Assessing the Need for Fish Barrier Installation at Wolf Lake, Newcomb, Ny
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROTECTING AN UPPER HUDSON HERITAGE LAKE: ASSESSING THE NEED FOR FISH BARRIER INSTALLATION AT WOLF LAKE, NEWCOMB, NY A Final Report of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program Samouel J. Beguin Polgar Fellow Adirondack Ecological Center SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Newcomb, NY 12852 Project Advisors: Karin E. Limburg Department of Environmental and Forest Biology SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Syracuse, NY 13210 Stacy A. McNulty Adirondack Ecological Center SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Newcomb, NY 12852 Beguin, S.J., K.E. Limburg, and S.A. McNulty. 2018. Protecting an Upper Hudson Heritage Lake: Assessing the Need for Fish Barrier Installation at Wolf Lake, Newcomb, NY. Section VI: 1-34 pp. In D.J. Yozzo, S.H. Fernald, and H. Andreyko (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2015. Hudson River Foundation. VI-1 ABSTRACT Wolf Lake, a near-pristine heritage lake, is one of the most ecologically sound bodies of water within the Upper Hudson River headwaters region and provides a critical aquatic reference system as well as a potential reserve for genetic diversity. The goals of this project were to (1) describe the composition and movements of a minimally studied stream fish community at multiple locations along the main outlet stream of Wolf Lake, (2) determine if non-native fish species were present anywhere along the stream, and (3) assess the need for a passive fish barrier to inhibit non-native invasion as a means of maintaining the lake’s ecological condition. Minnow traps and visual implant elastomer (VIE) tags were used to capture and mark fish of several species from June-August 2015. Fish community composition varied along the length of the stream, with cutlips minnow (Exoglossum maxillingua) found only near the outlet of Wolf Lake and non-native black bass (Micropterus sp.) detected only at the most downstream site. Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) and blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) dominated the fish community at interior stream sites downstream from Wolf Lake. Existing ephemeral barriers to fish movement along the stream included beaver wetlands, culverts, woody debris dams, and stream reaches with partial subterranean flow. The findings of this study suggest that invasion potential is low at present, although non-native species dispersal upstream remains a possibility. Further research should examine temporal patterns of fish movements in greater detail and identify more specifically the ideal locations and types of fish barriers that could be installed to prevent invasion of Wolf Lake, one of the most ecologically valuable water resources within the Upper Hudson River Watershed. VI-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................ VI-2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................. VI-3 Lists of Figures and Tables .................................................................................. VI-4 Introduction .......................................................................................................... VI-5 Methods................................................................................................................ VI-11 Study Area and Sites ................................................................................ VI-11 Field Sampling ......................................................................................... VI-13 Stream Barrier Assessment ..................................................................... VI-16 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... VI-16 Results .................................................................................................................. VI-17 Water Quality ........................................................................................... VI-17 Fish Capture and Distribution .................................................................. VI-18 Fish Recaptures ....................................................................................... VI-24 Stream Barriers ........................................................................................ VI-24 Discussion ............................................................................................................ VI-26 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... VI-31 Acknowledgments................................................................................................ VI-31 Literature Cited .................................................................................................... VI-32 VI-3 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1 – Map of Wolf Lake within the Hudson River Watershed .................... VI-12 Figure 2 – Map of five study sites along the Wolf Lake outlet stream ................ VI-13 Figure 3 – Fish marked with visible implant elastomer (VIE) tags ..................... VI-14 Figure 4 – Size distribution for common shiner (Luxilus cornutus) .................... VI-21 Figure 5 – Size distribution for all fish captured ................................................. VI-21 Table 1 – Fish species present in and absent from Wolf Lake ............................ VI-7 Table 2 – Study site information for the Wolf Lake outlet stream ...................... VI-13 Table 3 – Water quality measurements for study locations ................................. VI-17 Table 4 – Summary of fish capture data for the Wolf Lake outlet stream ........... VI-18 Table 5 – Raw abundance for fish species captured ............................................ VI-19 Table 6 – Percent composition (%) for fish species captured .............................. VI-20 Table 7 – Mean total length (mm) for five fish species ....................................... VI-22 Table 8 – Mean mass (g) for five fish species ..................................................... VI-22 Table 9 – Summary of snorkel surveys at the Wolf Lake outlet ......................... VI-23 Table 10 – Summary of fish marked using VIE tags ........................................... VI-24 Table 11 – List of recaptured individual fish ....................................................... VI-25 Table 12 – Potential barriers to fish movement ................................................... VI-26 VI-4 INTRODUCTION One of the most persistent threats to aquatic ecosystems is invasion by non-native species, which provoke major shifts in ecological structure and function, as a type of bio- pollution (Crait and Ben-David 2003). Furthermore, as global climate change continues, aquatic invasions may become even more pervasive in some areas (Rahel and Olden 2008). Fish invasion in particular has the potential to restructure ecological relationships within aquatic ecosystems and even influence food webs in adjacent terrestrial riparian zones (Baxter et al. 2004). In the far northern portions of the Upper Hudson River Watershed, New York, USA, aquatic invasive plant and animal species continue to encroach on even the most protected and remote waters. Despite the land and freshwater conservation benefits provided by the Adirondack Park – a vast protected landscape of public and private lands – many lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers in the Hudson River headwaters region have experienced considerable impacts from human introduction of non-native fish species like golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), northern pike (Esox lucius), and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) (APANSMP 2006; Adirondack Council 2008; Daniels et al. 2011). Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) may be considered a non-native nuisance species as well, though recent paleogenetic work suggests that this species may be native in the central Adirondacks (Stager et al. 2015). In response to invasion, efforts are underway to “reclaim” some Adirondack water bodies by removing introduced fish species such as smallmouth bass in order to promote the re-establishment of native species such as brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Weidel et al. 2007). VI-5 Despite the many Upper Hudson water bodies that have already been colonized by invasive fish species, some holdout refuges for native fish communities still remain and allow for the maintenance of aquatic ecological integrity and genetic diversity. One such sanctuary is Wolf Lake (also known as Wolf Pond) in Newcomb, NY. This Adirondack water body is hydrologically connected to the Upper Hudson River and is one of only very few waters bodies in the region that still contains an all-native heritage fish community (Stager and Sanger 2003). Based on biological surveys, water chemistry, and paleoecological records, Wolf Lake can be conceptualized as what Stager and Sanger (2003) term a “heritage lake” – a water body at the least degraded end of a continuum that ranges from water bodies that are extremely influenced by human factors to water bodies that are all but devoid of human impacts. Though no body of water is completely immune to global anthropogenic stressors, such as atmospheric deposition or climate change, this very rare “heritage” designation indicates that it is among the most pristine water bodies in the Adirondack Park and likely the northeastern US (Stager and Sanger 2003). As such, the lake’s value for aquatic research and as an extant ecological