DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Shoal Bass Habitat Use in the Lower Flint River from Low-Cost

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Shoal Bass Habitat Use in the Lower Flint River from Low-Cost Inspecting substrate Assessing Shoal Bass Habitat Use in the Lower Flint River from with a drop camera Sonar survey Low-cost Side Scan Sonar and Electrofishing Data Image 1 Flint River Lower Flint River Basin • mean width 102 m • mean depth 4.4 m Adam J. Kaeser, Thomas L. Litts, and Travis Ingram • gradient <0.001% Red box defines 124-km Shoal bass Georgia Department of Natural Resources Image 2 extent of map study area Micropterus cataractae Shoals are Important, Complex Habitats Evolution of the Lower Flint River Habitat Map Is Shoal 566 (a Spawning Site) Unique? • Shoals (i.e., shallow, boulder-strewn areas with swift currents) are areas Map scale ~1:8000 Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of high biological diversity and productivity, used by shoal bass and other Patch Variables endemic species in the Flint River (e.g., Alabama shad, Gulf sturgeon) PC1= Shoal Size • Shoal habitat quality likely differs on a variety of characteristics and Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 Eigen- Cumulative Length 0.93 -0.01 0.04 Gradient PC value % Variance scales, but an assessment of such characteristics at the landscape scale Area 0.93 0.04 0.01 PC2= Isolation (i.e., throughout the river) is unfeasible using traditional approaches 1 2.83 0.40 Ratio -0.62 -0.06 0.21 Gradient (with larger • Adult shoal bass are difficult to sample, but appear to migrate long 2 1.11 0.56 % expo 0.35 -0.04 0.74 distances to specific shoals where they form spawning aggregations. Edge 0.69 -0.28 -0.02 distant shoals) 3 0.95 0.70 Narrowing the search for spawning sites by identifying key spawning site Dist near 0.29 0.73 -0.38 PC3= % Exposed Area near -0.10 0.70 0.45 characteristics may improve our ability to collect and tag adult shoal bass 2007 NAIP image of a Flint River reach with sonar survey Gradient for research and management investigations. Panel 1 route highlighted, each point contains depth data PCA Plots ‐ Patch Variables An Area of Shoal Habitat Each point Boulder (exposed) represents a Shoal 566 shoal Shoal 566 Does shoal 566 Shoal Size + appears to be: + exhibit unique n o i patch-level t •Larger in size a l o characteristics? s I •More isolated Image 3 Sonar image map layer overlaid on the river channel, •More exposed Panel 2 interpreted at ~1:300 scale to define substrate class boundaries during low water OBJECTIVES: 1) map and characterize shoal habitat throughout the than most other lower Flint River using our low-cost, sonar habitat mapping approach shoals + 2) identify shoal characteristics associated with spawning site selection 3) use this information to screen and identify other potential spawning Exposed locations % Mapping Habitat Throughout the River Isolation + • Sonar survey conducted April 2008 Boulder substrate polygons = shoals Sonar during high water (Panel 1, Image 1) shadow PCA Plots ‐ Neighborhood Variables • Sonar data geoprocessed using our Boulder Substrates classified, each color represents a different (shoal) class in the scheme (e.g., lime = limestone bedrock, tools to create sonar image map layers Panel 3 red = no data beyond sonar range) in ArcGIS 9.x (Panel 2) + y • Major substrate classes digitized, t i e Shoal 566 appears classified, and accuracy assessed n Does Shoal 566 e Rocky g Sand o to have: (Panel 3, Image 2) exhibit unique r fine e t e • Aerial imagery from summer 2007 (cobble) neighborhood H •Higher Average used to classify portions of boulder characteristics? Max, Avg Depth + and Maximum (i.e., shoal) substrate as exposed during low flows (Panel 4, Image 3) Sonar image revealing distinct substrates Depth within 250 •PCs 1-4 Account m buffer Map Results Shoal Distribution and Abundance for 62% of •Greater range • 124 km river map produced by Variance and variability in summer intern 2007 NAIP obtained during extreme low flows used to identify Depth, Lower • 607 shoals (boulder polygons) exposed portions of boulder substrate patches (shown here in red) substrate Panel 4 SS+ represented in map, with several Minimum Depth, areas of high concentration (e.g., Rf and Less Sand, and boulder km 35-60, see adjacent figure) More Edge in its Rocky • Classification accuracy for boulder neighborhood of was very high (94%) 2 How to use this Lf ‐, Rb and Mx + m Extracting Characteristics from the Habitat Map than other shoals • 13.4% of boulder substrate information? exposed during extreme low flows Patch Level Variables Neighborhood Variables • Size (area) • Mean, Min, Max, SD, Range of A Spawning Aggregation found at Shoal 566 • Shape (perimeter) Patch= individual boulder Neighborhood= 250 m Will these associations help us locate substrate polygons mid-channel radius around shoal centroid • During spring 2009, a large group of adult shoal bass Shoal 566 • Edge:Area ratio depth additional spawning areas? was located during electrofishing efforts aimed at • Whether the distinct characteristics of shoal 566 and its neighborhood truly relate to capturing adult fish for a tag-return, exploitation study • Edge within 15 m • Additional shoal buffer area (Rb) spawning habitat selection or are merely coincidental requires further investigation • Subsequent sampling of the area revealed that these fish • Two sets of shoals (one set similar and another dissimilar to shoal 566) have been moved between a deep, outside bend of the river (a • % Exposed •Area of each identified using PCA scores; these shoals will be sampled to determine if other staging area), and a shoal located on the inside bend additional • Distance to spawning aggregations of shoal bass can be located ~250 m upstream Shoal 566 substrate class nearest shoal • Beyond shoal bass, the generated data set of shoal characteristics is available for • Observations in early May suggested that the group had present future studies involving Alabama shad and Gulf sturgeon, two species that selectively moved from the staging area to the shoal site to spawn (centroid-centroid) •Total edge spawn over coarse, rocky substrate • Why so many fish chose to spawn at this site, and how • Size (area) of (heterogeneity) far they traveled to do so, are important questions nearest shoal *For more information on low-cost, sonar habitat mapping contact Adam at [email protected].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Sedimentary Processes and Geomorphic History of Wreck Shoal, an Oyster Reef of the James River, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1986 THE SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES AND GEOMORPHIC HISTORY OF WRECK SHOAL, AN OYSTER REEF OF THE JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA Joseph T. DeAlteris College of William and Mary - Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation DeAlteris, Joseph T., "THE SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES AND GEOMORPHIC HISTORY OF WRECK SHOAL, AN OYSTER REEF OF THE JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA" (1986). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539616626. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25773/v5-af3n-wf26 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example: • Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed. • Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages. • Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Designated Paddling Trails Shoal River
    F ll oCR)"r 6i0i2d a D e s ii g n a tt e d Blackman P a d d ll ii n g T r a ii ll s C)"R 2 ¯ )"2 C)"R 2 S h o a ll R ii v e r CR)" 147 189 «¬ Campton 85 Cannon Town «¬ Nubbin Ridge «¬4 )"393 Auburn Baker Silver Springs 188 )" Dorcas M a p 1 «¬4 Milligan Crestview )"189 Deerland ¤£90 Mossy Head 10 Holt Galliver ¨¦§ Forest Highlands «¬85 «¬285 A N S O O T O L L A A W Designated Paddling Trail K O Wetlands Water Designated Paddling Trail Index «¬123 Niceville «¬20 0 2 4 8 Miles «¬85 S h o a ll R ii v e rr P a d d ll ii n g T rr a ii ll M a p 1 )"188 STILLWELL BLVD ¯ NO B RTH AVE R V A A C L K L I N E Y S R T D F Crestview A I L R L C O H Y I L D D S 90 R T CH ¤£ D ES NU T A Þ VE !| 2)"80A Access Point 1: Ray Barnes Boat Ramp/US 90 N: 30.7535 W: -86.5099 OKALOOSA ¨¦§10 JOHN K ING RD L I 85 V ¬ E « O Okaloosa County Shoal River A K Land Acquisition PJ AD C AMS PKWY H U R C H R D A NT Choctawhatchee IOC Choctawhatchee H R Nat'l Forest D Nat'l Forest !|*IÞ Access Point 2: Bill Duggan Jr Park/SR 85 N: 30.6976 W: -86.5712 Shoal River Paddling Trail Eglin Air Force Base !| Canoe/Kayak Launch *I Restrooms Þ Potable Water Florida Conservation Lands 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Wetlands Shoal River Paddling Trail Guide The Waterway A nature photographer’s dream, the shallow, gold-tinted Shoal River threads through a northwest Florida wilderness of high sandy hills, broad sandbars perfect for rest stops, and floodplain forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide
    Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide Abstracts for oral presentations and posters, 2010 Spring Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society Asheville, NC 1 Contributed Paper Oral Presentation Potential for trophic competition between introduced spotted bass and native shoal bass in the Flint River Sammons, S.M.*, Auburn University. Largemouth bass, shoal bass, and spotted bass were collected from six sites over four seasons on the Flint River, Georgia to assess food habits. Diets of all three species was very broad; 10 categories of invertebrates and 15 species of fish were identified from diets. Since few large spotted bass were collected, all comparisons among species were conducted only for juvenile fish (< 200 mm) and subadult fish (200-300 mm). Juvenile largemouth bass diets were dominated by fish in all seasons, mainly sunfish. Juvenile largemouth bass rarely ate insects except in spring, when all three species consumed large numbers of insects. In contrast, juvenile shoal bass diets were dominated by insects in all seasons but winter. Juvenile spotted bass diets were more varied- highly piscivorous in the fall and winter and highly insectivorous in spring and summer. Diets of subadult largemouth bass were similar to that of juvenile fish, and heavily dominated by fish, particularly sunfish. Similar to juveniles, diets of subadult shoal bass were much less piscivorous than largemouth bass. Crayfish were important components of subadult shoal bass diets in all seasons but summer. Insects were important components of shoal bass diets in fall and summer. Diets of subadult spotted bass were generally more piscivorous than shoal bass, but less than largemouth bass.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphic Classification of Rivers
    9.36 Geomorphic Classification of Rivers JM Buffington, U.S. Forest Service, Boise, ID, USA DR Montgomery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Published by Elsevier Inc. 9.36.1 Introduction 730 9.36.2 Purpose of Classification 730 9.36.3 Types of Channel Classification 731 9.36.3.1 Stream Order 731 9.36.3.2 Process Domains 732 9.36.3.3 Channel Pattern 732 9.36.3.4 Channel–Floodplain Interactions 735 9.36.3.5 Bed Material and Mobility 737 9.36.3.6 Channel Units 739 9.36.3.7 Hierarchical Classifications 739 9.36.3.8 Statistical Classifications 745 9.36.4 Use and Compatibility of Channel Classifications 745 9.36.5 The Rise and Fall of Classifications: Why Are Some Channel Classifications More Used Than Others? 747 9.36.6 Future Needs and Directions 753 9.36.6.1 Standardization and Sample Size 753 9.36.6.2 Remote Sensing 754 9.36.7 Conclusion 755 Acknowledgements 756 References 756 Appendix 762 9.36.1 Introduction 9.36.2 Purpose of Classification Over the last several decades, environmental legislation and a A basic tenet in geomorphology is that ‘form implies process.’As growing awareness of historical human disturbance to rivers such, numerous geomorphic classifications have been de- worldwide (Schumm, 1977; Collins et al., 2003; Surian and veloped for landscapes (Davis, 1899), hillslopes (Varnes, 1958), Rinaldi, 2003; Nilsson et al., 2005; Chin, 2006; Walter and and rivers (Section 9.36.3). The form–process paradigm is a Merritts, 2008) have fostered unprecedented collaboration potentially powerful tool for conducting quantitative geo- among scientists, land managers, and stakeholders to better morphic investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Sandbridge Beach FONSI
    FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Issuance of a Negotiated Agreement for Use of Outer Continental Shelf Sand from Sandbridge Shoal in the Sandbridge Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project Virginia Beach, Virginia Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and Department of the Interior (DOI) regulations implementing NEPA (43 CFR 46), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether the issuance of a negotiated agreement for the use of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sand from Sandbridge Shoal Borrow Areas A and B for the Sandbridge Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project near Virginia Beach, VA would have a significant effect on the human environment and whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared. Several NEPA documents evaluating impacts of the project have been previously prepared by both the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and BOEM. The USACE described the affected environment, evaluated potential environmental impacts (initial construction and nourishment events), and considered alternatives to the proposed action in a 2009 EA. This EA was subsequently updated and adopted by BOEM in 2012 in association with the most recent 2013 Sandbridge nourishment effort (BOEM 2012). Prior to this, BOEM (previously Minerals Management Service [MMS]) was a cooperating agency on several EAs for previous projects (MMS 1997; MMS 2001; MMS 2006). This current EA, prepared by BOEM, supplements and summarizes the aforementioned 2012 analysis. BOEM has reviewed all prior analyses, supplemented additional information as needed, and determined that the potential impacts of the current proposed action have been adequately addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Clay Is Amazingly Sticky. Mix Three Inches of Rain with a Georgia Dirt Road Made out of the Stuff, and You Can Lose a Car in It
    Red clay is amazingly sticky. Mix three inches of rain with a Georgia dirt road made out of the stuff, and you can lose a car in it. On the upside, I’ve found that most red-dirt roads in the South lead to out-of-the- way rivers, many with good fishing. Maybe that inaccessibility is why one of the region’s best game fishes remained unrecognized by science until 1999. That’s when Dr. James Williams and Dr. George Burgess, both researchers with the Florida Museum of Natural History, formally described the shoal bass for the first time. Though similar in appearance to their black bass cousins, shoal bass are in fact unique. They resemble an oversized cross between the red- eye bass (a smallish cousin of the largemouth bass) and a smallmouth. Their similarity to the red-eye led scientists to consider them part of the same species, until the advent of gene testing showed them to be different. Those scientists might have done well to talk to some southwest Background: Middle Georgia is famous for its red-dirt roads and, increasingly, its shoal bass fishery. Right: Catch a shoalie this size, and you’ll probably end up in a magazine spread. The average fish is about a pound. ZACH MATTHEWS 32 I AMERICAN ANGLER WWW.AMERICANANGLER.COM ROB ROGERS Backroad BULLIES Once an overlooked and unrecognized species, Georgia’s hard-fighting shoal bass are quickly becoming a destination warmwater target. by Zach Matthews WWW.AMERICANANGLER.COM MAY/JUNE 2010 I 33 Georgia old-timers, who as far back as the 1940s knew that only the Florida panhandle.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphologic Characteristics of the Blow River Delta, Yukon Territory, Canada
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1969 Morphologic Characteristics of the Blow River Delta, Yukon Territory, Canada. James Murl Mccloy Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Mccloy, James Murl, "Morphologic Characteristics of the Blow River Delta, Yukon Territory, Canada." (1969). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 1605. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/1605 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 70-252 McCLOY, James Murl, 1934- MORPHOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BLOW RIVER DELTA, YUKON TERRITORY, CANADA. The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1969 Geography University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Morphologic Characteristics of the Blow River Belta, Yukon Territory, Canada A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Geography and Anthropology by James Murl McCloy B.A., State College at Los Angeles, 1961 May, 1969 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research culminating in this dissertation was conducted under the auspices of the Arctic Institute of North America. The major portion of the financial support was received from the United States Army under contract no. BA-ARO-D-3I-I2I4.-G832, "Arctic Environmental Studies." Additional financial assistance during part of the writing stage was received in the form of a research assistantship from the Coastal Studies Institute, Louisi­ ana State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Wetland Trends in the Narragansett Bay Estuary During the 20Th Century
    u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service Co l\Ietland Trends In the Narragansett Bay Estuary During the 20th Century Coastal Wetland Trends in the Narragansett Bay Estuary During the 20th Century November 2004 A National Wetlands Inventory Cooperative Interagency Report Coastal Wetland Trends in the Narragansett Bay Estuary During the 20th Century Ralph W. Tiner1, Irene J. Huber2, Todd Nuerminger2, and Aimée L. Mandeville3 1U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Program Northeast Region 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035 2Natural Resources Assessment Group Department of Plant and Soil Sciences University of Massachusetts Stockbridge Hall Amherst, MA 01003 3Department of Natural Resources Science Environmental Data Center University of Rhode Island 1 Greenhouse Road, Room 105 Kingston, RI 02881 November 2004 National Wetlands Inventory Cooperative Interagency Report between U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, University of Rhode Island, and Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management This report should be cited as: Tiner, R.W., I.J. Huber, T. Nuerminger, and A.L. Mandeville. 2004. Coastal Wetland Trends in the Narragansett Bay Estuary During the 20th Century. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA. In cooperation with the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the University of Rhode Island. National Wetlands Inventory Cooperative Interagency Report. 37 pp. plus appendices. Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Study Area 1 Methods 5 Data Compilation 5 Geospatial Database Construction and GIS Analysis 8 Results 9 Baywide 1996 Status 9 Coastal Wetlands and Waters 9 500-foot Buffer Zone 9 Baywide Trends 1951/2 to 1996 15 Coastal Wetland Trends 15 500-foot Buffer Zone Around Coastal Wetlands 15 Trends for Pilot Study Areas 25 Conclusions 35 Acknowledgments 36 References 37 Appendices A.
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Artificial Reef Plan and Generic Environmental Impact
    TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................... vi 1. INTRODUCTION .......................1 2. MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENT ..................4 2.1. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. ..............4 2.2. LOCATION. .....................7 2.3. NATURAL RESOURCES. .................7 2.3.1 Physical Characteristics. ..........7 2.3.2 Living Resources. ............. 11 2.4. HUMAN RESOURCES. ................. 14 2.4.1 Fisheries. ................. 14 2.4.2 Archaeological Resources. ......... 17 2.4.3 Sand and Gravel Mining. .......... 18 2.4.4 Marine Disposal of Waste. ......... 18 2.4.5 Navigation. ................ 18 2.5. ARTIFICIAL REEF RESOURCES. ............ 20 3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................. 26 3.1 GOALS ....................... 26 3.2 OBJECTIVES .................... 26 4. POLICY ......................... 28 4.1 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .............. 28 4.1.1 Permits. .................. 29 4.1.2 Materials Donations and Acquisitions. ... 31 4.1.3 Citizen Participation. ........... 33 4.1.4 Liability. ................. 35 4.1.5 Intra/Interagency Coordination. ...... 36 4.1.6 Program Costs and Funding. ......... 38 4.1.7 Research. ................. 40 4.2 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES .............. 44 4.2.1 Siting. .................. 44 4.2.2 Materials. ................. 55 4.2.3 Design. .................. 63 4.3 MANAGEMENT .................... 70 4.3.1 Monitoring. ................ 70 4.3.2 Maintenance. ................ 72 4.3.3 Reefs in the Exclusive Economic Zone. ... 74 4.3.4 Special Management Concerns. ........ 76 4.3.41 Estuarine reefs. ........... 76 4.3.42 Mitigation. ............. 77 4.3.43 Fish aggregating devices. ...... 80 i 4.3.44 User group conflicts. ........ 82 4.3.45 Illegal and destructive practices. .. 85 4.4 PLAN REVIEW .................... 88 5. ACTIONS ........................ 89 5.1 ADMINISTRATION .................. 89 5.2 RESEARCH ..................... 89 5.3 DEVELOPMENT .................... 91 5.4 MANAGEMENT .................... 96 6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................. 97 6.1 ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Creek and Shoal Creek in the Spring River Watershed Water Quality Impairment: Total Phosphorus
    NEOSHO BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Waterbody / Assessment Unit: Short Creek and Shoal Creek in the Spring River Watershed Water Quality Impairment: Total Phosphorus 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Spring Counties: Cherokee HUC8: 11070207 HUC10(12): 08(06) & 09(04) Ecoregion: Ozark Highlands, Springfield Plateau (39a) Drainage Area: Shoal Creek = approximately 10.1 square miles in Kansas Short Creek = approximately 5.94 square miles in Kansas Water Quality Limited Segments Covered Under this TMDL: Station Main Stem Segment Tributary Station SC570 Short Creek (881) Station SC212 Shoal Creek (2) Unnamed Stream (886) 2008, 2010, 2012 & 2014 303(d) Listings: Kansas Stream segments monitored by stations SC212 on Short Creek and SC570 on Shoal Creek, are cited as impaired by Total Phosphorus (TP) for the Neosho Basin. Impaired Use: Special Aquatic Life, Expected Aquatic Life, Contact Recreation and Domestic Water Supply. Water Quality Criteria: Nutrients – Narratives: The introduction of plant nutrient into surface waters designated for domestic water supply use shall be controlled to prevent interference with the production of drinking water (K.A.R. 28-16-28e(c)(3)(D)). The introduction of plant nutrients into streams, lakes, or wetlands from artificial sources shall be controlled to prevent the accelerated succession or replacement of aquatic biota or the production of undesirable quantities or kinds of aquatic life (K.A.R. 28-16- 28e(c)(2)(A)). The introduction of plant nutrients into surface waters designated for primary or secondary contact recreational use shall be controlled to prevent the development of objectionable concentrations of algae or algal by-products or nuisance growths of submersed, floating, or emergent aquatic vegetation (K.A.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Bass (Micropterus Henshalli) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    1 Larry Hogan, Governor | Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Secretary Alabama Bass (Micropterus henshalli) Ecological Risk Screening Summary Joseph W. Love, October 2020 [Maryland Department of Natural Resources] 1. Background and Description Alabama bass (Micropterus henshalli) is one of at least twelve recognized temperate black basses indigenous to the freshwater rivers and lakes of North America. It is an aggressive species that generally does not grow as big as largemouth bass, can rapidly become abundant when introduced into an ecosystem, competes with other black bass for food, and can genetically pollute populations of smallmouth bass (M. dolomieu) and largemouth bass (M. salmoides), as well as other species of black bass (e.g., Shoal Bass, Spotted Bass). Because of its fighting ability, anglers from black bass fishing clubs have illegally introduced Alabama bass to Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia waters. It has been introduced by government agencies in Texas and California, and possibly abroad in South Africa. Where introduced, the species has not been eradicated, though harvest may be encouraged. Anglers have debated the merits of a control program dedicated to Alabama bass because some enjoy fishing for the species, while others recognize the problems it poses to other black bass species. Alabama bass has not been reported in Maryland but there is Photo: Image courtesy of concern anglers could introduce the species into Maryland. Matthew A. Williams, posted Additionally, out-of-state suppliers might unwittingly sell on iNaturalist. Alabama bass, which look similar to largemouth bass, to Marylanders. Alabama bass was a subspecies of spotted bass and was widely referred to as Alabama spotted bass.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Temporal Dynamics of the Wandering Renous River, New Brunswick, Canada
    Earth Surface Processes and Landforms EarthTemporal Surf. dynamicsProcess. Landforms of a wandering 30, 1227–1250 river (2005) 1227 Published online 23 June 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/esp.1196 Understanding the temporal dynamics of the wandering Renous River, New Brunswick, Canada Leif M. Burge1* and Michel F. Lapointe2 1 Department of Geography and Program in Planning, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3G3, Canada 2 Department of Geography McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2K6, Canada *Correspondence to: L. M. Burge, Abstract Department of Geography and Program in Planning, University Wandering rivers are composed of individual anabranches surrounding semi-permanent of Toronto, 100 St. George St., islands, linked by single channel reaches. Wandering rivers are important because they Toronto, M5S 3G3, Canada. provide habitat complexity for aquatic organisms, including salmonids. An anabranch cycle E-mail: [email protected] model was developed from previous literature and field observations to illustrate how anabranches within the wandering pattern change from single to multiple channels and vice versa over a number of decades. The model was used to investigate the temporal dynamics of a wandering river through historical case studies and channel characteristics from field data. The wandering Renous River, New Brunswick, was mapped from aerial photographs (1945, 1965, 1983 and 1999) to determine river pattern statistics and for historical analysis of case studies. Five case studies consisting of a stable single channel, newly formed anabranches, anabranches gaining stability following creation, stable anabranches, and an abandoning anabranch were investigated in detail.
    [Show full text]