in helping to shape and implement the BQFMP. • Link Process to Actions – Community involvement in the decision-making process is essential to successful implementation. • Representation – Must provide a process that engages a broad range of people and a diversity of views. • Engaging – A program to involve the public must be more than notice and reply; new approaches to actively engage people will increase interest and secure their buy in on decisions and their support of implementation activities. • Working together – Must improve community understanding of the state of the Bay of Quinte fisheries and derive consensus on major issues and concerns. • Assist – Must assist the public to clearly understand the planning process and when decisions are being made and comments are required.
Objectives of Community Involvement Framework
The objectives of the CIF are to:
• Be as inclusive as possible of the various stakeholders in all stages of the decision- making process – general public, special interest groups, government agencies, municipal and regional governments and First Nations; • Include and address the opinions, concerns and knowledge of the community in the planning and decision making process; • Provide information to the public on the state of Bay of Quinte Fish community to ensure a sound understanding of existing and historical ecosystem conditions; • Provide information to the community on the draft plan in a timely fashion to ensure community has opportunity to participate in the process; • Provide opportunities for agencies and stakeholders to work together to achieve coordinated and cooperative management of the Bay of Quinte fisheries resource; • Develop and seek consensus on issues and objectives to help guide allocation and other fisheries management decisions; and • Develop a shared sense of responsibility and stewardship.
Target Audience
The target audience of the Community Involvement Framework (CIF) includes four general groups:
1. Community Members – individual people • General Public • Individual Recreational Anglers • Individual Commercial Anglers
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan AppC 2 Community Involvement Plan – November 2005 • Area Residents • Shoreline Property Owners • Individuals and Businesses
2. Special Interest Groups – non-government groups and community organizations • Recreational Interests o Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters o Local Hunter / Angler groups o Angling clubs (list) • Commercial Interests o Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association o Bait Association of Ontario o Chambers of Commerce o Tourism Associations o Sport Fishing derbies o Service Clubs who rely on charity derbies o Angling associated commercial interests (retail outlets, guides etc) o Hatchery operators • Environmental Interests o Quinte Remedial Action Plan Restoration Council o Federation of Ontario Naturalists o Quinte Field Naturalists
3. First Nations • Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (Chief and Council, Commercial fishers, community members)
4. Governments and Agencies – federal, provincial, municipal, other • Federal o Canada Customs o Department of Fisheries and Oceans o Environment Canada o Attorney General • Provincial o OPP o Ministry of Natural Resources o Ministry of the Environment o Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development o Solicitor General • Municipal o Police Departments - Belleville, Napanee Tyendinaga o City of Belleville o Municipality of Prince Edward County o City of Quinte West o Town of Napanee o Town of Brighton o Town of Desoronto o City of Trenton • Other Agencies and Contacts o Conservation Authorities name o MPPs, MPs
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan AppC 3 Community Involvement Plan – November 2005 Process and Schedule
Figure 2 shows four basic phases of public involvement as it relates to the steps and target dates of the planning process.
Figure 2 – Phases of Public Involvement Phase / Dates Purpose Initial – Pre Launch Providing Awareness About the Process
October 3rd, 2005 • Inform and invite all people to legitimize participation – Invitation to Participate • Open House with BQ Fisheries Advisory Committee to explain their role and upcoming process
Phase ONE Exchanging Background Information and FIRST OPEN HOUSE Understanding Issues and Interests
Awareness and Awareness and December 7th, 2005 • Provide background information on state of the ecosystem and other fisheries background information on Bay of Information Exchange Quinte • Gather initial comments on issues to be dealt with
Phase TWO Engaging (seeking) Input on Draft Fisheries SECOND OPEN HOUSE Management Plan
April 30th, 2005 • Provide opportunity to review content of draft FMP including options • Actively seek comments from all public Consultation Phase THREE Confirming content of Final Management Plan REVIEW FINAL PLAN • Review content of final FMP including selected options TBA • Actively seek public comments on final Deciding Together Phase FOUR Working Together to Actively Implement the Plan IMPLEMENTATION • Seeking partnerships with community members and
Acting TBA agencies to undertake actions Together
Initial Pre-Launch Providing information on the process
Task 1 – Conduct BQFAC Open House to introduce members of the committee, and to promote awareness of what their roles and responsibilities are. Task 2 – Establish initial list of contacts (names, addresses, emails) for initial and ongoing contact. Task 3 – Establish email account for one of contact to MNR Planning Team and BQFAC Task 4 – Prepare survey and confirm with BQFAC and Planning Team. Task 5 – Consider announcement of BQFMP and first Open House on local and/or fishing shows. Task 6 – Contact Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte to discuss how they would like to be involved. An initial phone call with representative should establish the approach for involvement, followed up by a letter and a meeting.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan AppC 4 Community Involvement Plan – November 2005 Phase ONE Exchanging Background Information FIRST OPEN HOUSE and Understanding Issues
Task 1 – Post Notice of First Open House – Invitation to Participate: Provide news release or paid advertisement in local newspapers; Post on local websites; Consider a Community Listserv; Send email or letter to everyone on MNR Email List; and BQFAC to contact their own network of people. Task 2 – Prepare summary of Open House discussion. Task 3 – Setup website with contact information, background information (terms of reference, fact sheets on fisheries in Bay of Quinte), and calendar of events. Task 4 – Conduct first Open House: Identify key players (e.g., MNR staff, BQFAC); Present background information on state of BQ fisheries; Conduct facilitated open session; Circulate survey; and Circulate comment sheet on Open House. Task 5 – Continually update MNR contact list. Task 6 – Provide survey on website and make available at first Open House. Send an email (or letter) to all people indicating where the survey can be obtained and where it is sent to. Compile results of survey and make available on website. Task 7 – Visit local angling clubs and businesses to make members aware of the process and seek input into the process. Consider special meetings with representatives of local clubs and the BQFAC to discuss comments and concerns. If necessary a sub committee of the BQFAC could be initiated to facilitate this discussion. Task 8 – Consider radio or television interviews to promote awareness of issues. Task 9 – Confirm First Nations involvement approach – set meeting with Chief and Council or their representatives to openly discuss their comments. Task 10 – Consider inviting individuals to Planning Team meeting when discussing options and alternatives to be considered in the plan.
Phase TWO Engaging (seeking) Input on Draft Fisheries Management Plan SECOND OPEN HOUSE
Task 1 – Post Notice of Second Open House: Provide news release or paid advertisement in local newspapers; Post on local websites; Consider a Community Listserv; and Send Email to everyone on MNR Email List. Task 2 – Update www.BQFAC.org website with draft management plan and other supporting material. Task 3 – Conduct second Open House: Identify key players (e.g. MNR staff, BQFAC); Present background information and draft Fisheries Management Plan; Conduct facilitated open session and break out groups to deal with specific areas of concern (to be identified); and Provide comment sheet. Task 4 – Prepare summary of Open House discussion and post on website. Task 5 – Meet with Mohawks of Bay of Quinte to review draft management plan. Task 6 – Consider meeting with special interest groups or club meetings to obtain input through two-way dialogue on the draft management plan.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan AppC 5 Community Involvement Plan – November 2005 Phase THREE Confirming Content of Final Management Plan REVIEW FINAL PLAN
Task 1 – Post Notice of Final Open House: Provide news release or paid advertisement in local newspapers; Post on local websites; Consider a Community Listserv; and Send email or letter to everyone on MNR Email List. Task 2 – Prepare summary of Open House discussion and post on website. Task 3 – Conduct meetings with special interest groups or individuals with outstanding concerns. Task 4 – Post Notice on the Environmental Board Registry (EBR).
Tools and Approaches
The following provides a list of traditional and new approaches to contact and engage community members in the planning process. a. Public Notices and News Releases (Public Service Announcements) – provided in local newspapers (e.g. Brighton, Trenton, Picton, Belleville, Napanee, Kingston) will ensure broad coverage across the Bay of Quinte. b. Survey – printed survey distributed to the resource user and public to solicit their comments regarding community concerns and issues and potential resolutions to program issues. c. Toll-free Hotline and/or Community Comment Sheets – provide non-Internet methods of communication for public feedback so that they may voice their opinions and concerns to the appropriate government or program personnel. d. Public Displays – provides detailed information in understandable terms and visual aids (maps and photographs) on program location and activities to inform and provide awareness and allow participants to engage government personnel on important issues and their specific concerns regarding the program. e. Fact Sheets – are brief project updates written in understandable terminology, with user friendly graphics, to explain scientific, technical, legislative or managerial information, concepts and principles. f. Stakeholder Meetings – specific target group meetings will be arranged to seek additional input at various times during the process. This approach promotes two way dialogues that provide for an exchange of information and comments. g. Mailing List – MNR will initiate and keep up to date a complete mailing and email list of all community members, special interest groups, First Nations and Governments and agencies in order to effectively communicate program information to everyone. h. Email – Electronic mail is utilized by a large percentage of people and can be used to quickly relay important messages and notices to a large number of people. The email address for the BQFAC should be made ready available on all notices and the website and promoted as the “one stop” to ask questions or register any comments. i. Website – The website will be a key resource to the community by providing technical reports, summaries of open houses, schedules, fact sheets, who to contact and other current information.
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan AppC 6 Community Involvement Plan – November 2005 j. Listserv – subscription-based distribution of information and material posted on various websites examples including OMNR, OFAH, OCFA, Quinte Conservation, Lower Trent Conservation, BQFAC, and Quintefishing.com. k. Impartial Facilitation – the involvement of a non-government, non-community member facilitator to provide impartial, non-bias guidance and leadership throughout the public involvement process via organized workshops or public open-houses between resource managers and resource users. l. Personal Interviews – One-on-one interviews to be held with community members to address specific individual concerns. These interviews may be available on request. m. Community Events – includes presentations to various Interest Groups, such as Rod and Gun clubs, local Naturalist groups, and other interested community groups. The Public Display could be used as a visual aid for public presentations. n. Progress Reports via an ‘Anglers Working Group’ – invite representatives of Rod and Gun Clubs to specific workshops to summarize progress updates of the FMP and provide more detailed information and to allow them to comment on the current direction.
Barriers to a Successful Public Involvement Process
Barriers Overcoming Barriers • Lack of community trust in • Build trust by ensuring community priorities and concerns are government. clearly addressed in the plan • Early involvement in planning and decision making reduces reactive actions • Lack of meaningful input into • Create opportunities for two way dialogue decisions. • Clearly identify planning process and schedule so people know when and how to be involved • Ensure agency accountability by responding to all enquiries, suggestions or recommendations, and don’t by-pass anything • Cultural, social, economic or • Use wide variety of communication tools and approaches political differences of • Provide capacity building opportunities participants. • Provide additional opportunities (face-to-face contact, fact sheets) that are designed for specific groups • Inappropriate representation • Continue with BQFAC, and consider subcommittees to of the varied community include additional members for better representation interests such that the process or participants are lop-sided and concerns are not well balanced.
Lack of capacity to understand • Convey all information in easy to understand language. technical reports and data • Consider capacity building efforts or provide funding to hire technical advisors to help them better understand.
Lack of a fair process • Ensure equal time to all participants • Utilize impartial facilitator to deal equally with participants Source: ?
Bay of Quinte Fisheries Management Plan AppC 7 Community Involvement Plan – November 2005