DOCSLIB.ORG

Spatial Distribution of the Common Loon (Gavia Immer) in New Hampshire

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spatial Distribution of the Common Loon (Gavia Immer) in New Hampshire University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Spring 2005 Spatial distribution of the common loon (Gavia immer) in New Hampshire Mark W. Brennan University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation Brennan, Mark W., "Spatial distribution of the common loon (Gavia immer) in New Hampshire" (2005). Doctoral Dissertations. 261. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/261 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMMON LOON (GAVIAIMMER) IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BY Mark W. Brennan B. S., University of Massachusetts, 1982 M. S., University of Connecticut, 1986 M. S., Purdue University, 1986 DISSERT AION Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Natural Resources May 2005 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3169078 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3169078 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This dissertation has been examined and approved by: )ii isertation Director, Dr. I^ssell G. Congalton Professor of Remote Sensing & GIS (1 } jJ-f-'U.A. If Dr. Peter J. Pekins Professor of Wildlife Ecology ~2 Dr. Mimi L. Becker Associate Professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy Dr. Robert T. Eckert Professor of Environmental Conservation and Forestry Dr. Jeffrey H. Gove fessor of Natural Resources 2 5 #4 drch Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my wife Debra and sons Joshua, Wesley and Adam for their patience, understanding and encouragement while mixing work, school and family life during the last few years. iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work reported on in this dissertation was completed over multiple years and prepared by the principal author to complete requirements for a Ph. D. in Natural Resources at the University of New Hampshire. During this journey many individuals were consulted and I gratefully acknowledge their generous inputs, assistance, support and encouragement as mentioned below. I thank my dissertation committee members for continued guidance, persistence and patient during my studies: Dr. Russell Congalton, Dr. Peter Pekins, Dr. Robert Eckert, Dr. Mimi Becker and Dr. Jeffrey Gove. This research would not have been possible without the effort of the Loon Preservation Committee. This organization has spent countless hours since 1975 collecting data concerning Common Loon characteristics on New Hampshire lakes and pond, and served as the primary data set for this research. May thanks are extended to: Kate Taylor, Harry Vogel, Linda Johnson, Paul Schmidt, Keith Nelson, Jordan Purdy and Rawson Wood. The Audubon Society of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Fish & Game, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency and BioDiversity Research Institute staff also provided assistance with data collection and compilation, technical review and general guidance during this research. Special thanks for participation on this project go to: Richard Moore, John Lanier, Drew Major, Ken Munney, Anne Kuhn, Jane Copeland, Diane Nacci and Dave Evers. Thanks are extended to Gerry Kinn, Tom Ofenstein and Martha Dionne for their iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. guidance with spatial analyses and literature searches, and to Fay Rubin at the UNH Complex Systems Center for providing statewide data sets used in the spatial analysis. v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION............................................................................. Hi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................... iv LIST OF TABLES...... ...... x LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii ABSTRACT....................................... xv CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..... ..........1 2 COMMON LOON MANAGEMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: A MULTI­ ORGANIZATION APPROACH. ............................ 6 2.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 6 2.2 METHODS FOR INFORMATION GATHERING. ............................................8 2.2.1 Document Review .......................... 8 2.2.2 Personal Interviews. ....... 8 2.2.3 Observation of Key Meetings ............. 9 2.3 PRIMARY ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED WITH NEW HAMPSHIRE LOON MANAGEMENT............................................................................... 9 2.3.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................................................................11 2.3.2 New Hampshire State Government................. ....... ...11 2.3.2.1 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) ....................................... ..11 2.3.2.2 Department of Environmental Services. ............ 12 23.2.2.1 Wetlands Bureau ........................................................................................13 2.3.2.3 New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (GRANIT)............................... 13 2.3.3 Marine Patrol ...... ..14 2.3.4 Local Government ..................................................................... ....14 2.3.5 Local Organizations ...................... 15 2.3.6 Private Sector Contributions. ................. 15 2.3.7 Non - Governmental Organizations (NGO) ............................................... 16 2.3.7.1 Loon Preservation Committee (LPC). ...................... 18 2.3.8 Volunteers.. ........................................................ ..20 2.3.9 Organizations Located Outside of New Hampshire ........................... ....21 2.4 LOON MANAGEMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ....... ......22 2.4.1 Federal and State Role ............... 22 2.4.2 LPC Role ............... 24 2.4.3 Successes and Challenges within New Hampshire Loon Management Structure............................. 26 vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.5 FINDINGS.................. ....28 2.5.1 Results Of Current Work On Loon Management In New Hampshire. ........28 2.5.2 LPC Specific Results .................... 28 2.5.3 Local State and Federal Organization Specific Results. ................. 30 2.6.4 Community Based Management Strategy. ......... ..30 2.6 CONCLUSIONS ........... 34 2.6.1 Future Research..... ............. ......35 3 LOON DATABASE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT............................ 37 3.1 INTRODUCTION..................... 37 3.2 LOON CHARACTERISTICS ............... 38 3.3 STUDY AREA... ...................... 43 3.4 LOON DATABASE DEVELOPMENT ..................... 47 3.4.1 Biological Data .................... 47 3.4.2 Biological Data Conversion ...................... 48 3.4.3 Lake Data ...................... 49 3.4.4 Fishery Data .................................. 50 3.4.5 Nest Site Locations ............................ 50 3.4.6 Thematic Layers ................. ..50 3.4.7 Loon Data Management System ............................... 51 3.5 RESULTS & DISCUSSION.. ........................... 52 3.5.1 Biological Data ................................ 52 3.5.2 Lakes Data..................... 54 3.5.3 Fishery Data. .............................. 55 3.5.4 Nest Sites.............. 56 3.5.5 GRANIT Data........................... 57 3.5.6 Loon Management System. ..................... ...58 3.6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS............. 59 4 LOON BIOLOGICAL AND NEST SITE DATA ANALYSIS ..........................62 4.1 INTRODUCTION................ 62 4.2 OBJECTIVES..... ..... 63 4.3 BACKGROUND.................. .63 4.4 STUDY AREA ................ 67 4.5 ANALYSIS METHODS.............. 71 4.5.1 Loon Data. ................................ .71 4.5.2 Visual Data Analysis. ............ ....72 4.5.2.1 Tracking Analyst
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crawford Reservoir
    Crawford Reservoir FISH SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION Eric Gardunio, Fish Biologist Montrose Service Center General Information: Crawford Reservoir is a popular fishery that provides angling opportunity for yellow perch, channel catfish, northern pike, rainbow trout, black crappie, and largemouth bass. This reser- voir, located in Crawford State Park, covers 414 surface acres at full capacity and is open year round to an- gling. Visit the State Parks website for information on regulations, camping, and recreation: http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/Crawford Location: 2 miles south of the town of Crawford on Hwy 92. Primary Management: Warmwater Mixed Species Lake Category 602 Amenities Previous Stocking Sportfishing Notes 2019 Black Crappie Boat Ramps (2) Rainbow Trout (10”): 9,100 Good spots include the East Campgrounds (2) Largemouth Bass (2”): 30,088 shore primarily around the Showers Clear Fork boat ramp cove or Largemouth Bass (6”): 150 anywhere with brush Visitors Center Largemouth Bass (20”): 70 Good baits include small tube Restrooms Channel Catfish (7”): 1,500 jigs and worms Parking Areas 2018 Channel Catfish Picnic Shelters Rainbow Trout (10”): 12,184 Good spots include the north Largemouth Bass (2”): 30,000 side of peninsula cove and near the dam Channel Catfish (7”): 4,250 Good baits include night 2017 crawlers and cut-bait WARNING !!! Rainbow Trout (10”): 12,184 Largemouth Bass Prevent the Spread of Largemouth Bass (2”): 20,000 Good spots include the rocky Zebra Mussels and other Largemouth Bass (16”): 70 areas near the dam and flood- Aquatic Nuisance Species ed brush and vegetation in the Channel Catfish (9”): 2,000 spring and summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and Spotted Bass Management and Fishing in Pennsylvania
    Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and Spotted Bass Management and Fishing in Pennsylvania Prepared by R. Lorantas, D. Kristine and C. Hobbs PFBC Warmwater Unit 2005 (updated 2013; R. Lorantas) Goal: Maintain or enhance largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass sport fishing through harvest management of naturally sustained bass populations and through habitat preservation and enhancement. Judiciously stock largemouth and smallmouth bass in compatible new and reclaimed habitats. Largemouth bass and smallmouth bass occur throughout Pennsylvania and were originally indigenous to the Ohio River and Lake Erie Drainage. Spotted bass, Pennsylvania’s most rare black bass, occurs only in the Ohio River drainage. The Ohio drainage includes the Ohio River, Allegheny River and Monongahela River drainages. Largemouth bass typically predominate in reservoirs and lakes and occur at lower densities in slow moving rivers and streams within these drainages. Smallmouth bass are typically abundant in rivers, warmwater streams and medium to large size lakes and reservoirs in these drainages. Spotted bass are most abundant within a 20 mile radius of the confluence of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers. In the Lake Erie drainage largemouth bass are largely confined to Presque Isle Bay, however smallmouth bass are abundant in Lake Erie as well as Presque Isle Bay. Smallmouth bass and largemouth bass stocking by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and other agencies over a century ago into the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River Drainages lead to colonization of waters within these drainages, and both species are now self­sustaining in these drainages. Most natural warm­ water lakes and man­made reservoirs in Pennsylvania contain self– sustaining largemouth and smallmouth bass populations.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Fish Suppliers
    2021 Fish Suppliers A.B. Jones Fish Hatchery Largemouth bass, hybrid bluegill, bluegill, black crappie, triploid grass carp, Nancy Jones gambusia – mosquito fish, channel catfish, bullfrog tadpoles, shiners 1057 Hwy 26 Williamsburg, KY 40769 (606) 549-2669 ATAC, LLC Pond Management Specialist Fathead minnows, golden shiner, goldfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, Rick Rogers hybrid bluegill, bluegill, redear sunfish, walleye, channel catfish, rainbow trout, PO Box 1223 black crappie, triploid grass carp, common carp, hybrid striped bass, koi, Lebanon, OH 45036 shubunkin goldfish, bullfrog tadpoles, and paddlefish (513) 932-6529 Anglers Bait-n-Tackle LLC Fathead minnows, rosey red minnows, bluegill, hybrid bluegill, goldfish and Kaleb Rodebaugh golden shiners 747 North Arnold Ave Prestonsburg, KY 606-886-1335 Andry’s Fish Farm Bluegill, hybrid bluegill, largemouth bass, koi, channel catfish, white catfish, Lyle Andry redear sunfish, black crappie, tilapia – human consumption only, triploid grass 10923 E. Conservation Club Road carp, fathead minnows and golden shiners Birdseye, IN 47513 (812) 389-2448 Arkansas Pondstockers, Inc Channel catfish, bluegill, hybrid bluegill, redear sunfish, largemouth bass, Michael Denton black crappie, fathead minnows, and triploid grass carp PO Box 357 Harrisbug, AR 75432 (870) 578-9773 Aquatic Control, Inc. Largemouth bass, bluegill, channel catfish, triploid grass carp, fathead Clinton Charlton minnows, redear sunfish, golden shiner, rainbow trout, and hybrid striped bass 505 Assembly Drive, STE 108
    [Show full text]
  • Farm Field Guide
    FARM FIELD GUIDE to species at risk in southern Ontario Rivers & Streams A wildlife guide for farmers Content Introduction 2 What are Rivers and Streams? 4 8 10 State of Rivers and Streams 6 How to use this guide 7 Your Observations are Important 8 Species - Redside Dace 10 Eastern Sand Darter 12 Grass Pickerel 14 Northern Brook Lamprey 16 20 Wavy-rayed lampmussel 18 Rainbow Mussel 20 Queensnake 22 Spiny Softshell 24 Northern Map Turtle 26 Bald Eagle 28 Bank Swallow 30 Eastern Musk Turtle 32 Kidneyshell Mussel 34 30 Silver Shiner 34 Channel Darter 35 Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle 35 Laura’s Clubtail 36 Riverine Clubtail 36 American Water-willow 37 Heart-leaved Plantain 37 35 1012 14 16 26 18 2216 24 26 28 32 34 34 35 36 36 37 37 An identification guide for species at risk that use rivers and streams in Ontario Rivers and streams are defined as fast moving or flowing bodies of water. Rivers and streams have been an important part of Ontario’s development and growth providing many services to its inhabitants. Most importantly, these waterways are a valuable source of drinking water. Did you know the average person requires about 360 litres of water per day for daily activities? These waterways provide many valuable services to the agricultural community, including water sources for both growing food and livestock, and recreational opportunities such as fishing or paddling. However, many rivers and streams in Ontario have been diverted and deteriorated by humans. As this trend continues, pressure is placed on the plants and animals that depend on these habitats for survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Largemouth Bass (Micropterus Salmoides)
    Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Animal Information Series Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) Do they have any other names? Largemouth bass are also called bigmouth bass, widemouth bass, bucketmouth, Florida bass, and Florida largemouth to name a few. Why are they called largemouth? They are called largemouth due to the fact that they have a large mouth in comparison to other black bass, with the upper jaw extending past the eye. What do they look like? The largemouth is generally olive green in color and cream colored on the belly with a series of black blotches that form a line along the side of the bass. Its upper jaw extends beyond the rear part of the eye and has no tooth patch present on the tongue. The dorsal fin (fin along the back bone) is nearly separated and has spiny and soft sections. In small bass the caudal (tail) fin is bi-colored (yellow with a black edge). Photo Credit: Duane Raver, USFWS 2012-MLC Page 1 Where do they live in Indiana? Largemouth bass are found almost everywhere in Indiana from ponds to large rivers. They are most abundant in lakes and man-made impoundments but can also be found in deep, quiet pools of streams. What kind of habitat do they need? They prefer warm, moderately clear waters that do not have a noticeable current. How do they reproduce? Largemouth bass begin nesting in the spring after the water temperature has reached about 65 °F. May June (spawn Peak of July starts-water Spawn (spawn temp. 65°F) continues) End of April- Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Biota
    Low Gradient, Cool, Headwaters and Creeks Macrogroup: Headwaters and Creeks Shawsheen River, © John Phelan Ecologist or State Fish Game Agency for more information about this habitat. This map is based on a model and has had little field-checking. Contact your State Natural Heritage Description: Cool, slow-moving, headwaters and creeks of low-moderate elevation flat, marshy settings. These small streams of moderate to low elevations occur on flats or very gentle slopes in watersheds less than 39 sq.mi in size. The cool slow-moving waters may have high turbidity and be somewhat poorly oxygenated. Instream habitats are dominated by glide-pool and ripple-dune systems with runs interspersed by pools and a few short or no distinct riffles. Bed materials are predominenly sands, silt, and only isolated amounts of gravel. These low-gradient streams may have high sinuosity but are usually only slightly entrenched with adjacent Source: 1:100k NHD+ (USGS 2006), >= 1 sq.mi. drainage area floodplain and riparian wetland ecosystems. Cool water State Distribution:CT, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, temperatures in these streams means the fish community WV contains a higher proportion of cool and warm water species relative to coldwater species. Additional variation in the stream Total Habitat (mi): 16,579 biological community is associated with acidic, calcareous, and neutral geologic settings where the pH of the water will limit the % Conserved: 11.5 Unit = Acres of 100m Riparian Buffer distribution of certain macroinvertebrates, plants, and other aquatic biota. The habitat can be further subdivided into 1) State State Miles of Acres Acres Total Acres headwaters that drain watersheds less than 4 sq.mi, and have an Habitat % Habitat GAP 1 - 2 GAP 3 Unsecured average bankfull width of 16 feet or 2) Creeks that include larger NY 41 6830 94 325 4726 streams with watersheds up to 39 sq.mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Species List
    FISH American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American eel Anguilla rostrata Banded darter Etheostoma zonale Bigeye chub Notropis amblops Bigeye shiner Notropis boops Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth shiner Notropis dorsalis Black buffalo Ictiobus niger Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside darter Percina maculate Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus Blue sucker Cycleptus elongates Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Bowfin Amia calva Brindled madtom Noturus miurus Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax Central mudminnow Umbra limi Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Channel darter Percina copelandi Channel shiner Notropis wickliffi Common shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus Dusky darter Percina sciera sciera Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Grass pickerel Esox americanus
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Characteristics of Walleye, Northern Pike, Largemouth Bass, and Bluegill In
    Population characteristics of walleye, northern pike, largemouth bass, and bluegill in Long and Mud Lakes, Washburn County, Wisconsin, 2009. WBIC 2106800 (Long) and 2107700 (Mud) Kent Bass Fisheries Technician, Advanced Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Northern Region - Spooner February, 2012 1 Executive Summary Long Lake was sampled in 2009 to determine population abundance, growth, and size distribution of walleye. Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, northern pike, and panfish were also collected. Relative abundance, size distribution, and growth were assessed for selected species. Mud Lake was also sampled for northern pike. A total of 2,240 walleyes were collected by fyke nets and electrofishing during the spawning period in Long Lake. Adult population abundance was estimated to be 6,915 fish or 2.1 fish/ acre, a 40% increase in adult abundance since 2001. A large 2005 year class accounted for much of the increase. Abundance of walleyes < 20 in was greater in 2009 than it was in either of the two previous surveys, while abundance of larger walleyes was lower. Walleye growth rates continued to be good and remained better than state and regional averages. Fall electrofishing captured only 1.2 young-of-the-year (YOY) walleyes per mile of shoreline sampled. A total of 261 northern pike were captured by fyke nets in Long and Mud Lakes. Mean length of the sample was 19.7 in, and size structure was comparable to what was found in the 1994 and 2001 surveys. Growth rates of northern pike improved since 2001 and were better than state and regional averages. A total of 270 largemouth bass were collected during May electrofishing, averaging 12.1 in.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Adaptation Management and Quality Initiative
    Visualizing and Quantifying Sources of Nutrients in the Agriculturally Dependent Muskrat River Watershed Funding for the WAMQI project was provided through Growing Forward 2, a federal- provincial-territorial initiative. The program was administered by Farm & Food Care Ontario. Sarah Hall & Julie Sylvestre Presentation Overview About Muskrat Lake and its residents WAMQI purpose and hypothesis Causes and concerns Research and action Partnerships and collaboration Lessons learned Life after WAMQI Algal bloom detection and remote sensing Muskrat Watershed Muskrat Lake: Physical Characteristics Muskrat Lake: Facts Max depth: 64m, mean depth 17.7m Lake volume 213,200,000 cu. m. Perimeter of 34km Hectares 1201 (ha) Two main inflows: Snake R. and Muskrat R. One main outflow: Muskrat R. Lake residence time: approx. 1 year One of only 23 lakes that sustain lake trout (designated as an “at capacity” lake”) Actively fished year round for lake trout, muskellunge, rainbow smelt, smallmouth and largemouth bass, longnose gar, pike, and walleye. Also home to protected American Eel and Sturgeon Muskrat Lake: Water Use Drinking water supply for the town of Cobden and for some lake residents Location of the Cobden sewage treatment plant Easily accessible and rewarding fishing; bass tourne and big ice fishing community Home to several campgrounds, important for recreation and tourism Upstream agricultural influences (Snake River) Area Supported by cities of Pembroke and CFB Petawawa WAMQI Purpose & Hypothesis The overall purpose of the project was to document water quality issues in the MRW in relation to current land-use practices. It was hypothesized that nutrients and sediments from agriculturally dominated areas in the MRW could be contributing to the high phosphorus levels and blue-green algaal blooms in Muskrat Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa Fishing Regulations
    www.iowadnr.gov/fishing 1 Contents What’s New? Be a Responsible Angler .....................................3 • Mississippi River walleye length limit License & Permit Requirements ..........................3 changes - length limits in Mississippi Threatened & Endangered Species ....................4 River Pools 12-20 now include the entire Health Benefits of Eating Fish .............................4 Mississippi River in Iowa (p. 12). General Fishing Regulations ...............................5 • Missouri River paddlefish season start Fishing Seasons & Limits ....................................9 date changed to Feb. 1 (p. 11) Fish Identification...............................................14 • Virtual fishing tournaments added to License Agreements with Bordering States .......16 Iowa DNR special events applications Health Advisories for Eating Fish.......................17 - the definition of fishing tournaments now Aquatic Invasive Species...................................18 includes virtual fishing tournaments (p. 6) Fisheries Offices Phone Numbers .....................20 First Fish & Master Angler Awards ....................21 Conservation Officers Phone Numbers .............23 License and Permit Fees License/Permit Resident Nonresident On Sale Dec. 15, 2020 On Sale Jan. 1, 2021 Annual 16 years old and older $22.00 $48.00 3-Year $62.00 Not Available 7-Day $15.50 $37.50 3-Day Not Available $20.50 1-Day $10.50 $12.00 Annual Third Line Fishing Permit $14.00 $14.00 Trout Fee $14.50 $17.50 Lifetime (65 years old and older) $61.50 Not Available Boundary Water Sport Trotline $26.00 $49.50 Fishing Tournament Permit $25.00 $25.00 Fishing, Hunting, Habitat Fee Combo $55.00 Not Available Paddlefish Fishing License & Tag $25.50 $49.00 Give your kids a lifetime of BIG memories The COVID-19 pandemic ignited Iowans’ pent-up passion to get out and enjoy the outdoors.
    [Show full text]
  • Behaviour of Walleye, Sander Vitreus, and Largemouth Bass, Micropterus
    Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 19–26 Behaviour of walleye, Sander vitreus, and largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, exposed to different wave intensities and boat operating conditions during livewell confinement C. D. SUSKI Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada S. J. COOKE* Center for Aquatic Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, and Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA S. S. KILLEN Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada D. H. WAHL & D. P. PHILIPP Center for Aquatic Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, and Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA B. L. TUFTS Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada Abstract During live-release angling tournaments in North America, fish are typically retained in livewells onboard boats during the angling day. Mortality of fish occurs at some tournaments, and wave intensities and livewell conditions may influence mortality levels. This study used two species of fish targeted in live-release angling tournaments in North America (largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides L. and walleye Sander vitreus L.) to quantify the response(s) of fish in livewells to different wave treatments. Video analyses revealed that large- mouth bass were active during low intensity disturbances, but during violent boat movements tended to settle to the bottom of the livewell and orient to face the direction of the disturbance. Walleye were less active than bass for all treatments, and additionally did not orient to face the direction of disturbance, consequently contacting the side of the livewell during boat rocking.
    [Show full text]