DOCSLIB.ORG

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division FISHERIES DIVISION SPECIAL REPORT Number 16 April, 1995 Huron River Assessment E. M. Hay-Chmielewski Paul W. Seelbach Gary E. Whelan Douglas B. Jester Jr. Big Lake (1,018 ft) Huron River Watershed Elevation Distance Distance Lake Erie (572 ft) STATE OF MICHIGAN DNR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FISHERIES DIVISION Fisheries Special Report No. 16 April, 1995 HURON RIVER ASSESSMENT E. M. Hay-Chmielewski Paul W. Seelbach Gary E. Whelan Douglas B. Jester Jr. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and for access to Michigan’s natural resources. State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, age, marital status, height and weight. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, please write the MDNR Equal Opportunity Office, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909, or the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, 1200 6th Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226, or the Office of Human Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 20204. For more information about this publication or the American Disabilities Act (ADA), contact, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909, or call 517-373-1280. COVER: A three dimensional drawing of the area containing the Huron River watershed. It shows how the water flows from the headwaters down the landscape, gathering the contributions from the tributaries, to Lake Erie. The figure is an adaptation of a drawing provided by the Huron River Watershed Council, Ann Arbor. The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. Albert Einstein 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 5 List of Figures....................................................................................................................................... 7 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. 10 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 13 RIVER ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 16 Geography.............................................................................................................................. 16 History 16 Biological Communities ........................................................................................................ 18 Original Fish Communities...................................................................................... 18 Factors Affecting Fish Communities....................................................................... 20 Present Fish Communities ....................................................................................... 22 Aquatic Invertebrates (except mussels)................................................................... 23 Mussels 23 Amphibians and Reptiles ......................................................................................... 24 Mammals .................................................................................................................. 25 Birds 25 Other Natural Features of Concern.......................................................................... 25 Pest Species .............................................................................................................. 25 Geology and Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 26 Geology .................................................................................................................... 26 Climate 27 Annual stream flows................................................................................................. 27 Seasonal flow stability ............................................................................................. 28 Daily flow stability................................................................................................... 29 Channel Morphology ............................................................................................................. 30 Channel gradient....................................................................................................... 30 Channel cross sections ............................................................................................. 32 Soils and Land Use Patterns .................................................................................................. 36 Special Jurisdictions............................................................................................................... 38 Navigability .............................................................................................................. 38 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission................................................................. 38 County Drain Commissioners.................................................................................. 39 Natural River Designations..................................................................................... 39 State and Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority Parklands .................................. 40 Recreational Use .................................................................................................................... 40 Dams and Barriers.................................................................................................................. 42 Water Quality......................................................................................................................... 46 Fishery Management.............................................................................................................. 48 Citizen Involvement............................................................................................................... 50 3 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS.............................................................................................................. 52 Biological Communities ........................................................................................................ 52 Geology and Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 53 Channel Morphology ............................................................................................................ 54 Soils and Land Use Patterns .................................................................................................. 55 Special Jurisdictions............................................................................................................... 55 Recreational Use ................................................................................................................... 56 Dams and Barriers.................................................................................................................. 57 Water Quality......................................................................................................................... 57 Fishery Management.............................................................................................................. 58 Citizen Involvement............................................................................................................... 59 PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE.......................................................................................... 60 GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ 64 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................... 67 4 List of Tables Table 1. Huron River gradient (ft/mi) from the headwaters to the mouth of the river (Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data). Table 2. Archaeological sites in the Huron River watershed, listed by township. Table 3. List of common and scientific names of species referred to in text. Table 4. Non-indigenous fish species in the Huron River (Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data). Table 5. Fish stocking in the Huron River watershed, 1981-1991 (Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources). Table 6. List of fishes in the Huron River watershed. Table 7. Increases (++) or decreases (d) in range between 1938 and 1977 of vegetation-dependent species (those fish that require vegetation at some point in their life history) on the mainstem of the Huron River and three major tributaries. Table 8. Increases (++) or decreases (d) in range between 1938 and 1977 of gravel-dependent species (those fish that require gravel at some point in their life history) on the mainstem of the Huron River and three major tributaries. Table 9. Increases (++) or decreases (d) in range between 1938 and 1977 of silt-dependent species (those fish that require silt at some point in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fish Survey Report
    Lake Angeline, Marquette County Lake Angeline Fisheries Survey May 3-5, 2015 Introduction: A May 2015 general fisheries survey was conducted at Marquette County’s Lake Angeline to assess the status of the fishery and to allow for the development of future sportfish management opportunities for this lake. History: Lake Angeline has a long history of quality fisheries management with periods of very good rainbow trout occupation and periods of excellent tiger muskellunge presence. The first stocking of rainbow trout occurred in 1948 and continued until 1969. Due to trout competition from yellow perch and other warmwater fish species, tiger muskellunge were stocked, not annually but very regularly, from 1970 – 1990. Citizen opposition and/or support of the muskellunge stocking was very vocal during the muskie years, with many petitions and passionate letters being sent to State legislators and Michigan tenured Governors. Historical data reveals that a natural lake occupied this site before mining operations were ever begun. The water was named Lake Angeline in 1849 by Captain Sam Moody and as the City of Ishpeming developed, the lake was the source of water supply for the community. The lake was pumped dry in 1892 and 20 million tons of iron ore were removed from the rock strata beneath the lake by means of a mining shaft and drifts. Cave-ins after the mining was abandoned created many of the depth pockets of the lake’s bottom topography. The State of Michigan DNR obtained a parcel of property ownership from Cliffs Forest Products Company in November 1984, however the easement to this parcel crossed private land and due to alleged public dumping of trash on the private land, access to the State parcel was severed in 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION Cooperstown, New York
    BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION Cooperstown, New York 49th ANNUAL REPORT 2016 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK COLLEGE AT ONEONTA OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION No. 1. The diet and feeding habits of the terrestrial stage of the common newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Raf.). M.C. MacNamara, April 1976 No. 2. The relationship of age, growth and food habits to the relative success of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the cisco (C. artedi) in Otsego Lake, New York. A.J. Newell, April 1976. No. 3. A basic limnology of Otsego Lake (Summary of research 1968-75). W. N. Harman and L. P. Sohacki, June 1976. No. 4. An ecology of the Unionidae of Otsego Lake with special references to the immature stages. G. P. Weir, November 1977. No. 5. A history and description of the Biological Field Station (1966-1977). W. N. Harman, November 1977. No. 6. The distribution and ecology of the aquatic molluscan fauna of the Black River drainage basin in northern New York. D. E Buckley, April 1977. No. 7. The fishes of Otsego Lake. R. C. MacWatters, May 1980. No. 8. The ecology of the aquatic macrophytes of Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, N.Y. F. A Vertucci, W. N. Harman and J. H. Peverly, December 1981. No. 9. Pictorial keys to the aquatic mollusks of the upper Susquehanna. W. N. Harman, April 1982. No. 10. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata: Anisoptera and Zygoptera) of Otsego County, New York with illustrated keys to the genera and species. L.S. House III, September 1982. No. 11. Some aspects of predator recognition and anti-predator behavior in the Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus).
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Muskellunge Management Plan 2017 Update
    This work made possible by funding from the Sport Fish Restoration Act Project F-57-R Fisheries Management. Pennsylvania Muskellunge Management Plan 2017 Update Prepared By: Robert Wnuk, Michael Kaufmann, Brian Ensign, and Robert Brown Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the technical assistance of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources biologists Jeff Scheirer and Tim Simonsin. Their willingness to share their experiences with stocking large Muskellunge fingerlings was invaluable in creating this plan. We also thank Fisheries Management and Hatchery staff from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission who reviewed this plan and made numerous substantial contributions. Introduction The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) published its first Statewide Muskellunge Management Plan in 2012. We provide this bullet point update to the 2012 plan to: 1) determine if the PFBC is meeting plan objectives; 2) deal with new issues in Muskellunge management; and 3) bring interested parties up to date on Muskellunge management in Pennsylvania. IS THE PFBC MEETING PLAN OBJECTIVES? o Objective 1. Improve and standardize the design and sampling methods of all surveys evaluating the management of Muskellunge in Pennsylvania. • Strategy 1: Muskellunge should be a primary species of concern when choosing sampling times and gear to maximize effectiveness and accuracy of surveys in waters where they are managed. Progress: Muskellunge are now a primary target species in PFBC surveys. • Strategy 2. Because of their rarity of catch all efforts should be taken to obtain all possible information on these fish when sampling waters where they are managed even when they are not the primary target of a survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Fish Report
    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Tiger Muskellunge Introduced Into Lake Carl Etling, Oklahoma Richard A
    33 An Evaluation of Tiger Muskellunge Introduced into Lake Carl Etling, Oklahoma Richard A. Snow Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma Fishery Research Laboratory, Norman, OK 73072 Chas P. Patterson Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Bryon State Fish Hatchery, Burlington, OK 73722 Daniel E. Shoup Department of Natural Resource Ecology & Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK 74078 Michael J. Porta Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma Fishery Research Laboratory, Norman, OK 73072 Abstract: Tiger Muskellunge (Muskellunge Esox masquinongy x Northern Pike Esox lucius) were stocked into Lake Carl Etling in the northwestern tip of Oklahoma’s panhandle in Cimarron County. This lake sustained a population of Northern Pike from 1966 – 1976, with natural reproduction maintaining the population until 1986. However, after 1986, periods of drought affecting the lake level and water temperature negatively impacted the Northern Pike population. In 2004, Lake Carl Etling’s surface area was reduced to approximately 4 ha by drought, which negatively affected the sportfish populations. Salt Cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) and other herbaceous vegetation colonized the dry lakebed before rainfall in the summer of 2013 filled Lake Carl Etling to normal elevation. Nongame fish populations became over abundant and Tiger Muskellunge were stocked as biological control and to potentially create a unique trophy fishery. However, through extensive sampling efforts only 1 adult and 76 juveniles (of the 2,656 individuals stocked) were caught. Tiger Muskellunge recruitment was affected by high turbidity and high water temperatures. A combination of increasing turbidity levels and water temperatures, post-stocking, likely resulted in increases in Tiger Muskellunge metabolism. Relative weights (Wr) decreased monthly after stocking in 2016 and 2017, with no fish observed in sampling efforts after July of 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fish Habitat Partnership
    A Fish Habitat Partnership Strategic Plan for Fish Habitat Conservation in Midwest Glacial Lakes Engbretson Underwater Photography September 30, 2009 This page intentionally left blank. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I. BACKGROUND 7 II. VALUES OF GLACIAL LAKES 8 III. OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS TO GLACIAL LAKES 9 IV. AN ECOREGIONAL APPROACH 14 V. MULTIPLE INTERESTS WITH COMMON GOALS 23 VI. INVASIVES SPECIES, CLIMATE CHANGE 23 VII. CHALLENGES 25 VIII. INTERIM OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS 26 IX. INTERIM PRIORITY WATERSHEDS 29 LITERATURE CITED 30 APPENDICES I Steering Committee, Contributing Partners and Working Groups 33 II Fish Habitat Conservation Strategies Grouped By Themes 34 III Species of Greatest Conservation Need By Level III Ecoregions 36 Contact Information: Pat Rivers, Midwest Glacial Lakes Project Manager 1601 Minnesota Drive Brainerd, MN 56401 Telephone 218-327-4306 [email protected] www.midwestglaciallakes.org 3 Executive Summary OUR MISSION The mission of the Midwest Glacial Lakes Partnership is to work together to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance sustainable fish habitats in glacial lakes of the Midwest for the use and enjoyment of current and future generations. Glacial lakes (lakes formed by glacial activity) are a common feature on the midwestern landscape. From small, productive potholes to the large windswept walleye “factories”, glacial lakes are an integral part of the communities within which they are found and taken collectively are a resource of national importance. Despite this value, lakes are commonly treated more as a commodity rather than a natural resource susceptible to degradation. Often viewed apart from the landscape within which they occupy, human activities on land—and in water—have compromised many of these systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Land Management Plan
    2009 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (Updated Annual Harvest Plan -2014) Itasca County Land Department 1177 LaPrairie Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744-3322 218-327-2855 ● Fax: 218-327-4160 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Itasca County Land Department Acknowledgements This Land Management Plan was produced by Itasca County Land Department employees Garrett Ous, Dave Marshall, Michael Gibbons, Adam Olson, Bob Scheierl, Roger Clark, Kory Cease, Steve Aysta, Tim Stocker, Perry Leone, Wayne Perreault, Blair Carlson, Loren Eide, Bob Rother, Andrew Brown, Del Inkman, Darlene Brown and Meg Muller. Thank you to all the citizens for their sincere input and review during the public involvement process. And thank you to Itasca County Commissioners Lori Dowling, Karen Burthwick, Rusty Eichorn, Catherine McLynn and Mark Mandich for their vision and final approval of this document. Foreword This land management plan is designed for providing vision and direction to guide strategic and operational programs of the Land Department. That vision and direction reflects a long standing connection with local economic, educational and social programs. The Land Department is committed to ensuring that economic benefits and environmental integrity are available to both present and future generations. That will be accomplished through actively managing county land and forests for a balance of benefits to the citizens and for providing them with a sustained supply of quality products and services. The Department will apply quality forestland stewardship practices, employ modern technology and information, and partner with other forest organizations to provide citizens with those quality products and services. ________________________________ Garrett Ous September, 2009 Itasca County Land Commissioner 1177 LaPrairie Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744-3322 218-327-2855 ● Fax: 218-327-4160 ICLD - LMP Section i., page 1 of 3 Itasca County Land Department Land Management Plan Table of Contents i.
    [Show full text]
  • Esox Lucius) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    Northern Pike (Esox lucius) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, February 2019 Web Version, 8/26/2019 Photo: Ryan Hagerty/USFWS. Public Domain – Government Work. Available: https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/digital/collection/natdiglib/id/26990/rec/22. (February 1, 2019). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Froese and Pauly (2019a): “Circumpolar in fresh water. North America: Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific, Great Lakes, and Mississippi River basins from Labrador to Alaska and south to Pennsylvania and Nebraska, USA [Page and Burr 2011]. Eurasia: Caspian, Black, Baltic, White, Barents, Arctic, North and Aral Seas and Atlantic basins, southwest to Adour drainage; Mediterranean basin in Rhône drainage and northern Italy. Widely distributed in central Asia and Siberia easward [sic] to Anadyr drainage (Bering Sea basin). Historically absent from Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean France, central Italy, southern and western Greece, eastern Adriatic basin, Iceland, western Norway and northern Scotland.” Froese and Pauly (2019a) list Esox lucius as native in Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, 1 Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Canada, and the United States (including Alaska). From Froese and Pauly (2019a): “Occurs in Erqishi river and Ulungur lake [in China].” “Known from the Selenge drainage [in Mongolia] [Kottelat 2006].” “[In Turkey:] Known from the European Black Sea watersheds, Anatolian Black Sea watersheds, Central and Western Anatolian lake watersheds, and Gulf watersheds (Firat Nehri, Dicle Nehri).
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment J Assessment of Existing Paleontologic Data Along with Field Survey Results for the Jonah Field
    Attachment J Assessment of Existing Paleontologic Data Along with Field Survey Results for the Jonah Field June 12, 2007 ABSTRACT This is compilation of a technical analysis of existing paleontological data and a limited, selective paleontological field survey of the geologic bedrock formations that will be impacted on Federal lands by construction associated with energy development in the Jonah Field, Sublette County, Wyoming. The field survey was done on approximately 20% of the field, primarily where good bedrock was exposed or where there were existing, debris piles from recent construction. Some potentially rich areas were inaccessible due to biological restrictions. Heavily vegetated areas were not examined. All locality data are compiled in the separate confidential appendix D. Uinta Paleontological Associates Inc. was contracted to do this work through EnCana Oil & Gas Inc. In addition BP and Ultra Resources are partners in this project as they also have holdings in the Jonah Field. For this project, we reviewed a variety of geologic maps for the area (approximately 47 sections); none of maps have a scale better than 1:100,000. The Wyoming 1:500,000 geology map (Love and Christiansen, 1985) reveals two Eocene geologic formations with four members mapped within or near the Jonah Field (Wasatch – Alkali Creek and Main Body; Green River – Laney and Wilkins Peak members). In addition, Winterfeld’s 1997 paleontology report for the proposed Jonah Field II Project was reviewed carefully. After considerable review of the literature and museum data, it became obvious that the portion of the mapped Alkali Creek Member in the Jonah Field is probably misinterpreted.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Systematic Biology of Fossil and Living Bony-Tongue Fishes, Osteoglossomorpha (Actinopterygii: Teleostei)
    Neotropical Ichthyology, 16(3): e180031, 2018 Journal homepage: www.scielo.br/ni DOI: 10.1590/1982-0224-20180031 Published online: 11 October 2018 (ISSN 1982-0224) Copyright © 2018 Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia Printed: 30 September 2018 (ISSN 1679-6225) Review article A review of the systematic biology of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes, Osteoglossomorpha (Actinopterygii: Teleostei) Eric J. Hilton1 and Sébastien Lavoué2,3 The bony-tongue fishes, Osteoglossomorpha, have been the focus of a great deal of morphological, systematic, and evolutio- nary study, due in part to their basal position among extant teleostean fishes. This group includes the mooneyes (Hiodontidae), knifefishes (Notopteridae), the abu (Gymnarchidae), elephantfishes (Mormyridae), arawanas and pirarucu (Osteoglossidae), and the African butterfly fish (Pantodontidae). This morphologically heterogeneous group also has a long and diverse fossil record, including taxa from all continents and both freshwater and marine deposits. The phylogenetic relationships among most extant osteoglossomorph families are widely agreed upon. However, there is still much to discover about the systematic biology of these fishes, particularly with regard to the phylogenetic affinities of several fossil taxa, within Mormyridae, and the position of Pantodon. In this paper we review the state of knowledge for osteoglossomorph fishes. We first provide an overview of the diversity of Osteoglossomorpha, and then discuss studies of the phylogeny of Osteoglossomorpha from both morphological and molecular perspectives, as well as biogeographic analyses of the group. Finally, we offer our perspectives on future needs for research on the systematic biology of Osteoglossomorpha. Keywords: Biogeography, Osteoglossidae, Paleontology, Phylogeny, Taxonomy. Os peixes da Superordem Osteoglossomorpha têm sido foco de inúmeros estudos sobre a morfologia, sistemática e evo- lução, particularmente devido à sua posição basal dentre os peixes teleósteos.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian River Basin Bioassessment
    Canadian River Basin Bioassessment Sarah Robertson, Melissa Parker, Gordon Linam, Clinton Robertson, Archis Grubh Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division AND Melissa Casarez University of Texas at Austin, Biodiversity Collections River Studies Report No. 26 Inland Fisheries Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2 Survey and Management History .............................................................................. 2 Study Sites .............................................................................................................................. 4 Canadian River .......................................................................................................... 6 Oxbow Lakes ............................................................................................................. 6 Supplemental Fish Collection Sites ........................................................................... 7 Water Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................... 8 Fish Assemblage ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Temperature Metrics for Aquatic Invasive Fish Species in the Prairie Region
    Summary of Temperature Metrics for Aquatic Invasive Fish Species in the Prairie Region Theresa E. Mackey, Caleb T. Hasler, and Eva C. Enders Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ecosystems and Oceans Science Central and Arctic Region Freshwater Institute Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N6 2019 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3308 1 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Technical reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to existing knowledge but which is not normally appropriate for primary literature. Technical reports are directed primarily toward a worldwide audience and have an international distribution. No restriction is placed on subject matter and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences. Technical reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in the data base Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts. Technical reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally. Requests for individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on the front cover and title page. Numbers 1-456 in this series were issued as Technical Reports of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Numbers 457-714 were issued as Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and Development Directorate Technical Reports. Numbers 715-924 were issued as Department of Fisheries and Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 925. Rapport technique canadien des sciences halieutiques et aquatiques Les rapports techniques contiennent des renseignements scientifiques et techniques qui constituent une contribution aux connaissances actuelles, mais qui ne sont pas normalement appropriés pour la publication dans un journal scientifique.
    [Show full text]