A SURVEY OF FISH-COMMUNITY AND HABITAT …

A SURVEY OF FISH-COMMUNITY AND HABITAT GOALS/OBJECTIVES/TARGETSAND STATUS IN

GREAT LAKES AREAS OF CONCERN

A report of source material for a 1993 workshop sponsored by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

Environment Canada inCooperation with the

Habitat Advisory Board of theGreat Lakes Fishery Commission and

Wayne State University

John H. HartigWayne State University

Department of Chemical Engineering2163 Engineering Building

Detroit, MI 48202

Citation: Hartig, J. H. 1993. A survey of fish-community and habitat goals/objectives/targets andstatus in Great Lakes areas of concern. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. 95 p.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission2100 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 209

Arm Arbor, MI 48105-1563

August 1993

Printed on recycled paperGeneral Publication 93/3/500

PREFACE

Remedial-action plans are being developed to identify the responsibility andtime frame for implementing remedial and preventive actions necessary to restoreimpaired beneficial uses in the 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs). Fishery-management plans are being developed for Great Lakes tributary watersheds to:describe existing environmental conditions and fish communities; identify problemsand potential improvements; define management goals; and identify options andobstacles to achieve management goals. Both initiatives encourage use of anecosystem approach. Further, governments recognize that greater coordination andstrengthened partnerships between water-quality and fishery managers will benecessary to achieve common goals.

In an effort to help achieve greater coordination and strengthenedpartnerships between remedial-action and fishery-management planning, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada initiated a survey offish-community and habitat goals/objectives/targets being set for AOCs as part offishery-management programs, and summary data on current resource status relativeto the goals/objectives/targets. These survey data were compiled in this report assource material for a workshop on integrating remedial-action and fishery-management planning held on February 4, 1993 as part of the Great Lakes FisheryCommission’s (GLFC) Habitat Advisory Board meeting at Maumee Bay State ParkLodge in Oregon, Ohio. Survey data are presented in this report by AOC using thenumerical order presented on the map found on the inside of the front cover. Thepurpose of the workshop was to discuss the survey data presented in this report anddevelop specific recommendations for water-quality and fishery managers on howto achieve greater coordination and integration of remedial-action and fishery-management planning in Great Lakes AOCs. A copy of the parallel workshopreport Toward Integrating Remedial-Action and Fishery-Management Planning in GreatLakes Areas of Concern (Hartig 1993) can be obtained from the GLFC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

‘17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Peninsula Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Jackfish Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Nipigon Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Thunder Bay.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

St. Louis River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Torch Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Deer Lake/Carp River/Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Manistique River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Menominee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Fox River/Lower Green Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Sheboygan River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Milwaukee Estuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Waukegan Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Grand Calumet River/Indiana Ship Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Kalamazoo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Muskegon Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

White Lake.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Saginaw River/Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Collingwood Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Severn Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Spanish Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Clinton River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Rouge River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

River Raisin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

Maumee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Black River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Cuyahoga River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Ashtabula River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Presque Isle Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Wheatley Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Buffalo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Eighteen Mile Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Rochester Embayment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Oswego River/Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Bay of Quinte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Port Hope Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Toronto Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Hamilton Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

St. Marys River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

St. Clair River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Detroit River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Niagara River (New York) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Niagara River (Ontario) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

St. Lawrence River (Massena, New York) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

St. Lawrence River (Cornwall, Ontario) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

1. PENINSULA HARBOUR

Fish Community StatusGoals/Objectives/Targets

Current fish community goals Peninsula Harbour supports a fishinclude: community which includes at least.31* promoting self-sustaining species and is dominated by

populations of indigenous fish coldwater species. The bay isspecies (and not at the detriment strongly influenced by Lake Superiorof all other fish populations); and is characterized by an

* rehabilitating lake trout oligotrophic system, low in fishconsistent with the Great Lakes productivity and abundance. InFishery Commission's "A Lake fact, results from a 1986Trout Rehabilitation Plan for electrofishing study indicated thatLake Superior" (e.g. the primary the fish community in Peninsulatarget for lake trout harvest in Harbour was the least diverse of theOntario waters is based on a four Ontario Areas of Concern inhistorical harvest of 0.24 kg/ha northern Lake superior. Integratedin waters less than 91.4 m (50 Biotic Index scores derived fromfathoms) deep); this study were low compared to

* preventing invasion of foreign Thunder Bay and Nipigon Bay. Lakeorganisms to the Great Lakes trout has persisted as the dominantthrough control of ballast water; species, but populations haveand declined since the 1950s due to the

* maintaining water quality such introduction of the sea lamprey intothat fish populations and health Lake Superior and extensivedo not differ significantly from commercial fishing. Lampreysurrounding regions. populations have remained in check

since the 1960s. Lake troutwounding incidents in Zone 19 from1980 to 1987 ranged from 0 to1.9%. Mercury contaminationcontinues to contribute to healthadvisories on fish and wildlife,degradation of fish populations, andloss of fish habitat.

Contact person: K. Cullis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay,Ontario.

1. PENINSULA HARBOUR

Fish HabitatGoals/Objectives/Targets

Status

Current fish habitat goals include: With the exception of Jellicoe Cove,* ensuring that physical habitat or water depth generally increases

water quality does not inhibit or abruptly from rugged shorelines tolimit self-sustaining populations depths of 1O-40 m. As a result,of indigenous fishes; and littoral areas form extremely narrow

* achieving, in the long-term, bands along the shoreline andvirtual elimination of persistent wetlands are not present in thetoxic substances resulting from Peninsula Harbour Area of Concern.human origin in aquatic Nearshore fish spawning and nurseryorganisms. habitat is restricted to isolated

More specific objectives or targets pockets. Jellicoe Cove compriseshave yet to be developed. the greatest proportion of water

less than three meters deep inPeninsula Harbour. However,sediments contain excessive levelsof mercury and are contaminated withPCBs in localized areas. Anexperimental project is underway toremediate mercury-contaminatedsediments. Historic log raftingoperations have resulted in barkaccumulation in the sediments ofJellicoe, Beatty, and Carden Coves.Organic accumulation in JellicoeCove is also the result of effluentdischarge to the Cove from the mainmill sump overflow. Lake troutspawning grounds near the shorelinesof Jellicoe and Beatty Coves havebeen destroyed through theaccumulation of organic matter frommill activities such as log boomingand effluent discharge. Historicmill discharges also led to degradedwater quality.

Contact person:Ontario.

K. Cullis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay,

2. JACKFISH BAY


Current fish community goals Blackbird Creek fish populationsinclude: have been totally eliminated as a* the fishery of Blackbird creek result of the pulp mill effluent.

and Jackfish Bay must be part of Fish populations in Moberly Bay, ina balanced and healthy aquatic the vicinity of Blackbird Creek,community: have also been severely reduced.

* Blackbird Creek and Jackfish Bay Prior to installing secondaryshould support self-sustaining treatment by the mill, toxicitystocks of native fishes; and tests on surface waters up to 1.5 km

* the lake trout population should from the creek mouth resulted inbe rehabilitated consistent with 100% fish mortality. Recent testingthe Great Lakes Fishery indicates no acute toxicity.Commission's "A Lake Trout Degraded water guality, harvesting,Rehabilitation Plan for Lake the sea lamprey, and introduction ofSuperior" (i.e. the primary exotic species have directlytarget for lake trout harvest in depressed fisheries production inOntario waters is based on a Jackfish Bay. Species diversity andhistorical harvest of 0.24 kg/ha densities in the northern portion ofin waters less than 91.4 m (50 Moberly Bay are among the lowestfathoms) deep). found in Lake Superior. The zone of

influence, which radiates south fromthe mouth of Blackbird Creek, hasdiminished fisheries potential inthe entire Jackfish Bay area,although the degree of impact hasnot been determined. Lake troutpopulations have declined since the1950s for a number of reasonsincluding the accidentalintroduction of sea lamprey, thestart-up of the Kimberly-Clark Mill,over-harvesting, and theintroduction of exotic fish species.Sport fishing in Jackfish Baydeclined dramatically during the1950s and remains depressed.

Contact person: K. cullis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay,Ontario.

2. JACKFISH BAY

Fish Habitat StatusGoals/Objectives/Targets

The current goal is to return fish Fish habitat in Jackfish Bay has nothabitat and spawning areas in been fully described or evaluated,.Blackbird Creek and Jackfish Bay to However, it is known that industriala healthy, hospitable state. More pollutants have destroyed orspecific objectives or targets have significantly altered fish habitatyet to be developed. in portions of Jackfish Bay.

Blackbird Creek no longer providessuitable habitat for most aquaticlife and may affect the surroundingterrestrial habitat.discharge into Jackfish Bay hasdegraded bottom sediments, fishhabitat, and potential spawninggrounds. Organic sludge depositscover most of the natural sedimentsin Moberly Bay. Major lake troutspawning grounds were located inMoberly Bay and along the shore ofLake Superior adjacent to JackfishBay, and were impaired due todeposition of organic matter andcontaminated sediments. Lakewhitefish spawning grounds wereidentified along Lake Superior'sshore immediately east and west ofJackfish Bay. The quality and useof these shoals has not beenassessed. Blackbird Creek was notedas a brook trout stream prior to thestart-up of the mill in 1948.Recently, a habitat rehabilitationproject was initiated for MoberlyLake.


3. NIPIGON BAY

Fish CommunityGoals/Objectives/Targets

All native species of fish thatwould normally inhabit Nipigon Bayshould be able to live there.Nearshore mixing zones should berehabilitated to restore the normalcommunity of bottom dwellingorganisms. Fish species in NipigonBay should be sustained so as toallow natural reproduction. Specificobjectives include:* the lake trout population should

be rehabilitated consistent withthe Great Lakes FisheryCommission's "A Lake TroutRehabilitation Plan for Lakesuperior" (i.e. the primarytarget for lake trout harvest inOntario waters is based on ahistorical harvest of 0.24 kg/hain waters less than 91.4 m (50fathoms) deep); and

* the walleye population should berehabilitated to approximately40,000 individuals greater than364 mm.

Status

The historic and recent loss ofwalleye and perch fisheries areattributed to degraded water qualityand aquatic habitat, excessiveexploitation, and the invasion ofsea lamprey. Fluctuating riverflows and water levels haveadversely affected spawning successand recruitment of the resident andanadromous fish community. Thenearshore aquatic community. isaffected by paper mill effluent.Through the Great Lakes Cleanup Fundand associated partners, aconcentrated effort to rehabilitatewalleye stocks commenced in 1990 andwill continue through 1993. In1957, the estimated population ofwalleye in Nipigon Bay was 41,000greater that 364 mm. As of July1992, 12,500 walleye over 364 mmhave been stocked in Nipigon Bay toprovide sufficient base stock forreproduction. Lake troutreproduction is the focus of alakewide management strategy whichinvolves stocking, sea lampreycontrol, and regulated exploitation.Nipigon Bay has been identified byOntario MNR as a high priority laketrout stocking site. Lake whitefishstocks have increased through LakeSuperior in the last decade. AllNipigon Bay fish stocks have notbeen commercially fished since 1984.

Contact person: K. cullis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay,Ontario.

3. NIPIGON BAY


Status

Fish habitats in Nipigon Bay should Fish habitat near the Domtar Waterbe sustained so as to allow natural Pollution Control Plant outfall hasreproduction. been degraded. Wood fiber

accumulation at the bottom of theFish should be free to migrate to Bay extends about 2 km southeast andand from Alexander Landing to Lake east from the effluent outfall,Superior. diminishing nursery and forage value

of the littoral zone. A shallowEroded sediments are deposited in marsh adjacent to the Old Mill siteNipigon Bay and its watershed. The has been degraded by historicriver banks should be stabilized to logging activities. This area,minimize erosion. which has been overladen with wood

fiber debris, represented potentialWaterfront developments should not habitat for a number of fishes andhave an adverse effect on the other aquatic organisms. As part ofaquatic ecosystem. the Great Lakes Cleanup Fund

Program, cleanup was initiated inWater levels in key spawning areas 1990-1991. Water level fluctuationsshould be maintained to allow as a result of hydro-electricnatural reproduction of fish and operations were identified as aother organisms. The aquatic major concern affecting spawning andcommunity of Nipigon Bay and its recruitment of native fish specieswatershed should be protected from in Nipigon River/Bay. Spawning andnegative impacts associated with early life stage riverine habitat,artificially controlling river flow which are critical to recruitmentfluctuations. Specifically, the success, was regularly dewateredimpacts of exposing spawning areas during critical time periods underand covering of the river bottom past water management practices.with solids originating from Ontario MNR has identified criticalartificially induced river bank spawning locations for fall spawnerserosion should be minimized. in the Nipigon River, and minimum

flow required to ensure adequatewater over these sites during falland winter seasons. These flows areensured through a 1990 short termagreement with Ontario Hydro. TheRAP process is facilitating acommittee to establish a long termwater management plan for theNipigon River system. The Townshipof Red Rock Waterfront Study wascompleted in 1991 and culminated anumber of planning and designinitiatives. Construction of anumber of land based structures wascompleted in 1991. Construction ofenvironmental components (i.e. waterquality ponds and breakwallenhancement) began in 1992. A brooktrout habitat rehabilitation projectfor Clearwater Creek, which flowsinto Nipigon Bay, will be completedin 1993.


6

4. THUNDER BAY


All native species of fish that Species diversity in Thunder Bay iswould normally inhabit Thunder Bay much greater than the rest of Lakeshould be able to live there. Superior (at least 50 species). TheNearshore mixing zones should be offshore fishery reflects oligotrophy.rehabilitated to restore the Pacific salmon are increasing alongnormal community of bottom northern Lake Superior. Naturaldwelling organisms. Fish species reproduction of chinook and cohoin Thunder Bay should be sustained salmon has been reported in northernso as to allow natural rivers and catches in Thunder Bay havereproduction. The lake trout increased. Since 1988, chinook salmonpopulation should be rehabilitated have been released into theconsistent with the Great Lakes Kaministiquia River.Fishery Commission's "A Lake Trout

However, nativespecies continue to dominate (lake

Rehabilitation Plan for Lake trout harvest in Thunder Bay duringSuperior." The primary target for mid-1980s: 0.32-0.37 kg/ha). A majorlake trout harvest in Ontario shift in the forage base occurred withwaters is based on a historical the immigration of rainbow smelt,harvest of 0.24 kg/ha in waters which are now the dominant food sourceless than 91.4 m (50 fathoms) for lake trout in Thunder Bay.deep. A self-sustaining chinook Nearshore areas are now dominated bysalmon population should be cool water fish such as walleye,established in the Kaministiquia northern pike, and white suckers.River in conjunction with improved However, walleye has declined in thewater quality and habitat harbor and tributaries. Sport fishingrehabilitation in the lower river experienced the same drastic declineand harbor. during the late 1950s as the

commercial fishery and remaineddepressed until the 1970s. Hatcheryintroductions and sea lamprey controlresulted in substantial increases insport fishing during the late 1970sand 1980s. Fish kills have occurredin the lower Kaministiquia Riverduring periods of low flows andelevated water temperatures.


4. THUNDER BAY


Status

Lower Kaministiquia River goals Degraded water quality in theinclude: lower Kaministiquia River impedes* In order to provide hospitable access by fish to and from

habitat and prevent loss of critical habitats. Currentmigration corridors, oxygen levels levels of organic waste fromshould be adequate for the Canadian Pacific Forest Productsprotection of aquatic life. create an oxygen sag in the

* Water quality should be adequate to river, resulting in a barrier tosupport the present, natural fish movement during low wateraquatic food chains. Water quality flows. Upgrading the plant toshould be sufficient to avoid a secondary treatment in 1991 hasdisruption of the food chain resulted in substantialcontaminants in fish to levels reductions in BOD loadings.which result in consumption Habitat in Thunder Bayrestrictions. tributaries has been degraded by

* River banks should be stabilized, shoreline development, erosionwhere necessary, in order to from water level fluctuations andincrease aesthetic value and agriculture, and other localizeddecrease turbidity. problems. Some wetlands have

* Sediment quality should be been altered, and remaining onessufficient to provide a hospitable have no official status thatenvironment for aquatic organisms would protect them fromand prevent food chain development. They are alsobioaccumulation. threatened by chemical

* In accordance with the Great Lakes contamination, Historic &edgedWater Quality Agreement and the sediment disposal offshore of theThunder Bay public Advisory Welcome Islands resulted in theCommittee Water Use Goals, there loss of lake trout and lakeshould be zero discharge of herring spawning areas, and canpersistent toxic chemicals based on only be restored by naturala timetable yet to be determined. processes. Habitat is destroyedThe Ministry will present options. by &edging, but this activity

* Nearshore areas should provide will continue to be necessaryproductive aquatic habitat except within the shipping channels.where legitimate human activities Recently, fish habitatpreclude such use. rehabilitation projects have been

initiated for the tributariesThunder Bay goals include: entering Thunder Bay. In 1990,* Nearshore areas should be available fish habitat rehabilitation

as productive aquatic habitat. Any projects were initiated in eachshoreline developments should of the tributaries enteringconsider effects on existing Thunder Bay Harbour.habitat. Demonstration projects, initiated

* Wetlands should be protected from by the Great Lakes Cleanup Fundhuman-related degradation. and associated partners, will

provide habitat restorationtechniques and tools forapplications in the Great LakesBasin.


8

5. ST. LOUIS RIVER


Status

The RAP goal pertaining to the The St. Louis River estuary supportsfishery of the St. Louis River a large and diverse warmwater fishsystem is: community of approximately 54

species, which include walleye,A healthy and well balanced yellow perch, northern pike, burbot,aquatic ecosystem, where native black crappie, emerald shiner,species can live and reproduce spottail shiner, and white sucker.naturally and are not restricted Rainbow trout, brown trout, andfrom thriving due to substrate chinook salmon are also found in thedegradation. St. Louis, Nemadji, and their

tributaries. Many species areseasonally abundant, using the riverand estuary to spawn, and return toLake Superior. During 1990, averagespecies abundance (mean number perhectare) in St. Louis River Estuarywas: 267 emerald shiner, 257 ruffe,236 spottail shiner, 175 troutperch, 46 yellow perch, 41 blackcrappie, 33 log perch, 30 johnnydarter, 29 channel catfish, 28 blackbullhead, 24 rainbow smelt, 22 whitesucker, 22 white perch, 12 walleye,and 8 freshwater drum.

During the period of severe organicpollution before 1979, fishpopulations were degraded and fishkills were common. Fish populationshave been recovering from that areabecause of improvements inwastewater treatment. The fishcommunity has exhibited a pattern ofincreasing abundance and diversityin the 1980s. However, fishpopulations are now adverselyaffected by the proliferation of theruffe, an exotic species first foundin the Area of concern in 1987.Other exotics threaten fishpopulations. The potential effectsof toxic substances on fishpopulation health in the Area ofConcern are largely unknown.

Contact person: D. Pratt, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Superior, WI.

5. ST. LOUIS RIVER


Status

RAP goals pertaining to fish habitat . In the past, fish habitat in thein the St. Louis System include: estuary was degraded because of

impaired water quality. Currently,* Protection and restoration of contaminated sediments may cause

fish and wildlife habitat, habitat degradation in several areasincluding fish spawning and of the river system. Habitatnursery areas, and aquatic and/or degradation due to sedimentupland breeding, nesting, or contamination has been documented inmigration habitats. two areas: Stryker Bay (Interlake

Superfund site vicinity), and Newton* Identification and protection of Creek/Hog Island Inlet of Superior

remaining wetlands including a Bay. High rates of sedimentationprogram of no further loss in the estuary during the twentiethwetlands in or along the St. century, with ensuing turbidity andLouis River or estuary, no loss reduced light penetration, may limitof critical wetlands or wetland macrophyte growth and thereforefunctions, no net loss of limit fish and wildlife habitat.wetlands in the drainage basin, Habitat loss due to sedimentationand an overall policy of has not been documented for specificrestoring and/or enhancing areas. wetland habitat is beingdiminished or drained wetlands. degraded due to the infestation ofany unavoidable wetland losses purple loosestrife. Fish andshould be compensated for by the wildlife populations have not yetestablishment of replacement been noticeably affected by thiswetlands of equal value on a two infestation, but the potentialfor one basis. exists if the loosestrife continues

to spread.

The St. Louis River estuary hasrelatively large areas ofundeveloped shoreline and wetlandhabitats, compared with many otherGreat Lakes Areas of Concern.Protection of these habitats isimportant to the stability of fishand wildlife communities. Criticalhabitats for some important fish andwildlife species have beenidentified and should be protectedfrom loss through development orother degradation. Identificationof important and critical habitatsin the river system will be acontinuing activity through the RAPand other planning efforts.

Contact person: D. Pratt, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Superior, WI.

10

6. TORCH LAKE


Status

The State of Michigan has designated Tumors in sauger and walleye are theTorch Lake to be protected for a primary problem. The causativecoolwater fishery. More specific factor is unknown, despitefish community objectives or targets considerable investigation. Torchhave yet to be developed. Lake has had a diverse fish

community for many years. Fisheriessurveys have found more than 20species of fish not includingminnows. Walleye, sauger, northernpike, smallmouth bass, and perch arethe most important sports fish.changes in fish community structurehave occurred since copper miningactivities ceased along Torch Lakewith sauger being replaced bywalleye and other species (e.g.northern pike, smallmouth bass).Less turbid waters tend to favorwalleye over sauger where theycoexist. Michigan DNR is currentlystocking walleye in order to helptest the hypothesis of historicalchemical exposure and/or sensitivityto environmental conditions causingliver tumors. Walleye stockingrates in Torch Lake were 4,000 in1987, 10,000 in 1988, 43,002 in1989, 10,420 in 1990, and 24,581 in1991.

Contact person: R. Juetten, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Baraga, MI.

11

6. TORCH LAKE


Status

In general, the goal for Torch Lakeis for suitable habitat to support a

Over 200 million tons of copper-enriched tailings exist in Torch

coolwater fishery. Additional Lake. Over 20% of this 1,100 hahabitat-related goals include:further stabilize shoreline copper

lake was filled with copper tailingsbetween the late 1860s and the

tailings by revegetation; and 1960s. Natural attenuation andregulate dredging activities when isolation of the copper-enrichedthey occur. More specific habitatobjectives or targets have yet to be

sediments through transport,deposition,

developed.and burial presents the

best approach to the contaminatedsediments problem. Any attempt todisrupt the sediments might releasecopper from the system. The benthosare impacted by the copper-enrichedsediments. Torch Lake currentlyhas good spawning and forage habitatfor walleye, and good cover. Noquantitative fishery habitat dataare available.

Contact person: R. Juetten, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Haraga, MI.

12

7. DEER LAKE-CARP RIVER/CREEK


Status

The State of Michigan has designated The fish community of Deer Lake isDeer Lake to be protected as a dominated by yellow perch,warmwater fishery. Carp River and bullheads, white suckers, andCreek are protected for coldwater northern pike. Minnows, sunfish,fish and are designated trout and some brook trout are alsostreams. The current management caught. The fishery is currentlyobjective for Deer Lake is to open only for catch and release, andrestore the impaired sport fishery has proven popular and may beand reduce the potential for toxic continued after the mercuryimpacts to human health and wildlife contamination has subsided. Carpfrom eating mercury-contaminated Creek, upstream of Deer Lake, has afish. More specific fish community good population of brook trout withobjectives or targets have yet to be white suckers and minnows.developed. Downstream of Deer Lake in the Carp

River, brook trout populations arerestricted to river reaches aroundcoldwater inputs during summer.Northern pike and other warmwaterspecies from Deer Lake also exist inthe river and its lower reaches.The fish community in the lowerkilometer downstream of the powerstation, seasonally contains runs ofanadromous salmonids. The powerstation blocks further upstreammovement of fish.

Contact person: D. Siler, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Escanaba, MI.

13

7. DEER LAKE-CARR RIVER/CREEK


Status

In general, the goal for Deer Lake The Deer Lake fishery is impairedis for suitable habitat to support due to mercury contamination. Thethe restoration of a warmwater primary active sources of mercuryfishery. More specific fish habitat (i.e. two metalurgical laboratories)objectives or targets have yet to be have been eliminated. Sediments indeveloped. Deer Lake have elevated levels of

mercury and undoubtedly serve assecondary sources of mercurycontamination to biota. As part ofthe settlement with the responsibleindustry, the lake was drawn down,the contaminated fish eradicated andremoved, and the lake filled andstabilized in order to minimizeproduction and release ofmethylmercury from sediments.Subsequently, the lake was restockedwith yellow perch and walleye. Noquantitative habitat data areavailable.

Contact person: D. Siler, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Escanaba, MI.

14

8. MANISTIQUE RIVER


Status

The State of Michigan has designated The Manistique River supports aManistique River to be protected for diverse sports fishery. Sports fishwarmwater and coldwater fish that can be found below the damspecies. More specific objectives during various times of the yearor targets have yet to be developed. include northern pike, smallmouth

bass, walleye, yellow perch,rockbass, chinook salmon, cohosalmon, pink salmon, brown trout,and steelhead trout. Since 1974,over 400,000 chinook salmon and57,000 stealhead trout have beenplanted below the dam. The springand fall spawning runs of steelheadtrout and fall runs of chinooksalmon attract many fishermen to theriver and nearshore area of LakeMichigan. The Manistique River RAPconcluded that the problemcontributing to the fishery useimpairment is sediments contaminatedwith PCBs.

Contact person: S. Scott, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Newberry, MI.

15

8. MANISTIQUE RIVER


Status

In general, the goal for Manistique A variety of fish habitats areRiver is for suitable habitat to present in the Area of Concern.support the restoration and Surveys conducted as recently asmaintenance of a warmwater and 1985 document that the substrate incoldwater fishery. A recommended Manistique Harbor has been alteredinterim goal is to rehabilitate due to accumulation of sawdust andand/or modify the sill at the wood chips over the sandy lakeManistique Paper Company Dam to bottom. These materials originatedprovide for lamprey and salmon primarily from sawmills thatblockage. More specific objectives historically operated on the loweror targets have yet to be developed. Manistique River. Based on a

benthic macroinvertebrate surveyperformed in 1978, pollutiontolerant organisms dominated thecommunity, indicating degradation ofthe substrate and possible waterquality impacts. No quantitativehabitat data are available.

Contact person: S. Scott, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Newberry, MI.

16

9. MENOMINEE RIVER


Status

Draft fishery management plan goalsfor the entire Menominee Riversystem include:

Restore lake sturgeon populations to The lake sturgeon population in thehistoric levels (20,000 to 25,000 system is currently only 30 percentfish) throughout their former range of historic levels, because they canin the river. not reach previous spawning areas

and do not have access to the watersof Green Bay.

Restore and enhance historic runs of Current populations of northernnorthern pike, smallmouth bass, pike, smallmouth bass, walleye,muskellunge, walleye and whitefish muskellunge and whitefish are muchfrom Green Bay into and throughout lower than they could be due to lackthe Menominee River System. Restore of free access up and down thespring runs of rainbow smelt in the river. Rainbow smelt spawning runslower Menonimee River to levels in the lower Menominee have declinedsimilar to those present in the dramatically since the 1970s and1970s. reasons for these declines are not

known.

Block movement of sea lamprey and Undesirable species such as seaother undesirable species into areas lamprey are found in the lowerof the river above the first dam Menominee and are felt to have anupstream of the mouth and manage the adverse effect on the native andlower section of the river for introduced fisheries.minimal sea lamprey numbers.

Develop anadromous runs of selected Lack of suitable spawning groundssalmonid species in the Menominee for salmonids limits the salmonidRiver up to the Grand Rapids Dam to population in Green Bay and theenhance salmonid fishing lower Menominee River. Physicalopportunities and provide natural limitations also limit anglerreproduction to enhance fishing opportunities for salmonid fishingopportunities in the waters of Green in the lower Menominee.Bay.

Manage the Menominee River System to Au inventory of endangered andpreserve and/or enhance the threatened flora and fauna in theendangered and threatened species of watershed is underway.flora and fauna that exist in thewatershed.

Contact person: G. Schnicke, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Crystal Falls,MI; B. Belonger, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Marinette, WI.

NOTE: The draft fisheries plan is a two-state effort and covers the entire riversystem, not just the Area of Concern. The Stage 1 RAP for the Menominee RiverArea of Concern was completed in 1990 and the Stage 2 RAP is under development.The Stage 1 RAP contains goals and objectives for the aquatic system which aremore general, but are specific to the Area of Concern.

17

9. MENOMINEE RIVER


Status

Draft fishery management plan goalsinclude:

Reestablish natural flow patternswithin the Menominee Basin to

Fish habitat in the river is limited

enhance habitat, water quality anddue to daily fluctuating water

food production for fish and otherlevels from the hydroelectric

aquatic species.operations.

At a minimum, to meet all statutoryand anti-degradation water quality

Water quality is still a concern for

standards and to optimize waterthe fishery on selected reaches ofthe river.

quality for selected target andendangered species. To maintain orenhance water quality so fishcontaminant levels do not rise abovethe advisory levels.

Prevent hydroelectric operationalfish mortalities by using bestavailable technologies and, whenappropriate, to mitigate forunavoidable losses.

Entrainment and turbine mortality ofgame and nongame species is believedto be occurring at all MenomineeRiver hydroelectric projects andthis could be affecting thefisheries.

Maintain and enhance multiple userecreational opportunities andscenic qualities within the

Many of the river's outstandingscenic features have been lost due

Menominee Basin that are consistentto human development in thewatershed. There is a lack of

with other plan objectives. adequate public access to somesections of the river.

Contact person: G. Schnicke, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Crystal Falls,MI; B. Belonger, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Marinette, WI.

18

10. FOX RIVER/ LOWER GREEN BAY


Status

Fishery management program goalsincorporated into the RAP include:

Maintain walleye population ofapproximately 17 adults/ha (7adults/acre) or average of 70,000adults.

Prior to 1984, levels weremaintained through stocking. Theobjective has been achieved throughnatural reproduction since 1984,although the population willfluctuate due to weather or relatedimpacts on production. The 1991year class was very strong and mayresult in higher numbers in 3-4years.

Achieve yellow perch population of Population abundance decreased from2,600 yearlings and older (at least 1988 to 1990 and stabilized in 1991.5 age classes) per trawl hour New regulations to further protect(August average) at index sites. the population in the southern bay

were implemented in 1991. Perchhave spread into deeper waters thanpreviously occupied and abundance atcontour intervals is being studiedwhich may lead to a modifiedobjective.

Achieve northern pike population of This objective cannot be assessedapproximately 5 adults/ha (2 using existing monitoring whichadults/acre) or average of 20,000 estimates population biomass inadults. selected spawning areas. A

substantial portion of the pikespawning habitat has been lost priorto 1988.

Achieve muskellunge population of Musky stocking began in 1989 - 6,800approximately 0.8 adult/ha (1 fingerlings stocked to date. Growthadult/3 acres) or average of 3,300 rates appear very good and spawningadults. females are expected in 1996.

Restore centrachid (panfish) To be determined.populations.

Protect against sea lampreyinvasion. No sea lamprey aboveRipid Creche Dam.

Lamprey found below DePere Dam in1990 and 1991. A permanent barrierto sea lamprey invasion wasconstructed in 1988 at the thirdlock and dam on the Lower Fox River,upstream from the DePere Dam.

Shift fish biomass toward predator Status is unknown because totaland sport species: 225-337 kg/ha fishery biomass is presently not(200-300 pounds per acre); predator/ measured.prey ratio of l/10-1/20.

Contact person: T. Lychwick, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Green Bay, WI.

19

10. FOX RIVER/LOWER GREEN BAY


Status

Fishery management program goals -incorporated into the RAP include:

NO acute or chronic toxicity to fish Bioassay showed that sediment poreas documented by bioassays. water and bulk sediments from

several Lower Fox River sites weretoxic to Pimephales promelas. Mostof the observed toxicity appeared tobe due to ammonia.

Virtually eliminate the discharge of All major dischargers in the basintoxic substances in toxic amounts and those minor dischargers wherefrom all sources. chemical specific monitoring

indicates toxicity are required toperform acute and chronic bioassaysof their effluent. As of 1991, twoof the 19 discharges are consideredto be failing their acute or chronictoxicity tests. In 1986, 13dischargers reported failed bioassaytests. Most dischargers currentlymeet effluent limitations for toxicsubstances.

Maintain dissolved oxygen > 5 mg/L Dissolved oxygen average 7.6-8.5at all times. mg/L during mid-May to mid-October

during 1986-1991, but fell below 5mg/L at least once in every yearexcept 1990.

Maintain summer average totalsuspended solids concentration inthe water column at 10 mg/L.

Currently, summer concentrations are20-30 mg/L.

Reduce suspended solids loads to Total suspended solids loads to thereduce sedimentation, increase water Area of Concern in 1981-1983clarity and improve aquatic habitat. averaged 200 million pounds per

year.

Maintain lacustrine, palustrine and To be determined by geographicalriverine wetlands (all wetlands information system mapping.contiguous to shoreland zone asdefined by 91 m (300 feet) fromriver and 305 m (1000 feet) fromlakeshore.

Increase submergent vegetation. To be determined by geographicalinformation system mapping;

Provide adequate habitat for fish to To be determined by geographicalmeet population objectives. information system mapping.

Protect other important habitat for To be determined by geographicalfish, other aquatic life, wildlife, information system mapping.and endangered species.

20

Essential habitats are protected by Some wetlands exist behind legallaw from future development, bulkhead lines that relinquish statephysical degradation, or authority over filling and dredgingcontamination. activities. Bulkhead lines do not

preclude the application of federalregulations. Over 81 ha (200 acres)of wetlands are protected through,public ownership. Other wetlands inthe Area of Concern are given someprotection through state/localwetland zoning laws or federal404/10 permit programs. New statewater quality standards for wetlands(HR 103) will provide additionalprotection against activities thatdegrade wetlands.

Fish can migrate freely in andthrough the Area of Concern toutilize essential habitats.

No restriction of fish movement upto DePere Dam.

Fish populations are self-sustaining some populations of fish are being(i.e. stable population structure stocked to re-introduce nativewithout periodic stocking). species. Existing fish species are

self-sustaining. Walleye have notbeen stocked since 1984 and are nowself-sustaining.

Contact person: T. Lychwick, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Green Bay, WI.

21

11. SHEBOYGAN RIVER


Status

Long-term RAP goals related to thefish community which have been

Fish populations and diversity inthe Sheboygan River, harbor, and

established for the Sheboygan RiverArea of Concern include:

Lake Michigan have been altered byvarious factors including theeffects of exotic species,

* protect the ecosystem (including sedimentation, and dams.humans, wildlife, fish, and other

Presently,

organisms) from the adversethe lower Sheboygan River supports adiverse population of fish and

effects (on the reproduction, However, there issurvival and healthy of

aquatic life.

individuals, and the integrity ofconcern that sediment from upstream

interspecies relationships) ofsources which has been deposited

toxic substances; andabove the upper and lower KohlerDams, along the river bank at bendsin the river,

* maintain and enhance a diverseand in the harbor may

be negatively impacting thecommunity of terrestrial and diversity and health of the localaquatic life and their necessaryhabitat.

fishery. Major fish speciescollected in the Sheboygan River andharbor are alewife, gizzard, channel

These RAP goals are further catfish, yellow perch, smallmouthspecified by objectives to achieve bass, rock bass, walleye, northernthe goals and restore beneficial pike, black crappie, white crappie,uses. lake whitefish, round whitefish,

coho salmon, chinook salmon, and* Reduce sources of toxic lake, brook, brown and rainbow

substances and organism exposure trout. Interestingly, smallmouthto toxic substances to allow bass populations downstream of theunrestricted consumption and Sheboygan Falls Dam have increasedunimpaired reproductive dramatically since 1980. They areperformance of resident fish and occasionally seen in upstreamwildlife. impoundments and are very common in

upstream unimpounded areas. The* Maintain a diverse resident reason for this sudden increase is

fishery and, with attainment of unknown. At any rate, it hasthe above toxic objective, enhanced the recreational fishery.establish seasonal runs of coho Generally, there is a diversity ofand chinook salmon and steelhead. sport fish in the river between the

dams. The impoundments areinhabited mainly by carp as habitatis limited for the more desirablesport and forage species.

Contact person: J. Nelson, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Plymouth, MI.

22

11. SHEBOYGAN RIVER


Status

The long-term RAP goal is to Habitat necessary to maintain amaintain and enhance the necessary diversity of aquatic life in thehabitat for a diverse fish Sheboygan River is being degraded,community. More specific habitat- primarily as a result of sedimentrelated objectives related to this from upland erosion. The dams alsogoal include: contribute to degraded habitat. The

dams within the Area of Concern* Reduce sources of toxic influence sediment deposition and

substances and organism exposure surface water quality by reducingto allow unimpaired reproductive velocities, increasing sedimentationperformance of resident fish. rates, trapping particulate matter,

and increasing water temperatures.* Protect natural areas along the As a result, the dams provide

waterway and enhance habitat for degraded habitat more suited foraquatic and terrestrial pollution-tolerant types of fish andcommunities. aquatic life. The dams also inhibit

fish passage, thereby limiting the* Continue to control nutrient recreational fishery potential of

inputs to the Sheboygan River and the Sheboygan River and itsnearshore areas of Lake Michigan tributaries.to meet the goals of the GreatLakes Water Quality Agreement andto reduce abnormal occurrence ofundesirable algae.

* Reduce suspended solidsconcentrations in the SheboyganRiver to meet a meanconcentration of 25 mg/L during90% of the time and reducebedload by 50% to 75%.

Contact person: J. Nelson, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Plymouth, WI.

23

12. MILWAUKEE ESTUARY


Status

Fish community goals developedthrough the RAF process include:

Sport fishing in the Area of Concernis restricted because spawning areasare polluted and channel

* achieve and maintain water quality modifications such as dams andthat protects the ecosystemincluding human health; and

concrete lining have degradedhabitat. Resident fish are

* establish high quality fisheriespollution tolerant species such as

and urban wildlife populationscarp and black bullheads. Salmon,

that are free from toxicwalleye, bass, pike and trout are

contamination and other human-madefound in the Area of Concern, but

hazards.are unable to spawn. The harborprovides habitat for perch, northernpike, suckers and carp. Some of the

Objectives pertaining to these goalsinclude:

naturally occurring perch spawningbeds were altered in 1989 when thenew landfill island, Lakefront

* eliminate acute and chronictoxicity to biota;

Island, was built in the OuterHarbor. However, habitat was also

* eliminate the need for fish andcreated in the installed rip rap

wildlife consumption advisorieswhich may replace some of the perch

and reduce toxic contamination tohabitat lost by construction.

levels that do not adverselyaffect other biota:

In Lake Michigan, large-scalestocking of salmon and troutcontinues to sustain Wisconsin's

* establish high quality fisheriesby restoring both coldwater and

Lake Michigan sport fishery,

warmwater species such as yellowestimated to be with $60 million per

perch, northern pike, smallmouthyear (1981-1983 numbers) despite

bass, walleye, trout, and salmon;recent reductions and anticipatedfuture reductions. Wisconsin DNRstocks about 7 million chinook and

* protect against significant coho salmon,infestations of the sea lamprey,

and lake, brown,

zebra mussel and other undesirablerainbow and brook trout annually.

exotic species; andAlewife populations have become afood source for stocked fish.Recent crashes or declines in

* establish a balanced predator/preyratio in the resident fish

alewife populations will affect

community.future stocking programs. Thehatchery in the Milwaukee areareduced its stocking quotas in 1988by 10 percent. Another reduction isbeing discussed for future stocking.The chinook stocking program hasshown decreased successes perhapsbecause of the decline in alewifepopulations as forage food and/orperhaps because of recent incidencesof bacterial kidney disease.

Contact person: C. Schrank, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.

24

MILWAUKEE ESTUARY

Fish Habitat StatusGoals/Objectives/Target

Fish habitat goals developed through Within the Area of Concern, thethe RAP process include: lower reaches of the Milwaukee,* develop high quality aquatic and Menomonee and Kinnickinnic riverswildlife habitats; and are severely degraded where the

existing aquatic habitat supports* eliminate the contribution of mostly rough fish and pollution-contaminants from sediments to the tolerant species. On the Milwaukeeecosystem. River, habitat diversity and quality

is limited by combined sewerObjectives include: overflows, nonpoint source* restore and protect the quantity pollution, sediment and siltand quality of the benthic deposition, and the composition ofmacroinvertebrate, aquatic bottom substrate. Above the Northmacrophyte, phytoplankton, and Avenue Dam silt may be as much aszooplankton communities. 3 m deep and may contain toxic

substances discharged from upstream* upgrade aquatic conditions and sites. silt deposition below theprovide and protect streambank North Avenue Dam is also significantvegetation and in-stream habitat because the river flows slow andin the Menomonee, Kinnickinnic and silt accumulates below the dam. OnMilwaukee Rivers and their the Menomonee River, streambanktributaries to restore, to the erosion, channelization and urbanfullest extent possible, species runoff impact habitat quality.historically present, but Above the Area of Concern, thecurrently lost or present only in Menomonee River passes railroadsmall numbers; yards and material storage areas

where occasional spills occur. In* evaluate and implement the Burnham and South Menomoneerecommendations regarding removal canals, channel sides are made ofor modification of human-made wood, steel sheet pilings orobstructions along 'the rivers concrete. Portions of thewhich restrict navigation and Kinnickinnic River above the Area ofnatural fish movement, spawning, Concern are concrete channels whichfeeding, protection, development incur high velocity flows duringor winter habitat; storm events. Concrete channels

provide very poor habitat which* restore and/or enhance upstream supports temporary populations of

fish and wildlife habitats; very pollution-tolerantmacroinvertebrates and an occasional

* protect upstream wetlands from any fish. Within the Area of Concern,further loss or degradation and the bottom sediments of theincrease wetlands by restoration Kinnickinnic River are dominated bywherever feasible; thick deposits of muck over sand and

clay. Streambank erosion is minimal* no filling of nearshore areas between chase and Becher Streets butunless it also improves aquatic downstream of Becher Street, theand wildlife habitat; and natural banks have been replaced by

steel sheet pilings. In addition,* where filling is to occur, assure urbanization of the Lake Michiganthat it does not negatively impact coastline has contributed towater quality and is designed to declining water quality andoptimize habitat. destruction of aquatic and wildlife

habitat and spawning areas in theArea of Concern.

13. WAUKEGAN HARBOR

Fish CommunityGoals/ Objectives/Targets

Status

No specific fish community goals The sport fishery that has occurredhave been established due to the at the harbor has primarily been atnature of Waukegan Harbor relative the harbor mouth and entranceto its construction and use, and the channel where access is provided bylack of historical data and a long concrete pier. The majorityinformation. of the harbor is private, industrial

Property. sport fish caught byshore anglers at the harbor areprimarily transient fish whichprovide seasonal fishingopportunities. Smelt and cohosalmon are taken in the spring,yellow perch in the summer, andchinook salmon and rainbow and browntrout in the fall. The IllinoisDepartment of Conservation beganstocking salmon and trout in theharbor in 1969. Due to concernsregarding PCBs in sediments,stocking was discontinued in 1982.It has recently been initiated inthe South Harbor Basin which wascompleted in 1983 and is in the openlake and not connected to theoriginal harbor. A total of 120,000chinook salmon, 100,000 coho salmon,25,000 rainbow trout and 20,000brown trout were released in theSouth Harbor in 1992.

Contact person: R. Hess, Illinois Dept. of Conservation, Springfield, IL.

26

13. WAUKEGAN HARBOR


Status

No specific fish habitat goals have Waukegan Harbor is about 13.8 ha inbeen established due to the nature size and was constructed around theof Waukegan Harbor relative to its turn of the century. The harbor isconstruction and use, and the lack primarily a commercial basin servingof historical data and information. the needs of large freightersOne habitat-related goal is to delivering raw materials (cement andachieve sufficient reductions in gypsum) to several local industriesPCBs and other contaminants in the and also provides mooring facilitiesharbor sediments which will permit and launch ramps for smallthe lifting of the ban of eating any recreational boats. Harbor depthsfish taken from the harbor. This vary from 4-6.4 m and the entranceconsumption ban was recommended by channel area is routinely &edged tothe U.S. Environmental Protection about 8 m. Harbor sediments consistAgency in 1981, and the harbor was of 0.3-3 m of very soft organic siltposted by the County Health (muck) and most of the harbor isDepartment shortly thereafter. bordered by 6-7.6 long steel sheet

piling. Limited habitat restorationis being pursued in terms of theremoval of contaminated sediment,re-establishment of beds of aquaticmacrophytes (if feasible), and theestablishment of areas of hardsubstrate (if feasible) to add somehabitat diversity to the harbor.

Contact person: R. Hess, Illinois Dept. of Conservation, Springfield, IL.

27

14. GRAND CALUMET RIVER/INDIANASHIP CANAL


Status

currently, fish community goals have Available fishery data from thenot been established by Indiana 1980s indicate that the river andDepartment of Natural Resources for harbor lack a stable fish community.the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Ship In addition, the fishery is limitedCanal due to severe water quality (i.e. less than 10 species) anddegradation. As water quality dominated by extremely pollution-improves to the point that it no tolerant forms (e.g. carp andlonger substantially limits the goldfish). Fish consumptionfishery, fish community goals and advisories exist recommending nomanagement strategies will be fish be eaten. Short termdeveloped. priorities include compiling the

database into a repository in aHowever, the Marquette Park Lagoon, central location and securing theas the primary headwaters of this resources for a qualified person toriver system, has a unique upstream manage and interpret the database.location which largely isolates itsfish from those in the river/canal.*This three basin lagoon has at least11 fish species and is stockedannually with channel catfish. Asits water quality improves, fishcommunity goals and managementstrategies could be developed tomove the fish community toward itspresettlement, ecosystem-specificdiversity. This could be doneseparately from the river/canal andharbor.**

Contact person: W. Faatz, Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Indianapolis, IN.

* The Marquette Park Lagoon was originally called the Grand Calumet RiverLagoon, and it flowed into Lake Michigan. When Illinois changed the flow on thewestern end of the Grand Calumet River, the Lagoon's flow patterns changed. Thelagoon became completely silted with sand and no longer allowed the river aneastern outlet to Lake Michigan. Today, the lagoon flows west into the riverthrough an inclined, 1.5 m reinforced concrete culvert pipe that runs underneaththe coal storage yard and rail storage yard of USX for 564 m. The culvert hasa design flow capacity of 1.416 cubic meters/second, but it becomes partiallyfilled with sand from the dunes to the north of the lagoon as a result of stormevents. Historically, the sand has been cleaned out when the extent of blockagecauses the lagoon to flood nearby residences.

Once the water quality of the river/canal improves to minimally acceptablelevels, the sand blocking the culvert could be removed to fully reconnect thelagoon to the river system. The lagoon's restored fish community could thenfoster the natural recovery of the fish community in the river/canal and harbor.Although these actions are speculative at this point, if these actions are taken,it may be possible for the river system to move toward its presettlementproductivity as a spawning site for Lake Michigan fish. If that occurs, the fishcommunity goals and management strategies for the nearshore/open waters of theArea of Concern portion of Lake Michigan may need to be reviewed and revisedaccordingly.

28

14. GRAND CALUMET RIVER/INDIANASHIP CANAL


Status

Goal 1: Maximize habitat Numerous human activities havevalues for native species historically resulted in* Objective 1: Prevent further loss/degradation of fish habitat.

habitat pollution/degradation These activities include: changing* Objective 2: Redirect resources the course of the river and

to increase habitat values draining/filling wetlands for* Objective 3: Restore globally industrial development, construction

endangered habitats and their of landfills, creation of deep waterecosystem-specific range of ports and navigational channels,biodiversity, especially dune and sand mining in dunes and interdunalswale habitat species areas, and municipal and industrial

* Objective 4: Develop and utilize discharges and their legacy ofnew resources for habitat contaminated sediments. The

* Objective 5: Monitor and evaluate loss/degradation of wetlands hasprogress in maximizing habitat been substantial, but notvalues for native species quantified.

Goal 2: Mobilize citizens tosupport native habitat values* Objective 1: Enhance citizen

appreciation of importance anduse of genetic memory andbiodiversity of native species

* Objective 2: collect anddistribute information to thepublic on cost savings andenvironmental effectiveness ofusing native species in publicand private programs

* objective 3: Encourageinstitutional and citizeninvolvement in nativehabitat/species monitoring andconservation, especially amongthose not traditionally active inconservation

Contact person: W. Faatz, Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Indianapolis, IN.

29

15. KALAMAZOO RIVER


Status

The mainstream of the Kalamazoo - The fishery in the lower reach fromRiver is currently managed for a Calkins Bridge Dam to the mouth iswarmwater fishery. The upper reach excellent for a diverse group offrom Ceresco Dam downstream to game and panfish species including,Morrow Pond and the lower reach from walleye, northern pike, largemouthCalkins Bridge Dam to the river bass, channel catfish, salmon, andmouth are currently classified as steelhead. Fishing in the middletop quality warmwater segments (i.e. reach of the river, a 53 km stretchcontaining self-sustaining from Morrow Pond to Calkins Bridgepopulations of warmwater game fish). Dam, has improved significantly inThe middle reach of the river from the last decade as a result ofMorrow Pond to Calkins Bridge Dam is improved water quality. Improvedcurrently classified as a second water quality is the result ofquality warmwater segment (i.e. upgrading municipal and industrialcontaining significant populations wastewater treatment facilitiesof warmwater fish species, but game which discharge to the Kalamazoofish populations are appreciably River. Seven areas of the riverlimited by such factors as where dams were used to impoundpollution, competition, and water, have PCB - contaminatedinadequate natural reproduction). sediments. A 1982 fishery survey ofMany of the tributaries to the the Kalamazoo River yielded 62 fishKalamazoo River are managed for a species. Carp were the most numerouscoldwater fishery. Management goals species in the river comprisinginclude: 67.5% of the total catch by weight

and 18.2 by number. Game fish* restoring the middle reach of the comprised 67.5% of the total catchriver from Morrow Pond to Calkins by weight and 18.2% by number. GameBridge Dam to a top quality fish comprised 12.8% by weight andwarmwater fishery; 30.1% by number. Smallmouth bass,

northern pike, and rock bass were* reclaiming Pine Creek Pond as a collected throughout the system, butwarmwater fishery and Baseline were found in low numbers in theCreek as a brown trout fishery; middle reach. The lower Kalamazooand River downstream from Calkins Bridge

Dam presently contains good runs of* extending the anadromous salmon steelhead, chinook salmon and brownand steelhead fishery upstream to trout, which are maintained bythe two largest population centers annual stocking.of Kalamazoo and Battle creek.

Contact person: J. Dexter, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Plainwell, MI.

30

15. KALAMAZOO RIVER


Status

Recommended habitat goals include: The Kalamazoo River anadromousfishery currently extends upstream

* extend migrations of salmon only 35 km to the Calkins Bridgeand steelhead to the cities of Dam. Removing three dams andKalamazoo and Battle Creek by installing ladders for four otherremoving dams at Plainwell, dams would extend migrations ofOtsego, and Trowbridge, and salmon and steelhead an additionalinstall ladders at the Calkin's 66 km upstream to Battle Creek.Bridge, Imperial Carving, Alternative remedial OptiOI3S areMenasha, and Morrow Dams to currently being evaluated for eachallow fish passage; and of the PCB contaminated sediment

sites on the river. Other* remediate the areas of PCB quantitative habitat data are not

contaminated sediments in order available.to provide suitable habitat forthe fishery.

More specific habitat objectives andtargets have yet to be developed.

Contact person: J. Dexter, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Plainwell, MI.

31

16. MUSKEGON LAKE


Status

The State of Michigan has designated Muskegon Lake currently supportsMuskegon Lake to be protected for excellent populations of northernwarm water fish species as a minimum. pike, largemouth bass, smallmouthAll tributaries to Muskegon Lake are bass, walleye, yellow perch,protected for coldwater and suckers, sunfish, crappie, andwarmwater fish. The current bullheads. Salmon and trout speciesmanagement objective for Muskegon are also important during spawningLake and River is to manage the Muskegon Lake has beenfishery for self-sustaining E&ibed to be the most popular andpopulations of walleye, chinook valuable fishery in westernsalmon, steelhead, brown trout, Michigan. Fishing by licensedrainbow trout, and lake sturgeon. anglers on Muskegon Lake wasSpecifically, the system is being estimated at 148,000 angler daysmanaged to restore the walleye during 1982. The current spawningspawning runs to historical levels run of walleye is estimated atof 130,000 fish. 45,000 fish.

Contact person: R. O'Neal, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Grand Rapids, MI.

32

16. MUSKEGON LAKE


Status

In general, the goal for Muskegon In general, many of the highlyLake is for suitable habitat to productive bays have been dredged orsupport the restoration of a filled for marinas or otherwarmwater fishery. Additional development. Severe habitatinterim goals include: provide degradation is evident in Littleprotection against additional Bear Creek and its unnameddevelopment along the north shore of tributary. Contaminated groundwaterthe lake which has most of the from the Cordova Chemical Companyremaining protected bays and inlets; site vents to the unnamed tributaryensure that the extensive marsh and Little Bear Creek. Noabove Muskegon Lake is protected for quantitative habitat data arenorthern pike spawning and forage available.fish; and restore benthic habitat intributaries and deep lake basins tothat which will support a naturalfish community.


33

17. WRITE LAKE


Status

The State of Michigan has designated White Lake currently supportswhite Lake to be protected for excellent populations of northern.warmwater fish species as a minimum. pike, largemouth bass, smallmouthAll tributaries to the White River bass, walleye, yellow perch,and White Lake are protected for redhorse sucker, white sucker,coldwater fish. More specific fish bluegills, crappie, and carp.community objectives or targets have Salmon and trout species have alsoyet to be developed. been observed in the area,

especially during spawning runs upthe White River. White Lake hasbeen described to be second, only toMuskegon Lake, in popularity andvalue as a fishery in westernMichigan. Fishing by licensedanglers on White Lake was estimatedat 60,000 angler days during 1982.


34

17. WHITE LAKE


Status

In general, the goal for White Lake In general, most of the highlyis for suitable habitat to support productive bays which supportthe restoration of a warmwater considerable macrophytes have beenfishery. Additional interim goals dredged or filled for marinas orinclude: discontinue any additional other development. Historically,development in the upper portion of most of these productive habitatsWhite Lake which has most of the were found in the upper portion ofremaining protected areas and White Lake. Effects of developmentlittoral zone habitat with high on habitat loss have been less inproductivity; and ensure that the the lower portion of White Lakeextensive marsh above White Lake is because this basin is much largerprotected for northern pike spawning and littoral zone habitat andand forage fish. productivity is lower. This is

because of a narrow littoral zoneand sharp drop-offs in the lowerportion of White Lake. Noquantitative habitat data areavailable.

Contact person: R. O'Neal, Michigan Dept. of Natural-Resources, Grand Rapids, MI.

35

18. SAGINAW RIVER/BAY


Status

The overall fishery management goal Fishery production of Saginaw Bayis to restore a balanced fishery in peaked in 1902, with a commercial,Saginaw Bay by enhancing numbers of catch of 6,454,500 kg (14.2 millionpredaceous game fish, such that by pounds). Production has graduallyyear 2000 prey fish abundance is declined to a low of 636,400 kg (1.4measurably reduced. Related goals million pounds) in 1974. Presentinclude: commercial fish production remains* Enhance predator abundance by below even the 1974 level.

stocking, regulatory protection, Contributing to the decline wereand habitat improvement, while effects of introductions ofmaintaining harvest levels of at nonnative fish (sea lamprey, carp,least 454,550 kg (1 million rainbow smelt, alewife, and others),pounds) through year 2000; allow heavy exploitation by the commercialharvest of predators to reach at fishery, extinction of lake herringleast 681,800 kg (1.5 million from the bay, and water quality andpounds) by year 2020. habitat degradation. In more recent

* Restore valued fisheries at lower years a major sport fishery hastrophic levels such that developed in the bay, largely inextractions of "nonpredatory" response to reintroduction ofspecies reach at least 1,000,000 walleye, but also due to sportkg (2.2 million pounds) by year fishery restoration lakewide, made2000 and 1,365,640 kg (3.0 possible by the chemical control ofmillion pounds) by year 2020. sea lamprey. Anglers fished Saginaw

* Provide at least 600,000 days of Bay a total of nearly 600,000 daysangler recreation per year on in 1986, and caught over 5,000,000Saginaw Bay through year 2000 and fish, the vast majority of which1,000,000 days by year 2020. were yellow perch; 73,000 were

walleye. The 1988 walleye harvestSpecific objectives include: increased to 100,000 fish. The* Enhance the walleye population of Saginaw Bay fishery accounted forSaginaw Bay to its estimated 60% of the total fishery effort onpotential, producing an annual Lake Huron in 1986 and has accountedsport fishing yield of at least for 42-43% of the effort in the open300,000 fish or 227,270 kg (0.5 water season (April-September)million pounds) by year 2000 and during 1986-1988. Based on available600,000 fish or 454,550 kg data, current annual harvest levels(1,000,000 pounds) by year 2020. include: 111,800 kg walleye; 5,000

* BY year 2000, inventory the kg white bass; 265,900 kg channellargemouth and smallmouth bass catfish; 54,500 kg northern pike;fisheries of Saginaw Bay and 409,100 kg yellow perch; 6,800 kgidentify their management needs. white perch; 12,700 kg smelt; 48,600

* Increase abundance of northern kg white sucker; 368,200 kg carp;pike through habitat improvement 23,600 kg freshwater drum; andand stocking, such that annual 14,100 kg quillback carpsucker.extractions increase from thepresent level of 54,550 kg (120thousand pounds) to 90,910 kg (200thousand pounds) by year 2020.

* Experimentally introduce GreatLakes Muskellunge to Saginaw Bayby year 2000.

36

* By year 2020, restore yellow perchgrowth and maintain yield at alevel characteristic of the1950s. Length at age 5 should benear 21.6 cm (8.5 inches). Yieldshould be maintained at existinglevels, near 363,640 kg (800,000pounds.

* Monitor the status and ecologicalimpacts of the invasion of whiteperch, while attempting tomanipulate the population (byenhancement of predator numbersand promoting harvest of adesirable sport or commercial

product), such that impacts uponnative species are minimized.* Rehabilitate the lake herring byreducing competition from otherspecies and, if necessary, bystocking, such that sport and/orcommercial extractions recover toat least 181,820 kg (0.4 millionpounds) by year 2020.

* Maintain current harvest levelsfor commercial fisheries operatingunder Michigan licenses orpermits, while relocating mostSaginaw Bay effort to the MainBasin.

* Maintain a favorable mix ofspecies and appropriate abundancelevels to support and coexist withthe desired game fish population.

* Maintain incentives for thecommercial and sport harvest ofcarp, carpsucker, white sucker anddrum, such that combinedextractions of at least 454,550 kg(1 million pounds) annually arecontinued.

Contact person: J. Johnson, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Alpena,MI.

37

18. SAGINAW RIVER/BAY


Status

current habitat goals related to Habitat degradation is acknowledgedsolutions for fishery management as an important factor contributingproblems include: to the decline of the Saginaw

River/Ray fishery. Pollution and* encourage habitat restoration, degraded habitat may still limit

removal of dams and construction recovery of walleye, herring and theof fishways to increase the burrowing mayfly, a key prey foravailability of tributary yellow perch, herring, and youngspawning sites, and improvements walleye. The primary source ofin tributary habitat and water sediment loading and contaminationquality for walleye; of sediments is the Saginaw River

* encourage protection of tributary system. The sediments maywetlands and sheltered areas for be affecting spawning grounds andlargemouth and smallmouth bass; species diversity. Contaminants are

* encourage improvements in being passed up the food chain intowater quality, primarily the fishery, with especially highreductions in turbidity, which contaminant burdens in carp andcould subsequently improve catfish. Dredging and otherhabitat for pike, and promoting disturbances reintroducerecovery for access to natural contaminants from the sediments towetlands for pike; and the food chain. Loss of wetlands

* encourage improvements in water limits populations of northern pike,quality, especially reductions in largemouth bass, and other orientedsediment loading, which could species and life stages.improve spawning habitat for lakeherring.

Contact person: J. Johnson, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Alpena,MI.

38

19. COLLINGWOOD HARBOUR


Status

Maintain a fish community comparable surveys indicate healthy populationsto those observed in similar of benthivores and piscivores (pike,habitats outside the harbor and bass and yellow perch), indicativerepresentative of a mesotrophic of a mesotrophic environment.environment, containing pike, bass, Walleye, lake trout, rainbow troutyellow perch and walleye. and chinook salmon occupy the

harbour seasonally; their densitiesProposed fish community: vary according to conditions

Piscivores 45-60% (116-150 kg/ha) elsewhere in Georgian Bay. A 1986Benthivores 40-50% (103-130 kg/ha) fish inventory found white suckerPlankivores 1% and rainbow smelt to be mostHerbivores <0.5% abundant; sport fish accounted for

(based on effects of improved water <4% of the survey catch. Noquality in Bay of Quinte, and historical data exist to confirmHamilton Harbour Stage 2 RAP.) whether abundance and/or composition

are impaired. sediment bioassayswith fish confirm no significanttoxicity.

Contact person: D. Hughes, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Owen Sound,Ontario.

39

19. COLLINGWOOD HARBOUR


Status

Protect habitat to maintain current . The destruction of habitat occurredlevels of fish. When the historically with the development ofopportunity arises, rehabilitate the harbor. The two major types ofhabitat. fish habitat in the harbor are rocky

rubble areas and submergent oremergent vegetation. Of 10 speciesof macrophytes identified in 1986,the dominant aquatic plant wasmilfoil.

Water quality is being improvedthrough reduced loadings ofphosphorous and erosion controlmeasures.

The Collingwood Harbour RemedialAction Plan and Public AdvisoryCommittee members are taking anactive role in planning at the locallevel (municipal, industrial,commercial), to ensure that habitatis preserved and rehabilitated.


40

20. SEVERN SOUND


Status

Restore predator populations catches of black crappie and(walleye, pike, muskellunge) to bullhead have greatly increasedlevels observed in the mid 1970s. since 1975, while predator catchesTop predators should make up >= 10% have declined. Panfish and benthicof sport fishing harvest. species made up 50% of the catch in

1975, compared to 90% in recentAS an interim measure, stock years. Panfish and benthicsufficient numbers of fingerling components comprised a balanced mixwalleye to restore abundance of of species in 1975, but are nowpredators. dominated (>75%) by single species,

i.e., crappie and bullhead,respectively. Thus, system isconsidered unstable andunpredictable. Rebuilding toppredator component should restoregreater stability to the Severnsound fish community.

Contact person: D. Hughes, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Owen sound,Ontario.

41

20. SEVERN SOUND


Status

Identify and protect nearshore Interim fish habitat management planhabitat and wetlands, including has been prepared, and is being usedplanning and development controls to by Ontario Ministry of Naturalprohibit alteration of these areas. Resources Midhurst district staff inNO net loss of shoreline wetland and reviewing shoreline developmentfish habitat. proposals. Municipal planners in

the area are ready to incorporatethe plan in their official planprocess.

Protect and enhance spawning areas Walleye spawning sites wereused by walleye in Severn Sound. previously enhanced and may be

expanded if evidence suggestshabitat is limiting recruitment.


42

21. SPANISH HARBOUR


Status

Every attempt should be made to The walleye population in theprevent further introductions of Spanish River appears to be self-,exotic non-native species and to re- sustaining, and may be increasing.establish biological communities Muskellunge, channel catfish,which reflect those existing prior redhorse sucker and sauger wereto European Settlement. reported as present historically in

the river, but are now rare(catfish, redhorse) or absent(muskellunge, sauger).


43

21. SPANISH HARBOUR


Status ,

Water quality and habitat should beimproved and maintained such that:

Prior to implementation of secondarysewage treatment in 1983, low

* a diverse range of organisms is dissolved oxygen concentrations,able to survive and flourish year frequent spills and massive fishround: and kills were not uncommon. As late as

* an edible and self-sustaining 1980, the streambed was fouled withfishery exists. bark and fiber. Historical water

quality and sediment contamination,that may have limited the fishery,appear to have been resolved.

Some loss of habitat has occurredfrom shoreline alterations andmarina construction at the villageof Spanish.


44

22. CLINTON RIVER


Status

The State of Michigan has designated There has been a resurgence of sportClinton River to be protected for fishing in the main branch of the,warmwater and migratory coldwater river. In the 1960s, no fish werefish species. The current found living in the main branch ofmanagement goal for the reach from the river from Pontiac to theRed Run to the Spillway Mouth and confluence of the North Branch. Inthe Natural River Mouth is to 1980, 33 species of fish were foundsupport fishable, self-sustaining in that section of the river. Thepopulations of walleye, largemouth cause was substantial improvement inbass,. northern pike, yellow perch, point source pollution controland other panfish. Specific efforts. Today, naturalobjectives include: reproduction of walleye and chinook* increase abundance, reproduction, salmon occur in the river. Both

and survival of the above walleye and trout are stocked inspecies: and certain reaches of the river.

* restore impaired beneficial uses Recent sampling of game fish within(i.e. warmwater fishery, other the recreational navigationalaquatic life, partial body channel include northern pike,contact recreation, and public yellow perch, pumpkinseed, large andwater supply at point of water smallmouth bass, rock bass, whiteintake) at known sites. bass, black crappie, walleye, and

muskellunge.

Contact person: R. Spitler, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Livonia, MI.

45

22. CLINTON RIVER

Fish Habitat StatusGoals/Objectives/Targets

Current related goals include: . Fish habitat in the Clinton River is* minimize the effects of impacted by a mixture of natural and

contaminated sediments on fish urban-related factors. Theseand other aquatic life; include: conventional pollutants,

* improve physical bottom habitat organic and heavy metal contaminantsto support a healthy benthic from historic discharges attached tomacroinvertebrate community by fine particles settling out in thereducing runoff and erosion; Area of Concern due to low velocity,

* improve dissolved oxygen high sediment oxygen demand, lowconcentration in the water column river aeration rates, watershed soilso that the dissolved oxygen types, agricultural practices, urbanstandard is met by controlling development, partially blocked riverpoint source discharges, flow, high Great Lakes levels, andminimizing stormwater loadings, little topographical reliefand eliminating illegal resulting in river water stagnationconnections to the stormwater and flow reversals. The Clintonsystem; River Watershed Integrated

* improve dissolved oxygen in the Management Plan concludes thatnatural channel by removing fishery potential is currentlysediments blocking flow to the impaired by habitat degradationnatural channel and weir stemming from past and continuingmodifications; land use practices, wastewater

* improve future sediment quality treatment plant discharges, andby ensuring adequate point and stormwater management activities.nonpoint source control of heavy No quantitative habitat data aremetal and organic contaminant available.loadings; and

* improve flow in the naturalchannel.

Other related goals from the ClintonRiver Watershed Management Planinclude:* increase flow stability by

protecting existing groundwaterrecharge areas, encouragingstormwater management, andmanaging flows at controlstructures to simulate naturalconditions;

* identify, protect, and considerrestoration of high qualityreaches, especially those whichare most accessible topotamodromous fishes;

* restore or create riparianwetlands, where possible;

* control erosion of sedimentthrough nonpoint sourcemanagement, best managementpractices, riparian bufferstrips, etc.; and

* develop productive runs ofdesired fish species by removingbarriers to migration.

Contact person: R. Spitler, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Livonia, MI.

46

23. ROUGE RIVER


Status

All main branches of the Rouge River The use of the Rouge River as aare designated by the State of warmwater fishery is frequently orMichigan as water bodies suitable severely impaired in 9 of the 11for a warmwater fishery. In subbasins due primarily to lowaddition! several coldwater dissolved oxygen concentrations,tributaries exist. Therefore, the elevated toxic substances levels ingoal is to restore water quality and water, contaminated sediments, andhabitat in the Rouge River in order reduced fish and macroinvertebrateto meet its designated use as a diversities. Sport fishing in thewarmwater fishery in the main Rouge River Basin is very limited.branches and a coldwater fishery in Largemouth bass and northern pikethe tributaries that can support it. are occasionally taken fromMore specific fish community impoundments in the river system.objectives or targets have yet to be The Rouge River watershed is thedeveloped. only river system in Michigan known

to support populations of theRedside Dace, a threatened fishspecies. There are three knownlocations for these cyprinids withinthe watershed. Rapid developmentwithin the headwaters may furtherstress the remaining populations.Based on a 1986 fish andmacroinvertebrate survey, it wasconcluded that the Rouge Riverremains degraded from its headwatersto its confluence with the DetroitRiver.

Contact person: E. Hay-Chmielewski, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Livonia,MI.

47

23. ROUGE RIVER


Status

Although the Rouge River Basin is Much of the Rouge River Watershed isseverely degraded, severalopportunities exist for working

severely degraded and little fisheryimprovement can be made until water

toward a significant sports fishery quality and habitat degradation isin the system. Interim goals rectified. Flow rates within theinclude: Rouge River Basin are subject to* development of low flow wide fluctuation, ranging from

augmentation to sustain a viable almost zero during summer months offishery (e.g. logjam removal, low precipitation to flooderosion prevention, construction conditions after only moderateof retention basins to alleviate rainfalls. Spring runoff alsoserious flooding); produces flooding. Since 1986,

* reduction of human waste logjams and debris have annuallycontamination through been removed from the river.construction of retention basins Between 1988 and 1991, over $500to store, for later treatment, million in sanitary sewercombined sewer overflow improvements have been made. Thedischarges; City of Southfield has created fish

* protection of headwaters and habitat in a 0.5 km stretch of thetheir attendant wetlands; and Rouge River by constructing six

* reduction in bedload transport of triangular wing dams to create asediment-bound toxic substances sequence of deep pools and shallowand remediation of contaminated riffles.sediment hot spots.

Contact person: E. Hay-Chmielewski, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Livonia,MI.

48

24. RIVER RAISIN

Fish CommunityGoal/Objectives/Targets

Status

Virtually all streams in the River Based on extensive fishery survey inRaisin Basin are classified as 1984, 61 species were reported. Thesecond quality warmwater streams. bluntnose minnow was the mostThis classification reflects past numerous species throughout theproblems with water quality and River Raisin. However, whencurrent heavy sediment load combined disregarding all fish less than 7.6with warm water temperatures in most cm long, the northern hog sucker wastributaries. The relatively low the most numerous. Carp accountedamount of groundwater input and the for 28.3% by weight but only 1.9% byextreme "flashy" character of many number of the total catch.River Raisin tributaries also Estimates of total fish standingdictate a second quality warmwater crop in the River Raisin ranged fromdesignation. It has been recommended 23-129 kg/ha. The River Raisinthat the mainstream of the River mainstream from Adrian to Dundee hadRaisin from Brooklyn to Tecumseh a lower average standing crop ofshould be designated as a top fish and a higher proportion ofquality warmwater stream. This rough fish than the rest of theportion of the river supports river. six fish species were foundsignificant gamefish populations of at every station in the mainstream.smallmouth bass, northern pike, and These were the spotfin shiner, whitepanfish. Water quality in this sucker, northern hog sucker, yellowupstream portion of the river is bullhead, rock bass, and johnnygenerally very good. Target species darter.for management include:

The majority of fishing in the River* smallmouth bass, pike, rock bass, Raisin Basin occurs in the lakes andand other panfish in the upper ponds of the northwestern portion ofsection from the river's origin to the basin. Many of these lakes andTecumseh; impoundments are fished heavily.

The major gamefish species available* channel catfish, walleye, and in these lakes include largemouthpossibly purebred muskellunge in bass, bluegill, black crappie,the middle section from Tecumseh yellow perch, pumpkinseed, northernto Dundee; and pike, and bullheads. Other

significant gamefish available* smallmouth bass in the downstream naturally in some of the lakes or as

section from Tecumseh to Dundee. a result of stocking programsinclude smallmouth bass, rock bass,tiger muskellunge, northernmuskellunge, redear sunfish, rainbowtrout, and walleye.

Contact person: K. Dodge, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Jackson, MI.

49

24. RIVER RAISIN


Status

The current management goal iS to The upper river is characterized byprovide suitable habitat to support permeable soils. The stream gradienta warmwater fishery as defined is relatively high and flow isbelow: fairly swift. The stream bed is

firm in most areas; and the bottom* smallmouth bass, pike, rock bass, is composed of sand, gravel, rock,

and other panfish in the upper and lesser amounts of silt. Fishsection from the river's origin to cover is adequate, although someTecumseh; stream sections could benefit from

more cover and pool habitat.* channel catfish, walleye, and Problems include excessive waterpossibly purebred muskellunge in withdrawal for irrigation and thethe middle section from Tecumseh presence of dams in several primeto Dundee: and habitat high-gradient areas.

* smallmouth bass in the downstream The middle section of the riversection from Tecumseh to Dundee mainstream has been adversely

affected by pollution and heavyMore specific fish habitat sedimentation. The soil is lessobjectives or targets have yet to be permeable and contains a higherdeveloped. percentage of clay than soils in the

upper watershed. Stream gradient islow in the Tecumseh to Dundeeportion and flow is sluggish. Thestream bed remains relatively firm;but the bottom is comprised mainlyof sand, silt, and clay with alesser amount of gravel. Majorobstacles include frequent highturbidity and other impacts causedby agricultural nonpoint pollution.Other problems include major logjamswhich discourage public use and addto the sediment load, and theextreme low gradient which favorsrough fish at the expense ofsmallmouth bass and other gamefish.

The lower river from Dundee to LakeErie is characterized by relativelyimpermeable soils. The topographyis generally flat. The stream bedis firm in almost all areas; and iscomprised of rock, cobble, sand, andlimestone bedrock. Fish cover is alimiting factor. The major fishmanagement problem in the lowerriver is the Detroit Edison PowerPlant intake which prevents upstreammigration of fish. other problemsinclude wetland loss, lack ofgamefish cover, limited accessbetween Dundee and Ida-Maybee Road,and PCB-contaminated sediments.

Contact person: K. Dodge, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Jackson, MI.

50

25. MAUMEE RIVER


Status

Most of the Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio are Based on 1986 fishdesignated by the State of Ohio for protection community data, IBI valuesof warmwater habitat. for stations at riverAttainment/nonattainment of aquatic life uses kilometer 0.2, 1.1, 2.2,in warmwater habitat is determined by using a 5.8, 11.8, 21.9 and 23.7number of biological community performance were 19, 22, 27, 23, 23,measures. For the fish community these 25, and 30, respectively.include the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) MIwb values for stationsand the Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb). at river kilometer 0.2,IBI incorporates 12 fish community metrics 1.1, 2.2, 5.8, 11.8, 21.9within three broad categories (species and 23.7 were 4.4, 5.9,richness and composition; trophic composition; 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1, andand fish abundance and condition). The value 7.9, respectively. Theseof each metric is compared to the value data suggest that, inexpected at a reference site located in a general, there issimilar ecoregion where human influence has nonattainment of thebeen minimal. IBI incorporates some elements interim goals forof professional judgement, but primarily warmwater habitat uses inprovides for a quantitative analysis for the lower 21 km of thedetermining what is exceptional, good, fair, Maumee River. The datapoor, and very poor based on established presented above are basedcriteria. MIwb incorporates four measures of on 64 samples collectedfish communities that have traditionally been over 22 hours of effort.used separately; numbers of individuals, A total of 47 species (13%biomass, Shannon Diversity Index based on exotic) and 9,709numbers, and Shannon Diversity Index based on individuals (7% exotic)weight. Interim Lake Erie estuary goals for were collected. DominantIBI and MIwb are 2 32 and 7.5, respectively. species by number were:

gizzard shad (4,758);emerald shiner (1,431);white perch (691); carp(504); and spottail shiner(326).

Contact persons: R.Columbus, OH.

Thoma and E. Rankin, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,

51

25. MAUMEE RIVER


Most of the Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio aredesignated by the State of Ohio for protectionof warmwater habitat. Currently, assessmentof macro-habitat quality is performed usingthe Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index(QHEI). This index is designed to provide ameasure of lotic habitat that generallycorresponds to those physical factors thataffect fish communities and which aregenerally important to other aquatic life suchas invertebrates. The QHEI is based on sixinterrelated metrics: substrate, instreamcover, channel morphology, riparian and bankcondition, pool and riffle quality, andgradient. These metrics describe attributesof physical habitat that may be important inexplaining the species presence, absence, andcomposition of fish communities in a stream.The index will be modified in the future forLake Erie nearshore areas, harbors, and bays.QHEI scores of < 45 are usually associatedwith streams that do not attain warmwaterhabitat uses because habitat modifications aregenerally severe and widespread. QHEI scoresof > 60 usually do achieve warmwater habitatuses because the effects of streammodification are usually not severe and manynatural characteristics of the stream stillexist. Intermediate QHEI scores of 46-60 mayor may not achieve warmwater habitat usesdepending on what habitat characteristicsappear to be limiting aquatic life. For theintermediate QHEI scores of 46-60, otherinformation such as biological data should beevaluated.

Status

Based on 1986 physicalhabitat data, QHEI scoresfor stations at riverkilometer 0.2, 1.1, 2.2,5.8, 11.8, 21.9, and 23.7were 49, 58, 67, 61, 64,62, and 71, respectively.Based on these and otherbiological data, Ohio EPAhas concluded thatwarmwater habitat uses atmost of the stationssampled cannot be attainedbecause of severe habitatmodification.

Contact persons: R. Thoma and E. Rankin, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,Columbus, OH.

52

26. BLACK RIVER


Status

Most of the Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio are Based on 1982 fishdesignated by the State of Ohio for protection community data, IBI valuesof warmwater habitat. for stations at riverAttainment/nonattainment of aquatic life uses kilometer 1.4, 4.3, 5.3,in warmwater habitat is determined by using a 7.7, and 9.3 were 29, 22,number of biological community performance 23, 27, and 20,measures. For the fish community these respectively. MIwb valuesinclude the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for stations at riverand the Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb). kilometer 1.4, 4.3, 5.3,IBI incorporates 12 fish community metrics 7.7, and 9.3 were 6.7,within three broad categories (species 5.9, 5.7, 5.3, and 3.7,richness and composition; trophic composition; respectively. These dataand fish abundance and condition). The value suggest that there isof each metric is compared to the value nonattainment of theexpected at a reference site located in a interim goals forsimilar ecoregion where human influence has warmwater habitat uses atbeen minimal. IBI incorporates some elements the lower 8 km of theof professional judgement, but primarily Black River. The dataprovides for a quantitative analysis for presented above are baseddetermining what is exceptional, good, fair, on 34 samples collectedpoor, and very poor based on established over 180 hours of effort.criteria. MIwb incorporates four measures of A total of 41 species (17%fish communities that have traditionally been exotic) and 9,465used separately; numbers of individuals, individuals (7% exotic)biomass, Shannon Diversity Index based on were collected. Dominantnumbers, and Shannon Diversity Index based on species by number were:weight. Interim Lake Erie estuary goals for gizzard shad (6,818);IBI and MIwb are 1 32 and 7.5, respectively. emerald shiner (1,089);

goldfish (261); carp(244); and white bass(228).


53

26. BLACK RIVER


Status

Most of the Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio are Based on 1989 physicaldesignated by the State of Ohio for protection habitat data, QHEI scoresof warmwater habitat. Currently, assessment for stations at riverof macro-habitat quality is performed using kilometer 7.7 and 9.3 werethe Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index 61 and 68, respectively.(Q=I) l This index is designed to provide a These data suggest thatmeasure of lotic habitat that generally physical habitatcorresponds to those physical factors that modification at these twoaffect fish communities and which are stations is not a factorgenerally important to other aquatic life such impacting the fishery.as invertebrates. The QHEI is based on sixinterrelated metrics: substrate, instreamcover, channel morphology, riparian and bankcondition, pool and riffle quality, andgradient. These metrics describe attributesof physical habitat that may be important inexplaining the species presence, absence, andcomposition of fish communities in a stream.The index will be modified in the future forLake Erie nearshore areas, harbors, and bays.QHEI scores of < 45 are usually associatedwith streams that do not attain warmwaterhabitat uses because habitat modifications aregenerally severe and widespread. QHEI scoresof > 60 usually do achieve warmwater habitatuses because the effects of streammodification are usually not severe and manynatural characteristics of the stream stillexist. Intermediate QHEI scores of 46-60 mayor may not achieve warmwater habitat usesdepending on what habitat characteristicsappear to be limiting aquatic life. For theintermediate QHEI scores of 46-60, otherinformation such as biological data should beevaluated.


54

27. CUYAHOGA RIVER

Fish COmmUnityGoals/Objectives/Targets

Status

Most of the Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio are Based on 1984-1988 fishdesignated by the State of ohio for protection community data, IBI valuesof warmwater habitat. for stations at riverAttainment/nonattainment of aquatic life uses kilometer 1.3, 2.4, 5.4,in warmwater habitat is determined by using a and 8.2 were 12, 17, 14,number of biological community performance and 14, respectively.measures. For the fish community these MIwb values for stationsinclude the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) at river kilometer 1.3,and the Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb). 2.4, 5.4, and 8.2 wereIBI incorporates 12 fish community metrics 4.7, 3.8, 3.4, and 4.1,within three broad categories (species respectively. These datarichness and composition; trophic composition; suggest that there isand fish abundance and condition). The value nonattainment of theof each metric is compared to the value interim goals forexpected at a reference site located in a warmwater habitat uses atsimilar ecoregion where human influence has the lower 8 km of thebeen minimal. IBI incorporates some elements Cuyahoga River. The dataof professional judgement, but primarily presented above are basedprovides for a quantitative analysis for on 54 samples collecteddetermining what is exceptional, good, fair, over 17.7 hours of effort.poor, and very poor based on established A total of 26 species (19%criteria. MIwb incorporates four measures of exotic) and 4,068fish communities that have traditionally been individuals (22% exotic)used separately; numbers of individuals, were collected. Dominantbiomass, Shannon Diversity Index based on species by number were:numbers, and Shannon Diversity Index based on gizzard shad (2,712); carpweight. Interim Lake Erie estuary goals for (325); white perch (321):IBI and MIwb are 2 32 and 7.5, respectively. emerald shiner (238); and

goldfish (151).


55

27. CUYAHOGA RIVER


Status

Most of the Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio are Based on 1988 physicaldesignated by the State of Ohio for protection habitat data, QHEI scoresof warmwater habitat. Currently, assessment for stations at riverof macro-habitat quality is performed using kilometer 1.3, 2.4, 5.4,the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index(QHEI). This index is designed to provide a

and 8.2 were 32, 43, 32,and 30, respectively.

measure of lotic habitat that generally Based on these and othercorresponds to those physical factors that biological data, Ohio EPAaffect fish communities and which are has concluded that suggestgenerally important to other aquatic life such that warmwater habitatas invertebrates. The QHFI is based on six uses at the lower 5interrelated metrics: substrate, instream stations cannot becover, channel morphology, riparian and bank attained because of severecondition, pool and riffle quality, and habitat modification.gradient. These metrics describe attributesof physical habitat that may be important inexplaining the species presence, absence, andcomposition of fish communities in a stream.The index will be modified in the future forLake Erie nearshore areas, harbors, and bays.QHEI scores of < 45 are usually associatedwith streams that do not attain warmwaterhabitat uses because habitat modifications aregenerally severe and widespread. QHEI scoresof > 60 usually do achieve warmwater habitatuses because the effects of streammodification are usually not severe and manynatural characteristics of the stream stillexist. Intermediate QBEI scores of 46-60 mayor may not achieve warmwater habitat usesdepending on what habitat characteristicsappear to be limiting aquatic life. For theintermediate QHEI scores of 46-60, otherinformation such as biological data should beevaluated.


56

28. ASHTABULA RIVER


Status

Most of the Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio are Based on 1989 fishdesignated by the State of Ohio for protection community data, IBI valuesof warmwater habitat. for stations at riverAttainment/nonattainment of aquatic life uses kilometer 0.8, 2.1, andin warmwater habitat is determined by using a 2.9 were 13, 26, and 32,number of biological community performance respectively. MIwb valuesmeasures. For the fish community these for stations at riverinclude the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) kilometer 0.8, 2.1, andand the Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb). 2.9 were 2.8, 5.8, andIBI incorporates 12 fish community metrics 7.7, respectively. Thesewithin three broad categories (species data suggest that there isrichness and composition; trophic composition; nonattainment of theand fish abundance and condition). The value interim goals forof each metric is compared to the value warmwater habitat uses atexpected at a reference site located in a the lower two stationssimilar ecoregion where human influence has (river kilometer 0.8 andbeen minimal. IBI incorporates some elements 2.1) in the Ashtabulaof professional judgement, but primarily River. The data presentedprovides for a quantitative analysis for above are based on 15determining what is exceptional, good, fair, samples collected over 7.7poor, and very poor based on established hours of effort. A totalcriteria. MIwb incorporates four measures of of 33 species (15% exotic)fish communities that have traditionally been and 1,361 individuals (4%used separately; numbers of individuals, exotic) were collected.biomass, Shannon Diversity Index based on Dominant species by numbernumbers, and Shannon Diversity Index based on were: gizzard shad (423);weight. Interim Lake Erie estuary goals for pumpkinseed (214);IBI and MIwb are 1 32 and 7.5, respectively. bluegill (123); brook

silverside (100); andbluntnose minnow (71).


57

28. ASHTABULA RIVER


Status

Most of the Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio are Based on 1989 physicaldesignated by the State of Ohio for protection habitat data, QHEI scoresof warmwater habitat. Currently, assessment for stations at riverof macro-habitat quality is performed using kilometer 0.8, 2.1, andthe Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index 2.9 were 35, 49, and 55,(QHEI). This index is designed to provide a respectively. These datameasure of lotic habitat that generally suggest that the warmwatercorresponds to those physical factors that habitat uses at the loweraffect fish communities and which are station (river kilometergenerally important to other aquatic life such 0.8) cannot be attainedas invertebrates. The QHFI is based on six because of severe habitatinterrelated metrics: substrate, instream modification. In thiscover, channel morphology, riparian and bank case this station at rivercondition, pool and riffle quality, and kilometer 0.8 is locatedgradient. These metrics describe attributes in the shipping channel.of physical habitat that may be important inexplaining the species presence, absence, andcomposition of fish communities in a stream.The index will be modified in the future forLake Erie nearshore areas, harbors, and bays.QHEI scores of < 45 are usually associatedwith streams that do not attain warmwaterhabitat uses because habitat modifications aregenerally severe and widespread. QHEI scoresof > 60 usually do achieve warmwater habitatuses because the effects of streammodification are usually not severe and manynatural characteristics of the stream stillexist. Intermediate QBEI scores of 46-60 mayor may not achieve warmwater habitat usesdepending on what habitat characteristicsappear to be limiting aquatic life. For theintermediate QHEI scores of 46-60, otherinformation such as biological data should beevaluated.


58

29. PRESQUE ISLE BAY


Status

It will be the policy of the This policy continues to be inPennsylvania Fish and Boat effect.commission to protect, conserve, andenhance the quality and diversity ofthe commonwealth's fishery resource(including reptiles and amphibians)and to provide continued and variedangling opportunity throughscientific inventory,classification, and management ofthat resource. To achieve theobjectives of this policy, theCommission shall:

1) Establish and maintain a current The Pennsylvania Fish and Boatdata base on the quality and Commission (PFBC) has establishedquantity of Pennsylvania's aquatic and continues to maintain a databaseand fishery resources for effective which includes: biological (fishenvironmental protection and population statistics), chemicalresource conservation. (basic productivity), physical

(morphometric) and social (angleruse, harvest, and accessibility)data on Presque Isle Bay and allCommonwealth waters subject toCommission management. Twocomprehensive biological/chemical/physical surveys have been completed(1982 and 1987), and onecomprehensive social (angler andboater use and harvest) survey hasbeen completed (1981/82) on PresqueIsle Bay since the implementation ofthis policy. In addition, avolunteer angler catch reportingprogram was initiated on Lake Erieand Presque Isle Bay (1986 -present) to monitor angler catchrates of sport fish species on anannual basis. Future comprehensivesurveys are planned.

2) Develop statewide management Presque Isle Bay, Lake Erie, andprograms to assure consistent their tributaries have been andtreatment of all resources within a continue to be managed differentlygiven class. Similar waters will be than Commonwealth inland waters.managed to meet the same objectives Open seasons, creel limits, and sizeunder the same philosophy on a limits of various fish species instatewide basis. these waters account for their

unique biological charteristics. Inaddition, recent strategic planningefforts to guide the PFBC into thenext century have identified anumber of "resource categories"which are sufficiently homogeneousto be managed similarly. Presque

59

Isle Bay, Lake Erie, and theirtributaries comprise one specificresource category. Concise fisherymanagement goals and objectives arecurrently being formulated for thisresource category which includesPresque Isle Bay.

3) Manage self-sustaining fish Within Presque Isle most warm/coolpopulations as a renewable natural water fish species are managed on aresource to preserve and/or conserve self-sustaining basis, exceptionsthat resource and the angling it include northern pike andprovides. muskellunge. In recent years

releases of artificially culturednorthern pike have been canceled dueto high densities of this species inthe Bay resulting from naturallyproduced year classes. Muskellungenatural reproduction appears to beminimal, consequently artificiallycultured muskellunge fingerlings arereleased annually or bi-annually bythe PFBC for a fishery.

4) Use hatchery fish to provide Recreational fisheries for tworecreation in those waters where exotic species, coho salmon andfish populations are inadequate to steelhead trout, have been developedsustain the fishery at desired by release of approximately 400,000levels. (combined) artificially cultured

fingerling into Presque Isle Bayannually. In addition, as wasnoted, artificially culturedfingerling muskellunge andnorthern pike are managed on a put-grow-take basis to provide a trophycomponent to the Presque Isle Bay'fishery.

5) Develop appropriate regulations Presque Isle Bay, Lake Erieand operational strategies to (Pennsylvania waters) and theirreplace policies that are not tributaries are considered a uniquecompatible with management through "resource category" withinresource classification. Pennsylvania, consequently these

waters are managed uniquely wherewarranted. Although many fishingregulations (season limits, sizelimits, and creek limits) aresimilar to Commonwealth inlandwaters, Presque Isle Bay regulationsdiffer substantially from inlandwaters in some instances.

Contact person: R. Lorantas, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte,PA.

60

29. PRESQUE ISLE BAY


Status

It will be the policy of the This policy continues to be inPennsylvania Fish and Boat effect.commission to protect, conserve, andenhance the quality and diversity ofthe Commonwealth's fishery resource(including reptiles and amphibians)and to provide continued and variedangling opportunity throughscientific inventory,classification, and management ofthat resource. To achieve theobjectives of this policy, thecommission shall:

1) Establish and maintain a current As previously noted this data basedata base on the quality and has been established and isquantity of Pennsylvania's aquatic continuously updated.and fishery resources for effectiveenvironmental protection andresource conservation.

2) Develop statewide management A regulatory agency within theprograms to assure consistent Commonwealth, the Department oftreatment of all resources within a Environmental Resources (DER),given class. Similar waters will be assigns and maintains water qualitymanaged to meet the same objectives designations or standards for allunder the same philosophy on a Commonwealth waters, includingstatewide basis. Presque Isle Bay. Discharges or

development activities that would3) Manage self-sustaining fish negatively impact the water qualitypopulations as a renewable natural designation would not be permitted.resource to preserve and/or conserve Along with DER, the PFBC is involvedthat resource and the angling it in their permit review process, andprovides. it is the policy of the PFBC to

advance and seek, where supported bythe current data base, the highestDER water quality designation forwaters of the Commonwealth. PresqueIsle Bay is designated as a warm-water fishery. This designationcalls for the maintenance andpropagation of fish species andadditional flora and fauna which areindigenous to a warm water habitat.In 1985 the PFBC biologistresponsible for field surveys onPresque Isle Bay had reviewed ErieCounty Department of Health's (ECDH)report on pollutants in Presque IsleBay and Lake Erie. That reportfound that point source pollution of"highly contaminated" areas was notsufficiently delineated to allow forclean-up. The biologist expressedconcern and noted that although the

61

4) Use hatchery fish to providerecreation in those waters wherefish populations are inadequate tosustain the fishery at desiredlevels.

5) Develop appropriate regulationsand operational strategies toreplace policies that are notcompatible with management throughresource classification.

abundance of quality size sport fishwas very good in recent biologicalsurveys, characteristics forindividual fish suggested problems.Red spot (a bacterial disease offishes particularly esocids), black"unnatural pigment spots" onlargemouth bass, and brown bullheadswith "unnatural pigment sports" andsores on their mouths wererelatively frequently observedduring spring surveys and suggestedthat some pollution problem mayexist. In an effort to determine thecause of some of these anomalies,particularly those observed on brownbullheads, the PFBC EnvironmentalServices office is supplyingmanpower to a study being conductedjointly by DER, Erie County Dept. ofHealth, and the PFBC to ascertainthe cause of the anomalies onbullheads in Presque Isle Bay andouter Erie Harbor. Field andlaboratory data collection for thestudy is underway.

Muskellunge and northern pike aretwo species indigenous to PresqueIsle Bay whose natural populationsare supplemented with artificiallycultured fish produced by the PFBC.In the case of northern pike,naturally produced year classes makereleases of cultured fishunnecessary in some years. Naturalrecruitment of muskellunge appearsminimal, the cause for lack ofrecruitment could be habitatrelated, however, a cause-effectrelation has not been conclusivelyestablished. As previously notedmuskellunge are managed on a put-grow take basis.

Presque Isle Bay, Lake Erie(Pennsylvania Waters) and theirtributaries are considered a unique"resource category" withinPennsylvania, consequently thesewaters are managed uniquely.

Contact person: R. Lorantas, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte,PA.

62

30. WHEATLEY HARBOUR


Status

Under the auspices of the Joint It is not possible to determine thestrategic Plan for the Management of degree of degradation of the fish,Great Lakes Fisheries, the following community because there is a lack ofdraft fish community goal has been historical data against which theset for Wheatley Harbour: to ensure current fish community can bea fish community based on a compared. It known, however, thatfoundation of stable, self- at least two introduced species ofsustaining stocks and provide from fish are relatively abundant in thethat community an optimum fish community (i.e. carp and whitecontribution of fish, fishing perch). The presence of theseopportunities, and associated species is not believed to have beenbenefits to meet societal needs. beneficial to the native fish

community.Due to a lack of data, quantifiableobjectives cannot be developed atthis time. However, some generalobjectives include: maintainingself-sustaining populations offorage species at levels adequate tosustain predator populations and toallow utilization as bait fish; andmanaging rare and endangered speciesto ensure that no native speciesdisappear from the system.

Management priority for fish speciesis as follows: 1) rare andendangered species, 2) foragespecies, 3) yellow perch, 4)panfish, 5) bullheads, and 6)smallmouth bass.

Contact person: H.Ontario.

Manson, Ontario M i n i s t r y of Natural Resources, Wheatley,

63

30. WHEATLEY HARBOUR


Under the auspices of the Jointstrategic Plan for the Management ofGreat Lakes Fisheries, the followingdraft fish habitat objective hasbeen recommended for WheatleyHarbour: ensure no net loss of theproductive capacity of habitatssupporting the fish community in thewetland portion of Wheatley Harbour.It is unrealistic to attempt torestore substrate or shorelinehabitat in the boat-basin portion ofWheatley Harbour. However, througheducation and/or regulation it isrealistic to attempt to prevent thedegradation of water quality fromthe discharge of vessel bilge orwastewater to Wheatley Harbour.

-

Status

LOSS of habitat has resulted frominfilling of the marsh, shoreline,hardening, and harbor dredging. Atleast one introduced fish species(i.e. carp), which is seasonallyvery abundant in the wetland portionof Wheatley Harbour, has probablybeen responsible for the destructionof rooted vegetation and increasedturbidity.

Contact person: H. Manson, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wheatley,Ontario.

64

31. BUFFALO RIVER

Fish CommunityCoals/objectives/Target

Status

The overall fisheries management Substantial improvements in thegoal is to protect, restore, and Buffalo River fishery have occurredenhance the Buffalo River fish since a 1928 New York Statestocks, their environment, and the conservation Department Survey foundforage base, and manage the no fish in the lower river. Thefisheries resources to optimize most recent data available fromrecreational and economic benefits. 1981-1982 indicated that over 20Fisheries management in the near fish species were observed in theterm is directed to: maintaining and river during spring, summer, andenhancing, where possible, a diverse fall. Carp, white suckers, andmix of sport fish species to support shiners dominated the communitya year-round fishery; maximizing throughout the spring and intoreproduction potential for summer, but bullheads, gizzard shad,warmwater/cool water species and pumpkinseed became moreutilizing the lower river/harbor important as summer progressed.area; and maximizing reproduction During late summer and early fall,potential for forage fish species carp, pumpkinseed, and gizzard shad@e(if;pottail shiner, gizzard shad, dominated. Fish numbers declined

emerald shiner) utilizingthe ri&r/harbor area.

sharply as water temperatures felland fish movement declined in fall.During 1981, the percent of speciestolerant of environmentally-degradedconditions (i.e. brown bullhead,carp, goldfish, and carp-goldfish)ranged from 7-45% in the harbor and15-58% in the river. In recentyears, a number of gamefish specieshave been collected in the BuffaloRiver, including largemouth bass,smallmouth bass, northern pike,muskellunge, walleye, and rainbowtrout.

Contact person:Olean, NY.

S. Mooradian, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,

65

31. BUFFALO RIVER


Status

The overall goal is to improve fish Habitat loss impairs the Buffalohabitat in the river. Short-term River fishery. The lower river isobjectives include carrying out an heavily bulkheaded to facilitateassessment of habitat conditions and docking, loading, and unloading ofthe potential for improvement in the freighters. The river is usuallyArea of concern (i.e. identifying dredged annually for navigationaltarget species for management and purposes. The combination ofdeveloping management objectives and dredging and bulkheading hasstrategies for achieving substantially reduced fish habitatobjectives), and developing a by eliminating many productivehabitat improvement plan (i.e. shallow waters and wetlands. Otherdevelop strategies for remediating habitat-related factors adverselywater quality impacts and improving affecting the fishery include: lowphysical habitat). dissolved oxygen levels; high

turbidity; elevated siltation; andtoxic substances contamination.

Contact person: S. Mooradian, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,Olean, NY.

66

32. EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK


Status

The overall fisheries management - The fishery in the lower reaches ofgoal is to protect, restore, and Eighteen Mile Creek is diverse andenhance the Eighteen Mile Creek fish provides substantial recreationalstocks, their environment, and the and economic benefits. Recentforage base, and manage the monitoring in June 1989 found 25fisheries resources to optimize species present. A comparison ofrecreational and economic benefits. relative abundance found two speciesFisheries management in the near abundant (i.e. alewife and gizzardterm is directed to: maintaining and shad), 14 species common (i.e.enhancing, where possible, a diverse rainbow and brown trout, two shinermix of sport fish species to support species, two sucker species, carp,a year-round fishery; maximizing brown bullhead, two sunfish species,reproduction potential for smallmouth and largemouth bass,warmwater/cool water species freshwater drum, American eel), andutilizing the lower river/harbor nine species rare (i.e. walleye,area; and maximizing reproduction black crappie, rock bass, whitepotential for forage fish species. bass, white perch, northern pike,

muskellunge, long nose gar,goldfish).In addition, stocking of salmon andtrout during 1991 in the EighteenMile Creek/Olcott Area included:25,500 coho salmon, 189,000 chinooksalmon, 20,600 brown trout, 10,200rainbow trout, and 124,180 laketrout.

Contact person: S. Mooradian, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,olean, NY.

67

32. EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK


Status

Different habitat goals exist for In the lower reach of Eighteen Milethe two distinct reaches of Eighteen Creek the combination ofMile creek. For the lower 300 m recreational shoreline development,reach which is highly developed with dredging for navigational purposes,public and private boat and contaminated sediments haslaunching/docking facilities, the resulted in loss of fish habitat.goal is to enhance habitat where However, the extent of habitat losspossible (e.g. remediate has not been quantified. In thecontaminated sediment areas), while upper reach (i.e. from Route 18supporting multiple uses (e.g.public access for recreation,

Bridge to Burt Dam)! there continuesto be outstanding fish habitat as

dredging for navigational purposes). evidenced by NYSDEC's Class IThe upper reach is from the Route 18 Wetland designation.Bridge to Burt Dam and is primarilyundeveloped shoreline with highquality wetlands. These upper reachwetlands have been designated asClass I Wetlands by NYSDEC, thehighest rank based on wetlandfunction and benefits. The goal forthis upper reach is to providespecial protection in order topreserve these habitats and allow nonew development.


68

33. ROCHESTER EMBAYMENT


Status

The overall fishery management goal The fish community of the loweris to protect, restore, and enhance Genesee River exhibits low speciesfish stocks, their environment, and diversity. This is attributed toforage base, and manage fishery heavy sediment loads from the upperresources to optimize recreational watershed. High sedimentation andand economic benefits. Specific turbidity can restrict developmentgoals include: of the fish community by affecting* In Irondequoit Bay, water quality growth and interfering with the

will be such that angling will be hatching and survival of young fish.possible for a wide range of cold Siltation causes clogging of gillsand warmwater species; of larvae as well as adult fish, and

* Irondequoit, Allen, and Thomas can suffocate developing eggs. AllCreeks will: support a wide of these factors can restrictvariety of cold and warmwater propagation of a local fishspecies, except for those population. As a result, the fishsegments with unavoidable that inhabit the Genesee Riverphysical limitations; and be downstream of Upper Falls appear tomanaged in order to achieve and be restricted to those able tomaintain the standards for Class tolerate high turbidity. During theB waters as set forth by NYSDEC 1980s, 14 species were common in thesuch that trout fishing will not lower river (carp, goldfish, gizzardbe impaired; shad, white sucker, white perch,

* Rochester Embayment will: brown bullhead, white bass, spottailmaintain and enhance a diverse shiner, alewife, northern pike,fish community; support self- walleye, river redhorse, goldensustaining populations of walleye shiner, and rock bass).and Atlantic salmon; havesufficient protectivelegislation, policies, andenabling powers for appropriateagencies in order to maintain andenhance a diverse and self-sustaining fishery; maintaintrophic relationships to minimizefish dieoffs and fouled beaches;and have no negative impact fromcontaminated sediments in thelower Genesee River on waterquality, fish, and other biota.

Contact person: B. Abraham, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,Avon, NY.

69

33. ROCHESTER EMBAYMENT


Status

It is the primary goal to ensure Loss of fish habitat is recognizedthat water and shore habitats within in the Area of Concern due to aRochester Embayment support thriving number of human activities. Majorfish populations. Specific activities include: shorelineobjectives include: development, high sedimentation* maintenance of all present water loads from the upper watershed,

and shore habitats which are dredging for navigational purposes,critical to aquatic and and contaminated sediments.terrestrial organisms; Although the loss of fish habitat is

* prohibition of discharges into well recognized, it has not beenthe Rochester Embayment which quantified.adversely affect aquatichabitats; and

* support for public educationprograms which focus upon theimportance of wetlands and otherhabitats necessary to supportfish populations.

Contact person: B. Abraham, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,Avon, NY.

70

34. OSWEGO RIVER/HARBOR

Fish communityCoals/Objectives/Targets

Status

The overall fisheries management Historically, the Oswego River hasgoal is to protect, restore, and had the largest run of Atlanticenhance the Oswego River fish salmon in the Lake Ontario basin.stocks, their environment, and the The Oswego River continues to be anforage base, and manage the outstanding salmonid fishery.fisheries resources to optimize Annual salmonid stocking in therecreational and economic benefits. river and harbor during the 1980sFisheries management planning for was approximately 250,000 chinook,the near term is directed to: 25,000 coho, 15,000 steelhead,maintaining and enhancing, where 36,000 brown trout, and 18,000possible, a diverse mix of sport Skamania steelhead. In addition,fish species to support a year-round the remaining portion of the fisheryfishery; maximizing reproduction is usually rich, with seasonallypotential for warmwater/cool water high abundance and diversity. Basedspecies utilizing the lower on the most recent electrofishingriver/harbor area; and maximizing data from 1981, catch per hour inreproduction potential for forage the harbor during July was 20fish species (e.g. smelt, alewife) walleye, 4 northern pike, 6 yellowutilizing the river/harbor area. perch, 4 pumpkinseed, 2 white perch,

2 rock bass, 6 white sucker, 2redhorse sucker, 2 carp, 4 Americaneel, 12 gizzard shad, 10 alewife, 4spottail shiners, and 2 freshwaterdrum. The walleye fishery isconsidered outstanding when comparedto similar systems in New York.High size limits on walleye and bassare also maintained to guaranteefish spawning once.

Contact person: L. Wedge, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,Cortland, WY.

71


Status

LOSS of fish habitat is the resultof urban development. Fish habitatenhancement goals in the near-terminclude:* Provide access to upriver areas NYSDEC is working with Niagara

for reproduction/residence of Mohawk and other hydroelectricnative species (e.g. lake utilities to explore the feasibilitysturgeon, Atlantic salmon, of allowing restricted fish passagewalleye, American eel) and at Oswego River facilities.provide downstream passage; Estimated completion: 1995.

* Provide minimum flow in Varick NYSDEC is working with Niagarabypass so that the entire channel Mohawk to resolve this problem aswill be used for production of part of the Federal Energyfish and invertebrates; provide Regulatory commission relicensingminimum flow in Varick tailrace process. Estimated completion:to prevent oxygen depletion: 1995.alter Varick bypass channel toprevent stranding of fish due tosudden flow reduction (thechannel must be configured toprevent oxygen depletion andillegal angling activity); and

* Substantially reduce hazards to Involvement in the Oswego Riveranglers who fish in the Varick Safety Task Force and negotiationsbypass reach. with the power company have resulted

in: 1) a warning siren soundedbefore water is spilled or flowsincreased in the bypass reach; 2)steel posts set in bedrock along theedge of the excavated tailraceindicating danger to anglers; and 3)a walkway across the face of theVarick Powerhouse connects theforebay island with the west sidelinear park. Previously, a suddenrelease of water would result inanglers being stranded on theisland, requiring rescue.

Contact person: L. Wedge, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,Cortland, NY.

72

35. BAY OF QUINTE


Status

The overall goal pertaining to the Significant changes in compositionfish community is to re-establish and abundance of the fish communityand maintain aquatic, shoreline, and have occurred in recent decades.wildlife habitat conditions and Reductions in walleye, lakesites within Bay of Quinte ecosystem whitefish, and several centrarchidscapable of supporting healthy, during the 1950s and 1960s have beendiverse, stable, and self-sustaining linked to the white perch invasionaquatic and terrestrial communities. and increasing eutrophication.

Stocks of alewife and white perchwere especially abundant during the1960s and up to 1978, while northernpike, bowfin, longnose gar, andwalleye were at near record lows.Eutrophication impaired theproduction of piscivorous fish inthe Bay while enhancing theproduction of smaller-bodiedplanktivores and benthivores. Therewas a resurgence of walleye and acollapse of white perch beginning in1977 which-was coincident withreduction in phosphorus inputs fromsewage treatment plants and severewinters in 1977 and 1978. Today,the fishable walleye population isestimated at 700,000. Alewife havedeclined in the upper bay, butdecreased in the middle and lowerbays only in the late 1980s (i.e. inresponse to walleye predation andintraspecific competition). Walleyeare now at the lowest numbers seensince the 1960s.

Contact person:Ontario.

A. Mathers, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Picton,

73

35. BAY OF QUINTE


The overall goal is to re-establishand maintain aquatic, shoreline, andwildlife habitat conditions andsites within the Bay of Quinteecosystem capable of supportinghealthy, diverse, stable, and self-sustaining aquatic and terrestrialcommunities. General objectivesinclude:* To support, promote, and

encourage all feasible actions torestore damaged aquatic shorelinehabitats in the Bay of Quintewatershed.

* To limit the use of artificialhabitat enhancement measures tosituations where it is necessaryto offset habitat damage causedby irreversible past destruction;and to protect and conserveremaining aquatic habitats byapplying the "no net loss" ofhabitat principle to all urban,rural, agricultural, andshoreline development orredevelopment.

Specific objectives include:* Selective harvesting of fish to

alter composition of the fishcommunity.

Status

Reforestation and streamrehabilitation projects have beensponsored by the local conservationauthorities and Ontario MNR.Ontario Ministry of Agriculture andFood initiated erosion controlprograms. Stream cleanup andrestoration projects have beenundertaken be agriculturalassociates, local environmentalgroups, and citizens. See alsosection below on developing channelsin cattail marshes.

All shoreline works require a permitunder Ontario's Public Lands Act.Ontario MNR staff are able to reviewall work plans to ensure "no netloss" of fish habitat and, ifpossible, achieve net gains.

Theoretical only at this time.

74

* constructing artificial shoals to No artificial shoals have beenestablish spawning and nursery constructed to date.areas.

* Developing interconnecting Marsh restoration was accomplishedchannels and ponds through solid at Pine Point. The total gain ofcattail marshes to create open wetland and productive habitat forwater areas, additional edge, fish, wildlife, and various plantmigration routes, and spawning, species was greater than fiveresting, and nursery habitat. hectares. Habitat compensation

agreements under the Fisheries Actallowed channels to be created inthe Sawquin Creek wetland and thusenhancing both fish and wildlifehabitats. The Great Lakes CleanupFund has agreed to fund a projectwhich will protect habitats over thenext three years.

Contact person: A. Mathers, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Picton,Ontario.

75

36. PORT HOPE HARBOUR

Fish communityGoals/Objectives/Targets

Status

The Stage 1 Port Hope Harbour . Fish population densities andRemedial Action Plan concluded that community structure are consideredthere was no evidence of degradation to be typical of similar enclosedof fish populations. No specific small urban harbors on Lake Ontario.fishery goals, objectives, or Local populations of fish speciestargets have been developed for Port such as rainbow, brown, and lakeHope Harbour. trout, as well as Pacific salmon,

use the turning basin. Rainbowtrout are concentrated in the areain the spring and increasing numbersof brown trout, lake trout, andPacific salmon concentrate in thearea in the fall.

Contact person: S. Weston, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario.

76

36. PORT HOPE HARBOUR


Status

The Stage 1 Port Hope HarbourRemedial Action Plan concluded that -

Port Hope Harbour is operative as asmall craft harbor. The Area of

there was no loss of fish or Concern is bounded by concretewildlife habitat attributable to and/or steel retaining walls typicaldischarges to the harbor. No of small harbors.specific habitat goals, objectives,or targets have been developed forthe harbor.

Contact person: S. Weston, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario.

77

37. TORONTO HARBOUR


Status

The goal is to achieve self-sustaining native communities thatmaintain populations suitable forrecreational fishing opportunitiesand provide indicators of ecosystemhealth. Objectives include:* Numerical proportion/biomass of Present piscivores numerical

resident native piscivore proportions are at 1-3%. Currentspecies present within littoral representative biomass offish communities to be increased specialists 10%, generalists 56%,to a minimum of 10-20%, shifting and piscivores 5%.dominance from benthivorestowards greater abundance ofpiscivores. Biomass ofspecialist fishes to be targetedtowards a minimum of 40%,generalists 5 20%, and piscivores2 10-20%.

* Eventually phase out native self-sustenance occurs within thespecies stocking/reintroduction resident littoral fishery. coldprograms in favor of community water migrant fishes (salmonids)self-sustenance in waterfront and continue to be sustained by means ofwatershed habitats when and where put-and-delayed-take stocking.environmental conditions areappropriate.

* Protect genetic resource of the Limited populations remain acrossremnant native fish stocks. the waterfront (largemouth bass,

smallmouth bass, northern pike).

* Rehabilitate formerly abundant Watershed currently unsuitable forfish populations where locally atlantic salmon self-sustenance,depressed or extinct (walleye, although limited populations exist(muskellunge, whitefish, atlantic offshore. Muskellunge populationssalmon). extinct within Toronto area.

Walleye and whitefish stocks in acollapsed state, rarely encountered.

* Reduce or maintain incidence of Occurrence of abnormalities presentindividuals that are diseased or within fish community is currentlyhave tumors or ulcerations unknown.associated with contaminantspresent within waterfront towardsthat which is consideredbackground within the community.Proportion of diseased fishwithin a community is a bio-indicator of ecosystem health.

* Increased proportion of native Present proportion of native speciesspecies towards 100% of total is 83% (present/absent). Biomass isfish community. approximately 50% native.

Contact person: I. Buchanan, Ontario MiniStIZy of Natural Resources, Maple,Ontario.

78

37. TORONTO HARBOUR


Status

The fish habitat goal for TorontoHarbour is that aquatic habitats andtheir fish communities must beprotected, enhanced andrehabilitated, where possible andfeasible, in order to maximizeoverall fish community health. Fishhabitat objectives include:

* Open coast: provide/improve Evidence for successful spawning ashabitat suitable for spawning yet uncertain; shore substratepopulations of salmonids such as suitability not established withlake trout to promote self- regard to location, substrate type,sustenance. water quality limitations; predator

(e.g. smelt) interactions may belimiting; reef creation is beingconsidered.

* Sheltered bays: enhance Water quality may create depressedproductive capacity of areas trophic states, limiting primarysuitable for macrophyte growth by production due to turbidity andre-establishing submergent- sedimentation; rehabilitation mustemergent plant communities proceed concurrent with waterfavorable to northern pike and quality improvements; emergent plantsmallmouth bass spawning, nursery community reestablishment has beenand feeding habitat. initiated on trial basis.

* River mouths and estuaries: same as status for sheltered bays.enhance productive capacity byreestablishing macrophytecommunities, where possible,suitable for largemouth bass andnorthern pike production;establish rubble/rock slopes innon-depositional river areasfavorable to smallmouth bassproduction.

* Protect remaining and created Most wetland areas within thewetlands. Toronto waterfront have been

eliminated by urban development.

* Protect, enhance and rehabilitate Physical and biological linkages notbiotic corridor linkages across well understood.the waterfront.

* Improve watershed characteristics current watersheds contribute(i.e. hydrologic cycle/regime) to significantly to impairment ofminimize degradation impacts upon aquatic habitats within thethe waterfront aquatic habitat. ecosystem.

Contact person: I. Buchanan, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Maple,Ontario.

79

38. HAMILTON HARBOUR


Total biomass of fish in littoralhabitats: 200-250 kg/ha

Native piscivores (northern pike,largemouth bass and others):20-25% of total biomass

Percent of native species: SO-90%

Species richness: 6-7 species persurvey transect

Trophic group targets in littoralhabitats:Piscivores: 40-60 kg/haSpecialists: 70-100 kg/haGeneralists: 30-90 kg/ha

Status

Estimated 1990 biomass: 300 kg/ha

Estimated 1990 percent: 9%

Estimated 1990 percent: 37%

1990 average: 4 species/surveytransect

Estimated 1990 biomass:

17 kg/ha53 kg/ha233 ka/ma

The overall objective is to shift from a fish community indicative of a eutrophicenvironment, such as white perch, alewife, bullheads and carp, to a self-sustaining community more representative of a mesotrophic environment, containingpike, bass, yellow perch and sunfish.

Piscivores include top predators such as northern pike, largemouth bass andsmallmouth bass. Generalists include omnivores such as carp and brown bullheads.Specialists include insectivores and planktivores such as yellow perch,pumpkinseeds and alewife.

The percent of fisheries biomass allocated to the three trophic groups was basedon fish data collected from healthier littoral habitats in the Bay of Quinte andSevern Sound. The littoral fish biomass of 200-250 kg/ha was based onelectrofishing data collected from Hamilton Harbour, Bay of Quinte and SevernSound in 1990.

Contact persons: B. Randall and V. Cairns, Canada Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans,Burlington, Ontario.

80

38. HAMILTON HARBOUR


Increase quantity of emergent andsubmergent aquatic plants inHamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise,Grindstone Creek delta, andGrindstone Creek marshes toapproximately 500 ha in accordancewith the Fish and WildlifeRestoration Projection.

Rehabilitate 344 ha of littoral fishhabitat.

Rehabilitate 39 ha of pike spawningmarsh and nursery habitat.

Provide an additional 10 km oflittoral shore by creating 5 km ofnarrow islands.

Water clarity targets for the summerseason (June to September) asmeasured by Secchi Disc: Harbour -3.0 m; and Cootes Paradise andGrindstone Creek - 1.0 m.

Status

Since 1900, more then 85% of theproductive wetlands have disappearedfrom Hamilton Harbour, CootesParadise and its tributaries.

90 ha of marginal habitat iscurrently present.

Marsh exists but access restricted(restricted access of juvenile fishback to harbor).

Approximately 65% of the littoralhabitat in the harbor has beenirreversibly lost over time due toindustrial development andconstruction of shipping facilities.This project represents a net gainin littoral habitat.

1991 average in harbour: 1.5 m;1991 average in Cootes Paradise:0.3 m.

Contact persons: B. Randall and V. Cairns, Canada Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans,Burlington, Ontario.

81

39. ST. MARYS RIVER

Fish Community StatusGoals/Objectives/Targets (Draft)

The St. Marys watershed shall The sport fishery is generallysupport healthy, diverse, self- healthy, but lake herring and lakesustaining fish communities whitefish in the lower river haveconsistent with sound ecosystem and decreased. Negative impacts to fishbiodiversity management principles. populations include habitat loss,

reduced populations and diversity ofIntroduction of exotics shall benthic fauna and increasing numbersgenerally be avoided. However, fish of sea lamprey.communities will be managed toprovide an optimum contribution offish, fishing opportunities andassociated benefits to meet theneeds identified by society.

Exotic species which now form partof the fish community should not bemanaged to the detriment of nativespecies.


82

39. ST. MARYS RIVER

Fish HabitatGoals/Objectives/Targets (Draft)

critical habitat must be identified,protected and conserved, consistentwith an ecosystem approach. Thegoal is no net loss of criticalhabitat. Efforts shall be made torestore, rehabilitate and enhancehabitat, where required. Efforts toprotect and enchance existingwetlands shall be encouraged.Creation of new wetlands andcritical fish habitat should beencouraged, consistent withmaintaining ecosystem integrity.

-

Status

Contact person: D. Hughes, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Owen sound,Ontario.

'Fish spawning and rearing habitat inboth Michigan and Ontario have beenlost due to construction ofstructures for navigation and powergeneration, as well as from dredgingand filling activities.

83

40. ST. CLAIR RIVER


Status

Under the auspices of the Joint Strategic Overall, the fish community ofPlan for the Management of Great Lakes the system has changedFisheries, the following draft fish significantly during the lastcommunity goal has been set for the St. century due to exploitation byClair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River commercial 'and recreationalSystem: to ensure a percid community with fisheries, extensive shorelinewalleye as the top predator based on a modification, increased humanfoundation of stable self-sustaining activities in the watershed,stocks and provide from that community an and species' introductions.optimum contribution of fish, fishing For example, from 1900 to 1986opportunities, and associated benefits to walleye yields increased frommeet societal needs. Due to lack of 163,000 kg to over 334,000 kg,uniformity in data collection methods yellow perch increased frombetween Michigan and Ontario and data 37,000 kg to over 115,000 kg,gaps, quantifiable objectives cannot be lake sturgeon decreased fromdeveloped at this time. However, some 34,000 kg to 133 kg, lakegeneral objectives include: maintaining herring decreased from 24,000stable, self-sustaining stocks of kg to 0, lake whitefishwalleye; managing muskellunge to provide decreased from 18,000 kg to 0,trophy fishing opportunities; maintaining and while whitebass were notself-sustaining populations of forage recorded in 1900 they had aspecies at a level adequate to sustain yield of 308,000 kg in 1986.predator populations and to allow Based on data collected betweenutilization as bait fish; maintaining 1983 and 1985, estimates ofstable, self-sustaining sturgeon annual harvests from thepopulations at levels to serve as a Michigan waters of the St.potential source of fish for future Clair River were: 57,880 kgrehabilitation efforts; managing rare and walleye; 610 kg smallmouthendangered species in order that no more bass; 1,530 kg white bass; 820species become extinct in the system; and kg yellow perch; 3,240 kgdetermining the impact of stocked freshwater drum; and 290 kgsalmonids on the native fish community. rock bass.Management priority for fishes is asfollows: 1) walleye, 2) yellow perch, 3)smallmouth bass, 4) muskellunge, 5) whitebass, 6) white perch, 7) forage species,8) largemouth bass and panfish, 9)northern pike, 10) channel catfish, 11)sturgeon, 12) Pacific salmon, rainbowtrout, and brown trout, and 13) rare andendangered species.

Contact persons: J. Brisbane, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham,Ontario; and R. Spitler, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Livonia, MI.

84

40. ST. CLAIR RIVER

System:

Achieve no net loss of theproductive capacity of habitatssupporting the fishery; and

declined to 2,022 ha in 1973.Extensive navigation and shorelinemodifications have also contributedto loss of habitat. Additional workis needed to clarify and quantifythe impacts of habitat loss,

Restore the productive capacity of contaminants, eutrophication, andhabitats that have suffered damage. introductions upon fish communities

in the system, and to developrecommendations to mitigate these

Contact persons: J. Brisbane, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham,Ontario; and R. Spitler, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Livonia, MI.

85

41. DETROIT RIVER

Fish communityGoals/Objectives/Targets

Status

Under the auspices of the Joint Strategic overall, the fish community ofPlan for the Management of Great Lakes the system has changedFisheries, the following &aft fish significantly during the lastcommunity goal has been set for the St. century due to exploitation byClair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River commercial and recreationalsystem: to ensure a percid community with fisheries, extensive shorelinewalleye as the top predator based on a modification, increased humanfoundation of stable self-sustaining activities in the watershed,stocks and provide from that community an and introductions. Foroptimum contribution of fish, fishing example, from 1900 to 1986opportunities, and associated benefits to walleye yields increased frommeet societal needs. Due to lack of 163,000 kg to over 334,000 kg,uniformity in data collection methods yellow perch increased frombetween Michigan and Ontario and data 37,000 kg to over 115,000 kg,gaps, quantifiable objectives cannot be lake sturgeon decreased fromdeveloped at this time. However, some 34,000 kg to 133 kg, lakegeneral objectives include: maintaining herring decreased from 24,000stable, self-sustaining stocks of kg to 0, lake whitefishwalleye; managing muskellunge to provide decreased from 18,000 kg to 0,trophy fishing opportunities; maintaining and while whitebass were notself-sustaining populations of forage recorded in 1900 they had aspecies at a level adequate to sustain yield of 308,000 kg in 1986.predator populations and to allow Based on data collected betweenutilization as bait fish: maintaining 1978 and 1985, estimates ofstable, self-sustaining sturgeon annual harvests in the Detroitpopulations at levels to serve as a River were: 106,980 kg walleye;potential source of fish for future 3,690 kg smallmouth bass;rehabilitation efforts; managing rare and 288,570 kg white bass; 14,810endangered species in order that no more kg yellow perch; 29,930 kgspecies become extinct in the system; and freshwater drum; anddetermining the impact of stocked 12,190 kg rock bass.salmonids on the native fish community.Management priority for fishes is asfollows: 1) walleye; 2) yellow perch; 3)smallmouth bass; 4) muskellunge; 5) whitebass; 6) white perch; 7) forage species;8) largemouth bass and panfish; 9)northern pike; 10) channel catfish; 11)sturgeon; 12) Pacific salmon, rainbowtrout, and brown trout; and 13) rare andendangered species.

Contact persons: R. Spitler, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Livonia, MI;and J. Brisbane, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham, Ontario.

86

41. DETROIT RIVER


status

Under the auspices of the Joint - Loss of fish habitat has resultedstrategic Plan for the Management of from marsh draining, water level Great Lakes Fisheries, the following fluctuations, dredging, anddraft fish habitat objectives have deposition of dredged materials.been recommended for the St. Clair For example, wetlands in the systemRiver-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River totalled 7,274 ha in 1873, but hadsystem: declined to 2,022 ha in 1973.

Extensive navigation and shorelineAchieve no net loss of the modifications have also contributedproductive capacity of habitats to loss of habitat. Additional worksupporting the fishery: and is needed to clarify and quantify

the impacts of habitat loss,Restore the productive capacity of contaminants, eutrophication, andhabitats that have suffered damage. introductions upon fish communities

in the system, and to developrecommendations to mitigate theseimpacts.

Contact persons: R. Spitler, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Livonia, MI:and J. Brisbane, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham, Ontario.

87

42. NIAGARA RIVER (New York)


Status

The overall fishery management goal The Niagara River is a veryis to protect, restore, and enhance productive and diverse fishery.the Niagara River fish stocks, the Ninety species have been identifiedforage base, and their environment, in the river and its tributaries.and manage the fishery resources to In 1988, the Niagara River was theoptimize recreational and economic fifth most popular freshwaterbenefits. Fishery management fishery in New York State withplanning in the near term is 525,000 angler days of fishing.directed to: maintaining self-sustaining populations of land- The upper river is a warmwater/coollocked salmon, lake trout, northern water fishery, with an excellentpike, muskellunge, walleye, and smallmouth bass fishery and ansmallmouth bass; stabilizing forage excellent muskellunge fishery.species (e.g. emerald shiner) and Salmon and trout are important inachieving self-sustaining winter-spring. Northern pike andpopulations with utilization for walleye are also important in theoptimal recreational and economic spring.benefits; developing an outstandingwalleye fishery in the lower river; In the lower river during fall-maintaining a trophy muskellunge winter-spring, there is anfishery; protecting sturgeon and outstanding salmon and trout fisheryother endangered species: and (e.g. chinook, steelhead, lakeminimizing impingement and trout). During spring, northernentrainment losses at facilities pike and walleye are important, andwhich withdraw water from the river. during summer, smallmouth bass are

important. Stocking of salmon andtrout in the lower Niagara Riverduring 1991 included: 61,000steelhead; 21,250 coho; 273,000chinook; and 26,700 land-lockedsalmon. Historically, the lakesturgeon population hassubstantially declined riverwide andthe northern pike population isbelieved to be degraded in the upperriver.


88

42. NIAGARA RIVER (New York)


Status

In the near term fish habitat goals A variety of human activities hasfor the Niagara River include: historically resulted in* maintain all existing undeveloped loss/degradation of fish habitat.‘

shorelines; These activities include:* provide special protection to construction of dams and other

twelve areas identified as barriers on tributaries which limitSignificant Coastal Fish and fish migrations; dredging andWildlife Habitats by New York filling of important/critical fishState (i.e. Buckhorn Island - spawning/nursery habitats; diversionGoat Island Rapids, Buckhorn of flows or alteration of waterIsland Wetlands, Buckhorn Island levels; development of riparianTern Colony, Grand Island lands; siltation; channelization ofTributaries, North Buffalo streams; extraction of sand andHarbor, Smoke Creek Shoals, gravel deposits from waterways; andStrawberry Island - Motor Island contamination with toxic substances.Shallows, Tifft Farm Nature The loss of wetlands has beenPreserve, Times Beach Diked substantial, but not quantified.Disposal Site, Small Boat Harbor-Buffalo, Goat Island Rapids,Lower Niagara River Rapids);

* protect and maintain theintegrity of strawberry Island asa critical muskellunge spawninghabitat;

* enhance habitat, where possible,during repair and replacement ofbreakwalls and bulkheads;

* provide additional regulatoryprotection for submerged beds ofaquatic plants (by designatingthese areas as New York StateProtected Wetlands); and

* protect existing fish Habitatduring hazardous waste siteremedial activities.


89

42. NIAGARA RIVER (ONTARIO)


Status

The overall natural resource Current Ontario Ministry of Naturalmanagement goal is to provide a Resources' annual angling harvest.diversity of native animal and plant estimates based on creel censusescommunities within the limits include:imposed by the physical, social, andspiritual needs of the human Number of fish from Lower River:population using sound ecological 28,428principles within sustainable Number of fish from Upper River:environmental management. Proposed 56,894fishery targets include: Number of fish from the Total River:

85,322Predators 2 20 cm: 40 Weight of fish from Lower River:individuals/ha; 60 kg/ha 20,119 kgOther fish 2 20 cm: 200 weight of fish from Upper River:individuals/ha; 70 kg/ha 17,859 kg

Total fish C 20 cm: 29,800 Weight of fish from Total River:individuals/ha; 90 kg/ha 37,978 kg

Total fish community: Mean harvest rate from the Lower30,000 (+ or -) River: 39.4 kg/ha

individuals/ha; 220 kg/ha Mean harvest rate from the UpperRiver: 8.84 kg/haMean harvest rate from the TotalRiver : 15.01 kg/ha

In addition to the angling harvest,the Upper Niagara River supported anaverage commercial bait fish harvestof approximately 105 metric tons peryear between 1980 and 1984. Thelong-term average (1969-1984)commercial bait fish harvest is 117metric tons per year in the UpperNiagara River. The Lower NiagaraRiver commercial bait fish harvestis insignificant compared to theUpper Niagara River.

Contact person: B. Lewies, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fonthill,Ontario.

90

42. NIAGARA RIVER (ONTARIO)


Status

The overall goal is to ensure anintegrated land and water approachto habitat and environmentalmanagement. More specific habitatobjectives or targets will bedeveloped in the future withinwatershed planning activities.

Impacts from development have causedloss/degradation of habitat in allof the Niagara Peninsula'swaterways. Although it is generallyaccepted that the loss of habitat issubstantial, it has not beenquantified. No complete fisheryhabitat inventory exists, althoughthere is a wetland inventory.

Contact person: B. Lewies, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fonthill,Ontario.

91

43. ST. LAWRENCE RIVER (MASSENA,NEW YORK)

Fish CommunityCoals/Objectives/Targets

status

The fisheries management goal for Yellow perch abundance hasthe New York portion of the St. oscillated between 1984 and 1990,Lawrence River (Lake St. Francis) is and the population shows signs ofto maintain a viable, self- overexploitation. Abundance ofsustaining fish community with an northern pike, smallmouth bass, andemphasis on yellow perch, northern walleye has been relatively stablepike, walleye, smallmouth bass, between 1984 and 1990, althoughmuskellunge, and lake sturgeon. sample sizes for smallmouth bass and

walleye have been relatively smallin gill net catches. Anecdotalaccounts suggest that a qualitymuskellunge fishery exists in thetailwaters of the Moses-SaundersPower Dam, however, catches ofmuskellunge over 13.6 kg areuncommon. A populaton of lakesturgeon exists below the Moses-Saunders Power Dam, and recentsampling in an area that producedcatches of sturgeon in the early1970s indicates recent recruitmentto the population.

Contact person: A. Schiavone, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,Watertown, NY.

92

43. ST. LAWRENCE RIVER (MASSENA,NEW YORK)


Status

The goal for fish habitats within Physical impairments to fishthe Area of Concern is to maintain habitats in the Area of Concern havetheir productive capacity and to resulted primarily from damrestore the productive capacity of construction and dredging. Theseimpaired habitats. modifications have restricted

movements of fish and may havedestroyed or altered historicspawning habitats. In addition,contaminated sediments may havecontributed to degradation ofhabitat in localized areas.

Contact person: A. Schiavone, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,Watertown, NY.

93

43. ST. LAWRENCE RIVER( CORNWALL, ONTARIO )


Status

The goal of the Cornwall and Massena Fish community structure probablyRAPS is restore, protect, and shifted as result of Seaway and dammaintain the chemical, physical, and construction. Sturgeon, walleye,biological integrity of the St. muskellunge, and American eel wereLawrence River ecosystem, and, in negatively affected, while yellowparticular, the Akwesasne, Cornwall- perch, bass, and northern pikeLake St. Francis, and Massena Area benefited from these changes.of Concern, in accordance with the Despite heavy fishing pressure andGreat Lakes Water Quality Agreement. habitat loss, the fish communityObjectives related to the fish appears to have reached somecommunity include: stability. The only exception is* Restore the ecosystem in the Area sturgeon, which has continued to

of Concern such that populations decline. Impacts on sturgeon andof flora and fauna, including walleye are probably due to floodinghumans, be robust and self- of historical spawning areas.sustaining in a balanced Exploitation (sport, commercial,community, by: rehabilitating and subsistence) continues to be a majorprotecting required habitats; factor controlling fish populationensuring that the reproduction abundance. Information on otherand health of individuals is not sport fish species does not includeimpaired by toxic and other any recent changes in status of anypotentially hazardous substances significance (1984-1988), however,and effects; and preventing data prior to 1984 were are notadverse impacts resulting from available except for yellow perch.the introduction of non-native Perch populations have fluctuatedspecies. since the mid-1970s, but no trend is

* Increase the enjoyment provided apparent (i.e. no significantby other recreational uses such increase or decrease in size). Theas wildlife viewing, hunting, impact of recent zebra musselsport fishing, etc. by restoring invasion cannot be quantified atthe flora and fauna; improving this early stage. Incrementalthe aesthetics of the river and littoral zone habitat loss due toshore; and maintaining access to shoreline development activities isthese resources. a problem. Impacts of contaminants

on fish are unknown.

Contact person: M. Eckersley, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Cornwall,Ontario.

94

43. ST. LAWRENCE RIVER(CORNWALL, ONTARIO)


Status

The goal of the Cornwall and Massena Construction of the Seaway and damsRAPS is to restore, protect, and has had a major impact on fish andmaintain the chemical, physical, and wildlife habitat in terms ofbiological integrity of the St. physical alteration associated withLawrence River ecosystem, and, in dredging, and change in habitatparticular, the Akwesasne, cornwall- stability due to flooding,Lake St. Francis, and Massena Area stabilization of water levels, andof Concern, in accordance with the stream channel morphometry (whichGreat Lakes Water Quality Agreement. has affected aquatic plant andThe ecosystem health objective wetland communities). Continualrelated to habitat is to restore the shoreline development has affectedecosystem in the Area of Concern both wildlife and nearshore fishsuch that populations of flora and habitats.fauna, including humans, be robustand self-sustaining in a balancedcommunity, by: rehabilitating andprotecting required habitats;ensuring that the reproduction andhealth of individuals is notimpaired by toxic and otherpotentially hazardous substances andeffects; and preventing adverseimpacts resulting from theintroduction of non-native species.

Contact person: M. Eckersley, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Cornwall,Ontario.

95

Documents

A SURVEY OF FISH-COMMUNITY AND HABITAT …