DOCSLIB.ORG

Lake Histories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lake Histories LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE & FISHERIES OFFICE OF FISHERIES INLAND FISHERIES SECTION PART VI -A WATERBODY MANAGEMENT PLAN SERIES ATCHAFALAYA BASIN LAKE HISTORY & MANAGEMENT ISSUES 1 CHRONOLOGY October, 2009 – Prepared by Mike Walker, Biologist Supervisor, District 9 July, 2011 – Updated by Mike Walker, Biologist Manager, District 9 February, 2014 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2014 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2015 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2016 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2017 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2018 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2019 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2020 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 The remainder of this page intentionally left blank. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LAKE HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................. 5 History ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Size ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Watershed .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Pool Stage .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Location ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Border Waters........................................................................................................................................................ 8 LAKE AUTHORITY .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Association ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Authorization ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 ACCESS ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Boat Launches ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 State/Federal Facilities ......................................................................................................................................... 8 SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................ 9 State/National Parks .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Shoreline Development by Landowners................................................................................................................. 9 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF LAKE ................................................................................................................ 9 Timber Type ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Average Depth ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Maximum Depth .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Natural Seasonal Water Fluctuation ..................................................................................................................... 9 EVENTS/ PROBLEMS ......................................................................................................................................... 10 MANAGEMENT ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................ 11 AQUATIC VEGETATION ................................................................................................................................... 11 Biomass ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Chemical Control ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Biological Control ............................................................................................................................................... 17 HISTORY OF REGULATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 17 Recreational......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Commercial ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 FISH KILLS, DISEASE HISTORY, LMBV ................................................................................................................ 18 CONTAMINANTS / POLLUTION ..................................................................................................................... 19 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 BIOLOGICAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 20 Fish Samples Taken by LDWF............................................................................................................................. 20 Lake Records ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Stocking History .................................................................................................................................................. 21 Species Profile ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 Largemouth Bass Genetics .................................................................................................................................. 26 Age and Growth ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Threatened/Endangered Species .......................................................................................................................... 26 Exotic Species ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 Mussel Sampling .................................................................................................................................................. 26 CREEL SURVEYS ................................................................................................................................................ 27 Historic Information ............................................................................................................................................ 27 Recent Methods.................................................................................................................................................... 28 HYDROLOGICAL CHANGES ........................................................................................................................... 29 Atchafalaya Basin Levees .................................................................................................................................... 29 Dredging .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Water Control Structures, etc. ............................................................................................................................. 31 Improvements for Access, Fish and Wildlife, and Recreation ............................................................................. 35 WATER USE ........................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CAT Vertebradosgt CDC CECON USAC 2019
    Catálogo de Autoridades Taxonómicas de vertebrados de Guatemala CDC-CECON-USAC 2019 Centro de Datos para la Conservación (CDC) Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala Este documento fue elaborado por el Centro de Datos para la Conservación (CDC) del Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) de la Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. Guatemala, 2019 Textos y edición: Manolo J. García. Zoólogo CDC Primera edición, 2019 Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) de la Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala ISBN: 978-9929-570-19-1 Cita sugerida: Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas [Cecon]. (2019). Catálogo de autoridades taxonómicas de vertebrados de Guatemala (Documento técnico). Guatemala: Centro de Datos para la Conservación [CDC], Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas [Cecon], Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala [Usac]. Índice 1. Presentación ............................................................................................ 4 2. Directrices generales para uso del CAT .............................................. 5 2.1 El grupo objetivo ..................................................................... 5 2.2 Categorías taxonómicas ......................................................... 5 2.3 Nombre de autoridades .......................................................... 5 2.4 Estatus taxonómico
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting
    CHANNEL BED CHANGES IN THE LOWER ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND WAX LAKE OUTLET, LOUISIANA, 1967-2006 By JEREMY REYNOLDS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2019 © 2019 Jeremy Reynolds To my parents, my brothers, and all of my friends who have helped support me. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Joann Mossa, Dr. Peter Waylen, and Dr. Liang Mao, for their support and encouragement. I would like to specifically thank Dr. Joann Mossa for her guidance and advice that kept me well on track during this complex process. I would like to thank my peers, specifically Mohammad Abdulrahman and Chia-Yu Wu, for their support and advice on how to tackle this study. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 7 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 1 LOWER ATCHAFALAYA CHANNEL BED CHANGE .................................................... 9 Background .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L
    PERSPECTIVE Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L. Rypel | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA. E-mail: [email protected] Parsa Saffarinia | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Caryn C. Vaughn | University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Biology, Norman, OK Larry Nesper | University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Anthropology, Madison, WI Katherine O’Reilly | University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences, Notre Dame, IN Christine A. Parisek | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA | The Nature Conservancy, Science Communications, Boise, ID Peter B. Moyle | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA Nann A. Fangue | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Miranda Bell- Tilcock | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA David Ayers | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Solomon R. David | Nicholls State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Thibodaux, LA While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”— a pejorative ascribing low- to- zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Use Management in the Atchafalaya River Basin: Research at the Confluence of Public Policy and Ecosystem Science
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Reports IGERT 2013 Multi-Use Management in the Atchafalaya River Basin: Research at the Confluence of Public Policy and Ecosystem Science Micah Bennett Southern Illinois University Carbondale Kelley Fritz Southern Illinois University Carbondale Anne Hayden-Lesmeister Southern Illinois University Carbondale Justin Kozak Southern Illinois University Carbondale Aaron Nickolotsky Southern Illinois University Carbondale Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/igert_reports A report in fulfillment of the NSF IGERT Program requirements. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0903510. Recommended Citation Bennett, Micah; Fritz, Kelley; Hayden-Lesmeister, Anne; Kozak, Justin; and Nickolotsky, Aaron, "Multi-Use Management in the Atchafalaya River Basin: Research at the Confluence of Public Policy and Ecosystem Science" (2013). Reports. Paper 2. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/igert_reports/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the IGERT at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MULTI-USE MANAGEMENT IN THE ATCHAFALAYA RIVER BASIN: RESEARCH AT THE CONFLUENCE OF PUBLIC POLICY AND ECOSYSTEM SCIENCE BY MICAH BENNETT, KELLEY FRITZ, ANNE HAYDEN-LESMEISTER, JUSTIN KOZAK, AND AARON NICKOLOTSKY SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE NSF IGERT PROGRAM IN WATERSHED SCIENCE AND POLICY A report
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving Cypriniformes Relationships Using an Anchored Enrichment Approach Carla C
    Stout et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology (2016) 16:244 DOI 10.1186/s12862-016-0819-5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Resolving Cypriniformes relationships using an anchored enrichment approach Carla C. Stout1*†, Milton Tan1†, Alan R. Lemmon2, Emily Moriarty Lemmon3 and Jonathan W. Armbruster1 Abstract Background: Cypriniformes (minnows, carps, loaches, and suckers) is the largest group of freshwater fishes in the world (~4300 described species). Despite much attention, previous attempts to elucidate relationships using molecular and morphological characters have been incongruent. In this study we present the first phylogenomic analysis using anchored hybrid enrichment for 172 taxa to represent the order (plus three out-group taxa), which is the largest dataset for the order to date (219 loci, 315,288 bp, average locus length of 1011 bp). Results: Concatenation analysis establishes a robust tree with 97 % of nodes at 100 % bootstrap support. Species tree analysis was highly congruent with the concatenation analysis with only two major differences: monophyly of Cobitoidei and placement of Danionidae. Conclusions: Most major clades obtained in prior molecular studies were validated as monophyletic, and we provide robust resolution for the relationships among these clades for the first time. These relationships can be used as a framework for addressing a variety of evolutionary questions (e.g. phylogeography, polyploidization, diversification, trait evolution, comparative genomics) for which Cypriniformes is ideally suited. Keywords: Fish, High-throughput
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Mississippi River & Tributaries (Mr&T)
    1 OVERVIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES (MR&T) - ATCHAFALAYA BASIN PROJECT 237 217 200 80 252 237 217 200 119 174 237 217 200 27 .59 255 0 163 131 239 110 112 62 102 130 Port255 Of0 Morgan163 City132 –65 Stakeholder135 92 Meeting102 56 120 255 0 163 122 53 120 56 130 48 111 Durund Elzey Assistance Deputy District Engineer (ADPM) US Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District 11 February 2019 2 TOPICS OF DISCUSSION • Passing the MR&T Project Design Flood • The Jadwin Plan • The Morganza Floodway • The Old River Control Complex • MR&T Atchafalaya Basin Flood Control Project • Atchafalaya Basin Levee Construction • Atchafalaya Basin O&M • Atchafalaya River Dredging • The Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System (ABFS) Project • Sedimentation Issues • Path Forward 3 THE FLOOD OF 1927 Flood Control Act of 1928 4 and the Jadwin Plan The Morganza Floodway 5 6 Old River Control Structures Authorized 1973 Flood . The Low Sill Control Structure was undermined and the Wing Wall failed . The Old River Overbank Control Structure and the Morganza Control Structure were opened to relieve stress on the Low Sill Control Structure . Due to severe damage to the Low Sill Control Structure, USACE recommended construction of the Auxiliary Control Structure, which was completed in 1986 Morganza Control Structure Operated for First Time View of Old River Control Complex Old River Lock Auxiliary Control Structure Low Sill Control Structure Overbank Control Structure S.A. Murray Hydro 9 The Flood of 2011 10 Extent of 1927 Flood (in Blue) Versus 2011 Flood (in Green) Passing the Project Design Flood 11 The MR&T Atchafalaya Basin Project The MR&T Atchafalaya Basin Project Major Components • 451 Miles of Levees and Floodwalls • 4 Navigation Locks .
    [Show full text]
  • Notropis Volucellus and Notropis Wickliffi in the Mississippi River Drainage: a Literature Review
    Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Special Report 96-S001 Taxonomic and Distributional Status of Notropis volucellus and Notropis wickliffi in the Mississippi River Drainage: A Literature Review This PDF file may appear different from the printed report because of slight variations incurred by electronic transmission. The substance of the report remains unchanged. July 1996 Taxonomic and Distributional Status of Notropis volucellus and Notropis wickliffi in the Mississippi River Drainage: A Literature Review by Robert A. Hrabik Missouri Department of Conservation Open River Field Station Jackson, Missouri 63755 Prepared for National Biological Service Environmental Management Technical Center 575 Lester Avenue Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650 Project Leader: Steve Gutreuter July 1996 LTRMP Special Reports provide Long Term Resrouce Program partners with scientific and technical support. The opinions and conclusions in LTRMP Special Reports are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Environmental Management Technical Center. All reports in this series receive anonymous peer review. National Biological Service Environmental Management Technical Center CENTER DIRECTOR Robert L. Delaney ECOLOGICAL MONITORING AND RESEARCH DIRECTOR Steve Gutreuter INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DIRECTOR Norman W. Hildrum INFORMATION TRANSFER AND MEDIA SERVICES MANAGER Terry D'Erchia REPORT EDITOR Deborah K. Harris Cover graphic by Mi Ae Lipe-Butterbrodt Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Biological Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. The National Biological Service . gathering, analyzing, and sharing the biological information necessary to support the wise stewardship of the Nation's natural resources. Printed on recycled paper Contents Page Preface ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bayou Têche Paddle Trail Planning 2012-2017
    BAYOU TECHE PADDLE TRAIL La Trace Pagaie de Bayou Teche Bayou Têche Paddle Trail Planning 2012-2017 Prepared by National Park Service Center for Cultural and Eco-Tourism, UL Lafayette Teche Ecology, Culture and History Education Project September 2012 CONTENTS Planning Organization ...............................................................................................................................................4 2010-2012 Participating Agencies and Organizations ...................................................................................4 2010-2012 Bayou Têche Paddle Trail Steering Committee .............................................................................4 Bayou Têche Paddle Trail Mission Statement .................................................................................................4 Planning Goals .............................................................................................................................................4 Planning Objectives......................................................................................................................................4 The Bayou Têche .......................................................................................................................................................5 Location .......................................................................................................................................................5 Atchafalaya National Heritage Area ..............................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts Part 1
    375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Check-List of the Fishes of Iowa, with Keys for Identification
    A CHECK-LIST OF THE FISHES OF IOWA, WITH KEYS FOR IDENTIFICATION By Reeve M. Bailey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ................................................................................................................... 187 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 188 Species Removed from the Iowa Faunal List ........................................................ 188 Check-list of Iowa Fishes ............................................................................................ 189 Additional Fishes which May Occur in Iowa ........................................................ 195 Keys for the Identification of Iowa Fishes ............................................................ 196 Key to Families of Iowa Fishes .................................................................... 198 Key to Petromyzontidae (lampreys) .......................................................... 206 Key to Acipenseridae (sturgeons) .............................................................. 207 Key to Lepisosteidae (gars) .......................................................................... 207 Key to Salmonidae (trouts) .......................................................................... 208 Key to Clupeidae (herrings) .......................................................................... 209 Key to Hiodontidae (mooneyes) .................................................................... 209 Key to Esocidae (pikes) .................................................................................
    [Show full text]