Protocol For Boat Electrofishing In Nearshore Areas Of The Lower ...

Copy and paste this link to your website, so they can see this document directly without any plugins.



Keywords

were, fish, habitat, electrofishing, transect, point, with, Figure, from, boat, data, that, survey, areas, Great, (Table, crew, Lake, water, each, Fisheries, recorded, species, Ontario, sampling, Appendix, Lakes, transects, have, locations

Transcript

Protocol for boat electrofishing in nearshore
areas of the lower Great Lakes: transect and
point survey methods for collecting fish and
habitat data, 1988 to 2002.
C.M. Brousseau, R.G. Randall, and M.G. Clark
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
2005
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 2702
.
Fisheries and Oceans Pêches et Océans
Canada Canada
ii Canadian Manuscript Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Manuscript reports contain scientific and technical information that
contributes to existing knowledge but which deals with national or regional
problems. Distribution is restricted to institutions or individuals located in
particular regions of Canada. However, no restriction is placed on subject
matter, and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, namely fisheries and aquatic sciences.
Manuscript reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation
appears above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in Aquatic
Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts and indexed in the Department’s annual index
to scientific and technical publications.
Numbers 1-900 in this series were issued as Manuscript Reports
(Biological Series) of the Biological Board of Canada, and subsequent to 1937
when the name of the board was changed by Act of Parliament, as Manuscript
Reports (Biological Series) of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Numbers 901-1425 were issued as Manuscript Reports of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Numbers 1426-1550 were issued as Department of
Fisheries and the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Manuscript
Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 1551.
Manuscript reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally.
Request for individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on
the front cover and title page. Out-of-stock reports will be supplied for a fee by
commercial agents.
Rapport manuscrit canadien des
Sciences halieutiques et aquatiques
Les rapports manuscrits contiennent des renseignements scientifiques et
techniques qui constituent une contribution aux connaissances actuelles, mais
qui traitent de problèmes nationaux ou régionaux. La distribution en est limitée
aux organismes et aux personnes de régions particulières du Canada. Il n’y
aucune restriction quant au sujet; de fait, la série reflète la vaste gamme des
intérêts et des politiques du ministère des Pêches et des Océans, c’est-à-dire les
sciences halieutiques et aquatiques.
Les rapports manuscrits peuvent être cités comme des publications
complètes. Le titre exact paraît au-dessus du résumé de chaque rapport. Les
rapports techniques sont résumés dans la revue Résumés des sciences
aquatiques et halieutiques, et ils sont classés dans l’index annuel des
publications scientifiques et techniques du Ministère.
Les numéros 1 à 900 de cette série ont été publiés à titre de manuscrits
(série biologique) de l’Office de biologie du Canada, et après le changement de
la désignation de cet organisme par décret du Parlement, en 1937, ont été
classés comme manuscrits (série biologique) de l’Office des recherches sur les
pêcheries du Canada. Les numéros 901 à 1425 ont été publiés à titre de
rapports manuscrits de l’Office des recherches sur les pêcheries du Canada.
Les numéros 1426 à 1550 sont parus à titre de rapports manuscrits du Service
des pêches et de la mer, ministère des Pêches et de la Environnement. Le nom
actuel de la série a été établi lors de la parution de numéro 1551.
Les rapports manuscrits sont produits à l’échelon régional, mais numérotés à
l’échelon national. Les demandes de rapports seront satisfaites par l’établissement auteur
dont le nom figure sur la couverture et la page du titre. Les rapports épuisés seront
fournis contre rétribution par des agents commerciaux.
iii
Canadian Manuscript Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2702
2005
Protocol for boat electrofishing in nearshore areas of the Great
Lakes: transect and point survey methods for collecting fish and
habitat data, 1988 to 2002.
by C.M. Brousseau, R.G. Randall, and M.G. Clark
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Bayfield Institute
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario
L7R 4A6
iv © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2005.
Cat. No. Fs 97-6/2702E ISSN 0706-6473
Correct citation for this publication:
Brousseau, C.M., Randall, R.G., and Clark, M.G. 2005. Protocol for boat
electrofishing in nearshore areas of the lower Great Lakes: transect and
point survey methods for collecting fish and habitat data, 1988 to 2002.
Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2702: xi + 89 p.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... V
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... VII
RÉSUMÉ.........................................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. IX
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................ X
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................... XI
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
GREAT LAKES’ LITTORAL HABITAT............................................................................... 3
CURRENT DATABASE.....................................................................................................5
PRE-SURVEY TASKS ......................................................................................................5
FIELD CREW.................................................................................................................6
BOAT SPECIFICATIONS AND CONFIGURATION ...................................................... 7
Transect......................................................................................................................7
Point ...........................................................................................................................7
WEATHER.....................................................................................................................7
FISH SURVEY PROTOCOL AND MEASUREMENTS...................................................... 9
TRANSECTS .................................................................................................................9
POINTS .........................................................................................................................9
HABITAT SURVEY PROTOCOL AND MEASUREMENTS............................................. 11
LINE TRANSECT.....................................................................................................................12
POINT SAMPLES........................................................................................................12
DATABASE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................13
RELEVANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HABITAT MEASUREMENTS ..................... 15
SAMPLING INFORMATION ........................................................................................15
Weather ....................................................................................................................15
vi Season (Date) ..........................................................................................................15
Day vs. Night ............................................................................................................16
Global Positioning System........................................................................................16
WATER QUALITY........................................................................................................ 17
Conductivity ..............................................................................................................17
Water Clarity .............................................................................................................17
Temperature and dissolved oxygen ......................................................................... 18
FISH HABITAT.............................................................................................................19
Water depth ..............................................................................................................20
Substrate ..................................................................................................................21
Macrophytes/Cover ..................................................................................................22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................23
REFERENCES................................................................................................................23
vii
ABSTRACT
Brousseau, C.M., Randall, R.G., and Clark, M.G. 2005. Protocol for boat electrofishing
in nearshore areas of the lower Great Lakes: transect and point survey methods for
collecting fish and habitat data, 1988 to 2002.
Standardized protocols were used to survey fish and habitat in nearshore areas
of the lower Great Lakes since 1988. The objectives were to evaluate the status of the
fish communities in Great Lakes’ Areas of Concern (regions with degraded water quality
and habitat), and to evaluate the productive capacity of nearshore habitat at natural and
altered shorelines. This report provides details of the fish and habitat survey protocol that
was used. Fish were captured by boat electrofishing at 100 m line transects, and in
recent years, by point sampling. In both cases, survey locations were stratified and
replicated in habitats with different substrate, cover and shoreline characteristics. Line
and point sample protocols provided data at different spatial scales, but both were
conducted in a consistent manner to allow the analysis of temporal and spatial trends in
fish catches and their associated habitats. Fish and habitat information were recorded
on field sheets, and later transferred to a computer database. The nearshore database
has been used for both research and management purposes, demonstrating the
advantages of using standard survey protocols in the Great Lakes.
viii
RÉSUMÉ
Brousseau, C.M., Randall, R.G., and Clark, M.G. 2005. Protocole de pêche électrique
par bateau dans les régions littorales des Grands lacs inférieurs : méthode de relevée
par transect linéaire et par échantillonnage ponctuel pour la collecte des données de
poissons et de leurs habitats, de 1988 à 2002.
Des relevés du poisson et de l’habitat sont effectués selon des protocoles normalisés
dans les régions littorales des Grands Lacs inférieurs depuis 1988. Les relevés visent à
évaluer l’état des communautés de poissons dans les secteurs préoccupants des
Grands Lacs (secteurs dont la qualité de l’eau et l’habitat sont dégradés) et à déterminer
la capacité de production de l’habitat littoral dans des secteurs aux rives naturelles ou
modifiées. Ce rapport présente les détails du protocole de relevé utilisé. Les poissons
ont été capturés par pêche électrique au moyen d’un bateau sur des transects linéaires
de 100 m, et, ces dernières années, par échantillonnage ponctuel. Dans les deux cas,
l’échantillonnage était stratifié et répété dans des habitats dont le substrat, le couvert
végétal et les caractéristiques des rives différaient. Les échantillonnages linéaire et
ponctuel ont fourni des données à différentes échelles spatiales, mais ils ont tous les
deux été effectués d’une façon uniforme afin de permettre l’analyse des tendances
temporelles et spatiales des captures de poissons et de leurs habitats. Les données sur
les poissons et les habitats ont été consignées sur des fiches de terrain, puis entrées
dans une base de données informatique. Cette base de données a servi à des fins de
recherche et de gestion et a mis en évidence les avantages de l’utilisation de protocoles
de relevé normalisés dans les Grands Lacs.
ix LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Electrofishing survey locations, 1988-2001. The number of transects, points,
samples and records are given for each survey location. ..............................................31
Table 2. Range in physical conditions during surveys at study locations in the lower
Great Lakes (1988-2002). ...................................................................................................33
Table 3. Range in catch (numbers), biomass (kg), and species richness during surveys
at study locations in the lower Great Lakes (1988-2002)...............................................34
Table 4a. Presence(x) or absence of fish species at electrofishing transects from 19882002 for each of the following locations in the Bay of Quinte and Prince Edward
County ....................................................................................................................................35
Table 4b. Presence (x) or absence of fish species at electrofishing transects from 19882002 for each of the following locations in western Lake Ontario.................................37
Table 4c. Presence (x) or absence of fish species at electrofishing transects from 19882002 for each of the following locations in Georgian Bay and Lake Erie ....................39
Table 5a. Example of average and maximum catch of fish by transect and point survey
from Prince Edward Bay, Lake Ontario in 2000 and 2001.............................................41
Table 5b. Comparison of mean catch (number of fish) and average species richness
(number of fish species) at areas with and without macrophytes in eastern Lake
Ontario (2000-2001).............................................................................................................41
Table 6. Electrofishing fish field data sheet ............................................................................42
Table 7. Transect habitat assessment field data sheet. .......................................................43
Table 8. Settings for the Lowrance X-16 echosounder used in habitat surveys to record
depth and macrophyte density (from Valere 1996). ........................................................44
Table 9. Point sample habitat assessment field data sheet.................................................45
x LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Figure showing the location of the electrofishing transects in relation to the
shoreline and offshore bathymetry. ...................................................................................47
Figure 2: Figure showing the location of electrofishing point samples in relation to the
shoreline. ...............................................................................................................................48
Figure 3: General location of all study areas..........................................................................49
Figure 4: Overview of Severn Sound, Georgian Bay .............................................................50
Figure 5: Penetang Harbour.......................................................................................................51
Figure 6: Hog Bay ........................................................................................................................52
Figure 7: Sturgeon Bay ...............................................................................................................53
Figure 8: Matchedash Bay .........................................................................................................54
Figure 9: Green Island ................................................................................................................55
Figure 10: Overview of Lake Erie ..............................................................................................56
Figure 11: Long Point ..................................................................................................................57
Figure 12: Port Dover ..................................................................................................................58
Figure 13: Port Colborne ............................................................................................................59
Figure 14: Overview of western Lake Ontario .........................................................................60
Figure 15: Port Credit ..................................................................................................................61
Figure 16: Port Weller and Port Dalhousie ..............................................................................62
Figure 17: Hamilton Harbour......................................................................................................63
Figure 18: Burlington waterfront ................................................................................................64
Figure 19: Bronte Harbour..........................................................................................................65
Figure 20: Presqu’ile Bay ...........................................................................................................66
Figure 21: Overview of the Bay of Quinte and Prince Edward County sampling areas ...67
Figure 22: Trenton Harbour........................................................................................................68
Figure 23: Belleville .....................................................................................................................69
Figure 24: Big Island ...................................................................................................................70
xi Figure 25: Lower Bay of Quinte.................................................................................................71
Figure 26: Prince Edward Bay ...................................................................................................72
Figure 27: West Lake ..................................................................................................................73
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 List and description of data fields for electrofishing fish field data sheet .... 75
Appendix 2. List and description for electrofishing line transect habitat field data sheet76
Appendix 3. List and description for electrofishing point sample field data sheet .......... 78
Appendix 4. List of tasks and safety checklists to complete before initiating an
electrofishing boat survey.........................................................................................79
Appendix 5. Listing of sampled stations and associated habitat information. ................ 83
xii
1
INTRODUCTION
The goal of this report is to describe two protocols for surveying fish and habitat
using an electrofishing boat and a line or point survey method in littoral habitats of the
lower Great Lakes. The two survey methods were used by the Great Lakes Laboratory
for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (GLLFAS), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) at
Burlington for various projects that deal with nearshore fish assemblages and the
productive capacity of shoreline fish habitat. The line and point survey protocols
facilitated the collection of data in an organized, consistent manner, which increases the
usefulness of the data over the long term (Stanfield et al. 1999; Bonar and Hubert 2002).
To date, approximately 90 % of the data collection has used the line survey protocol.
Point sampling was initiated in more recent years (2000 to 2002) to investigate fish
habitat linkages and to compare effort and sampling efficiency between the two
methods.
Nearshore electrofishing surveys were started in the Great Lakes’ by DFO in
1988. Initially, the goal was to collect fish and habitat data from Great Lakes’ Areas of
Concern in Lake Ontario (Hamilton Harbour and Bay of Quinte) and Severn Sound,
Georgian Bay. Areas of Concern (AOC) were regions with degraded water quality and
habitat that resulted in impaired beneficial uses (Hartig et al. 1997; EPA 2002). Since
1988, the survey locations have been expanded to include non-AOC shorelines in Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario, to provide information on spatial variability in habitat productive
capacity. Data from the nearshore surveys have been used for evaluating the effects of
habitat change at AOCs (Smokorowski et al. 1998; Boston and Randall 2001), for
determining linkages between physical habitat and fish abundance (Randall et al. 1993;
Kelso and Minns 1996; MacLeod et al. 1995; Randall et al. 1996; Minns et al. 1993;
Minns et al. 1995; and Randall et al. 1998; Randall et al. 1999), for determining
biological indices of productive capacity (Minns et al. 1993; Randall and Minns 2002), for
validating a Defensible Methods approach (Minns et al. 1995; Minns 1997) for evaluating
habitat supply and conservation (Minns et al. 1996; Minns et al. 2001), and for
developing regional Fish Habitat Management Plans (Minns et al. 1999). From 1988 to
2002, all surveys were conducted using a standardized line transect (100 metres)
protocol. An earlier description of the transect survey protocol was provided by Valere
(1996). Beginning in 2000, a point sampling protocol was also designed and tested as an
alternative method for surveying fish and habitat with a higher spatial resolution than the
2
transect protocol. All field data from both transect and point sampling were entered into a
computer database (Moore et al. 1998). The purpose of this report is to update the
transect protocol description, and to provide details of the new point sample protocol.
The protocol descriptions will be useful to researchers who use the existing database in
future, and hopefully to others who decide to adopt the protocol for surveying littoral
habitat in the Great Lakes and elsewhere.
This report is comprised of eight sections: 1) introduction; 2) Great Lakes littoral
habitat; 3) current database; 4) pre-survey set-up; 5) fish measurements; 6) habitat
measurements; 7) database description; 8) relevance of habitat and environmental
measurements, 9) acknowledgements, and 10) references. Specific measurements for
point and line transect protocols are given separately in sections 5) and 6). Field data
forms are provided as Tables, and the specifics of the data entries are provided in detail
in Appendices 1 to 3. A safety checklist for electrofishing is provided in Appendix 4. A
listing of sampling stations and associated habitat information is found in Appendix 5.
Maps of all study areas are provided.
3
GREAT LAKES’ LITTORAL HABITAT
To provide a context and background for the application of the protocols, the
characteristics of the physical habitat where the surveys have been conducted in the
lower Great Lakes are summarized briefly in this section.
The lower Laurentian Great Lakes are large (Lake Ontario - 19,100 km 2; Lake
Erie - 25,700 km2, and Georgian Bay - 15,500 km 2 ), and wind exposure (fetch) is a
dominant influence for much of the nearshore area, affecting water currents, substrate
and the occurrence of aquatic plants. In sheltered embayments, where most of the fish
studies have occurred, surveying was challenging because of the diversity of aquatic
habitats and the range in wind-exposure conditions that existed. Habitat types ranged
from the natural igneous shorelines of the Canadian Shield in upper Georgian Bay to the
sedimentary shorelines of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario that have been altered in urban
areas (harbours, docks, piers and hardened shorelines). Surveys have been
successfully conducted in habitats ranging from protected coastal wetlands with
abundant vegetation (Presqu’ile, inner Long Point) to extremely exposed shorelines
adjacent to harbours with wave-washed sand or coarse substrates (Port Dover, Bronte
Harbour).
Nearshore data were collected from 24 areas of the lower Lakes (Table 1,
Figures 3-27). Water quality and physical habitat differed among these areas (Table 2).
Water conductivity varied among the survey areas, ranging from 210 to 540 μS/cm at
Severn Sound and Hamilton Harbour, respectively. Water turbidity, as measured by
secchi depth, varied among the study locations from < 0.1 to > 5 m, but usually ranged
between 1.5 and 3.5 at most study areas. Average surface water temperatures at the
time of the survey ranged between 14.5oC and 22.5oC. All of these water quality
characteristics influenced fish distribution and electrofishing operations.
Macrophyte density and substrate type were also important habitat variables that
influenced fish catches. Land use, substrate type, water depth, turbidity, and nutrient
levels all influenced macrophyte distribution. Macrophyte presence and abundance was
documented in most study areas. Submerged macrophytes were abundant at certain
locations (e.g., Matchedash, Long Point, Presqu’ile, and Trenton) and were sparse at
others (Table 2). Macrophyte occurrence and density was spatially and temporally
dynamic. Macrophytes increased in recent years at some locations (e.g., Bay of Quinte;
4
Seifried 2001) due to improved water clarity, possibly because of the increase in
abundance of Dreissena (zebra mussels). Changes in macrophyte abundance were
correlated with fish community change (e.g., an increase in centrarchids) in the Bay of
Quinte (Boston and Randall 2001).
Substrate type among the study areas varied from organic-rich mud to bedrock.
Fetch, water current, fluvial inputs, altered shorelines and urbanization influenced areas
of sediment deposition and erosion. Surveys were conducted in areas with natural
substrate ranging from silt to cobble or bedrock and in areas with artificial infill
(breakwalls). Additional substrate and macrophyte information for individual transect
locations is documented in Appendix 5.
Fish species richness in the nearshore areas of the lower Great Lakes was
relatively high (Table 4). For example, 30 to 34 species of fish were captured by
transect electrofishing at several areas in the Bay of Quinte and Prince Edward County,
eastern Lake Ontario (Table 4). In contrast, richness in inland lakes in Ontario is often
less than 10 species (Minns 1989). The average fish density per transect varied by
area: Severn Sound (36.80), Lake Erie (19.27), western Lake Ontario (52.90), and
eastern Lake Ontario (54.03) (Table 3). The average biomass (kg) per transect also
varied between areas: Severn Sound (3.49 kg), Lake Erie (2.99 kg), western Lake
Ontario (8.13 kg), and eastern Lake Ontario (3.59 kg) (Table 3). Habitat, season, and
time period were all examples of variables that affected the fish catch in an area.
With high species richness and a diversity of habitats, electrofishing has proven
to be an effective sampling method in littoral areas of the Great Lakes. Fish can be
captured at most habitat areas, and most species were vulnerable to capture. Other
types of passive (gill and fyke nets) and active (seining, trawling) capture methods have
been used in littoral areas, but all were species or size selective, and their effectiveness
depended on habitat conditions (Hubert 1996; Hayes et al. 1996). Although effective,
boat electrofishing in the Great Lakes by DFO has been limited to areas 2 m in depth or
less, and surveys at exposed shoreline areas have been limited to areas adjacent to
harbours for logistical and safety reasons.
5
CURRENT DATABASE
The database (1988-2002) currently includes 78,921 individual fish records from
24 areas in the lower Great Lakes (Table 1). About 2,434 samples were collected at 354
different transects (i.e., many transects were surveyed on several different dates). In
addition, about 1,858 point samples were collected. All point samples to date have been
collected in the vicinity of existing transect locations (Section 5).
PRE-SURVEY TASKS
A scientist or manager will determine the number of transects or points to be
sampled within a target study area based on the objectives of the study and a predetermined study design. Site determination is often hierarchical, starting with an area
of interest (bay) and then focusing on particular habitat types within the area. Site
(transect or point) determination can be random, stratified random (based on habitat
strata), or fixed sites based on a priori criteria. In all cases, prior knowledge of the habitat
to be surveyed (water depth, substrate, cover, exposure and accessibility) was needed.
The selection of an electrofishing protocol will depend on the objectives of a
survey. Although transects were often chosen in areas of relatively uniform habitat,
several habitat boundaries (e.g., substrate, % cover) can be crossed within the 100 m
distance. Point sampling provided higher spatial resolution than transect sampling,
allowing a comparison of the fish catch data to specific habitat variables. Because of the
smaller area, fewer fish were captured in individual point samples than transect samples,
but a larger number of point samples were obtained than transect samples in one survey
day (Table 5a) and less effort was required to obtain a coefficient of variation of the
mean of 0.20 using the point sampling protocol (Table 5b).
Differential GPS readings should be taken at transects or points to aid in the
relocation of sites on repeat visits, and to provide a permanent position record for future
reference. When feasible, the 100 m transect boundaries were marked on shore prior to
the beginning of a survey. Shore markers such as reflectors and/or spray paint can be
put on trees or preferably large boulders. Reflectors were preferred as they make start
and end points more visible at night. In urban areas, small reflectors can be attached to
docks with an owner’s permission and permanent landmarks must be well documented
(e.g., docks, boathouses, flagpoles, sheds). It was necessary to record as much
6
information about transects as possible because over time, changes occur that can
make transect relocation difficult. Bearings and distances to shore were also used to
identify transect markers.
FIELD CREW
A typical boat electrofishing crew consisted of four people who have been trained
in electrofishing procedures and standards, boat and trailering safety, first aid and
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In Ontario, electrofishing training was provided by
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) (Straszynski et al. 2001) and certified
electrofishing crew leaders. A boat electrofishing crew must have at least one certified
crew leader who is in charge of the survey operation. Other crew members must also be
trained according to OMNR guidelines. To be classified as a crew leader, the OMNR
stipulates that a person must complete the OMNR electrofishing training course and
have current CPR training; the electrofishing training must be updated every 5 years
(Straszynski et al. 2001). To be classified as a crew member, staff must complete a
one-day training course designed specifically for electrofishing boats given by a certified
crew leader. All crew members must also possess a valid CPR certificate.
During an electrofishing boat operation, the crew leader was stationed at the
console and was responsible for driving the boat and operation of electrofishing
components. Two crew members were positioned on the bow of the boat and were
responsible for netting the shocked fish and transferring them to the live-well using dip
nets with long (3 m) fibreglass handles. The fourth crew member was stationed at the
live-well and assisted the netters with emptying their nets into the live-well. For safety,
each crew member had a “dead man” foot-petal, connected in series. All pedals must be
depressed to complete the circuit and to provide a current output. All crew members
followed the safety guidelines listed for boat electrofishing (Appendix 4).
A crew of four people was usually needed for boat electrofishing at line transects.
It is possible to conduct a survey with a crew of three, but catch efficiency may not be as
high, as emptying the nets at the live-well was more time-consuming, leaving less time
for netting fish at the bow. A three-person crew was suitable for point sampling, as the
electrofishing duration was shorter (10 seconds) and netters had time to empty their nets
into the appropriate buckets after the current was shut off.
7
BOAT SPECIFICATIONS AND CONFIGURATION
Transect: Transect electrofishing was carried out using a Smith-Root SR20E
electrofishing boat (length=6.1 m, beam=1.9m) (Smith 1984). A 16 hp gas motor driving
a 7.5 kW generator produced the electric current. Since 1992, electrical output has been
standardized at about 8 amperes (A). The electrode configuration consisted of two
anodes, each with a terminal six wire umbrella array, extended out from the bow at
approximately 25°, with the aluminum boat acting as the cathode (Novotny and Priegel
1974).
Annual servicing of the outboard and the gasoline engine for generator, and
periodic servicing of generator and electrical circuits were needed. Annual and daily
safety checklists for boat electrofishing are provided in Appendix 4.
Point: The Smith-Root electrofishing boat was also used for point sampling
(Smith 1984). The electrode configuration consisted of a singe anode (terminal six-wire
umbrella array) off the centre bow of the stationary boat. Output was standardized to 8.0
A when possible. At shallow depths (0.5 m and 1.0 m), the maximum output ranged
from 6.0 to 8.0 A.
WEATHER
Weather conditions will determine if sampling can occur on a specific date.
Electrofishing or habitat sampling will not take place if lighting storms or rain are present
in an area. High winds and waves can also pose problems; the boat can not stay in
place or maintain a constant survey speed and there is the danger of being blown onto
shore. Weather information can be obtained from the local Coast Guard marine forecast
(VHF radio), Environment Canada (internet, phone) and The Weather Network (internet,
television).
Light rain may be tolerable when gathering habitat data, as long as the crew is
comfortable and electrical storms are not present in the area. Wind can still be a problem
because of the close proximity to shore, and the need to hold the boat in a stationary
position to take measurements. In addition, macrophytes might not be visible if the water
has become turbid due to wave action or if raindrops have disrupted the surface.
8
9
FISH SURVEY PROTOCOL AND MEASUREMENTS
TRANSECTS
Electrofishing was conducted at the 1.5 m depth contour along 100 m transects
(Figure 1). Transects were surveyed at idle speed using a 90 hp to 150 hp outboard
motor (about 0.3 m per second) resulting in a sampling duration of about 5 minutes
(range 3-6 minutes) to complete the transect. Electrofishing commenced one to two
hours before sunset and extended into the late evening (23:00 to 01:00 h). Wind speed
and macrophyte density affected the time that it took to sample transects. After a
transect was completed, measures of wind speed and direction (meteorological reports),
shocking duration (seconds), voltage, amperage output, and percent of voltage range
were recorded from the boat gauges (Table 6 and Appendix 1). Once netted, the fish
were held in an aerated live-well with two holding tanks.
Two transects were sampled before stopping to process the fish. Fish were
identified to species (Scott and Crossman 1973, Mandrak and Crossman 1992), and
lengths and weights were obtained. Fish were measured to fork length (± 1 mm). Fish
that had a rounded or caudal fin were measured at total length (Valere 1996). Different
models of Sartorius digital balances (Basiclite Series) were used to weigh small fish up to
300 grams (model BL150), and larger fish up to 6000 grams (model BL6). Fish that
were greater than 6 kg or that were too long to fit on a digital balance (e.g., northern
pike) were placed in a mesh sling (of pre-determined weight) and weighed with a
Chatillon (Model 25) hanging spring scale to the nearest 100 grams (with a capacity of
12,500 grams). Fish were weighed and measured individually up to a maximum of 20
fish per species at each transect. When catches of a particular species exceeded 20
fish, the fish were counted and batch weighed. Fish that cannot be identified in the field
were measured, weighed, sacrificed and kept for identification at a later date. Unknown
fish were identified, using the keys in Scott and Crossman (1973). Beginning in 2002,
voucher specimens were collected to verify identifications; one specimen per species at
each survey area was kept. All data elements on the fish field data sheet (Table 6) are
described in detail in Appendix 1
POINTS
All point samples identified within the shore boundaries of a 100 metre transect
were electrofished (Figure 2). Each point sample was approached slowly by the
10
electrofishing boat. Electrofishing commenced when a crew member at the bow
signalled (raises arm) to the boat driver that the anode was positioned directly over a
point-float. The boat was held stationary while the point sample was fished for 10
continuous seconds. The crew member that operated the live-well initiated the power
output by stepping on his/her foot petal, counting for 10 seconds and then removing his
or her foot from the pedal to terminate sampling.
After a point was electrofished, captured fish were placed in 1 of 10 individual
buckets in the live-well of the boat. Then, the float was removed from the water and
placed in the corresponding bucket of fish. Floats that did not have fish catches
associated with them were put aside and the point sample was recorded as a null catch.
When each of the 10 buckets on the boat held a fish sample, the crew processed the fish
before proceeding. Once all point samples within a transect location were fished,
measures of wind speed and direction, shocking seconds, voltage, amperage output,
and percent of range (voltage) were recorded (Table 6 and Appendix 1). Like line
surveys, wind and wave conditions had to be optimal in order to sample. The stop time
recorded was the time it took to fish and process all point samples from one area.
The protocol for processing fish was the same as that for transects. For fish
captured point sampling, the corresponding sample location (marker number and depth)
was also recorded on the data sheet (Table 6).
All data elements on the fish sampling data sheet are described in further detail
in Appendix 1.
11
HABITAT SURVEY PROTOCOL AND MEASUREMENTS
LINE TRANSECT
Habitat sampling was conducted at the1.5 m depth contour (approximately),
along 100 metre transects. Habitat measurements included substrate, cover, water
temperature, water conductivity, dissolved oxygen and location (GPS). Shore markers
(i.e. reflectors, paint on rocks and trees) and GPS positions identified the beginning and
end of a transect (Table 7). In areas where shore markers couldn’t be established,
visual descriptions of permanent features (e.g. docks, telephone poles) were recorded in
addition to GPS geo-referencing. Prior to sampling, floats were laid out at the 1.5 m
depth contour to visually mark the start and end of a transect (Figure 1). Habitat
measurements were recorded prior to sunset and usually before electrofishing.
Specific habitat measurements were taken at three locations along a transect:
start, middle, and end (Figure 1) and were recorded on a transect habitat data sheet
(Table 7). At the start of each transect, measurements of location and substrate
composition were recorded. Coordinates of longitude and latitude were obtained from
differential GPS positions (NAD83) using a Garmin GPSMAP 175 (within 10 meters 95%
of the time). Laser range finders (± 1.0 m) were used to record the distance from the
float marker to shore (Figure 1) and the orientation of the marker (north, south, east or
west) related to the shoreline was recorded (Table 7).
Measures of dissolved oxygen, conductivity, water temperature and secchi depth
were taken at the middle of each transect and at a point on the 5.0 m depth contour
offshore and perpendicular to the transect (Figure 1). Dissolved oxygen (mg/L),
conductivity (μS/cm) and water temperature (°C) were taken with a YSI (model 85)
instrument. The accuracy of the YSI is as follows: for conductivity ± 0.5% µmhos,
temperature ± 0.1°C and dissolved oxygen ± 0.3 mg/L. Secchi depth readings were
taken using a standard secchi disk (20 cm in diameter). The disc was lowered into the
water on the shady side of the boat until it disappeared from view, and was then raised
until it reappeared. The average of the disappearance and reappearance depths was
recorded as the secchi depth (i.e. transparency). When the lake bottom was visible,
secchi depth was recorded as greater than 1.5 metres.
Substrate was sampled at each transect marker either visually or for finer
substrates, with a scissor-handled grab that pulls up a sample of substrate much like an
Ekman sampler (which can also be used). The substrate was visually (sometimes
12
texturally) classified by six classes of substrate size: silt (0.0039 mm to 0.0625 mm),
sand (0.0625 mm to 2 mm), gravel (2 mm to 16 mm), pebble (16 mm to 64 mm), cobble
(64 mm to 256 mm) and boulder (>256 mm). Other substrate classes included flat
bedrock, organic debris, woody debris and zebra mussels. Dominant (>50 %), subdominant (10 to 50 %) and trace (<10 %) components of substrate were recorded on the
field sheets (Table 7).
Macrophyte abundance at transects was estimated using two methods: visual
estimation and echo sounding. Visually, macrophyte abundance was assigned to one of
four categories: none (0 %), sparse (1 to 19 %), moderate (20 to 70 %) or dense (>70
%). Dominant macrophytes were identified to genus and recorded on the field sheet
(Fassett 1966; Hotchkiss 1967) (Table 7). If a plant could not be identified in the field, a
sample was taken in a plastic bag and kept moist for identification at a later time.
Echosounding was conducted with a Lowrance X16 paper graph recorder. Settings
were specific for different bottom types and predetermined to optimize the length,
resolution, depth range and readability of the echogram (Table 8). An echogram was
taken along the 100 metre transect at the 1.5 m depth parallel to shore (Figure 2). Boat
speed was kept constant by starting the boat far enough ahead of the start point that idle
speed was achieved before recording starts.
All fields on the transect habitat data sheet (Table 7) are described in detail in
Appendix 2.
POINT SAMPLES
Point samples were laid out in random locations within the boundaries of defined
line transects (Figure 2). Points were established at four different depths: 0.5 m, 1.0 m,
1.5 m and 2.0 m. Within each transect up to five random markers were positioned at
each of the four depths (Figure 2). Points were established at least 2 metres apart so
that the effective field (electrical current) from one point sample did not interfere with the
fish catch at an adjacent point. Point markers were made up of small floats attached by
rope to pieces of chain that form an anchor. The floats were marked with the depth (0.5.
1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 m) and with the letters A through E. Float identification was used to
match specific habitat data with the fish data collected at a particular point. All habitat
data was collected prior to sunset.
At each point, the following habitat values were measured and recorded on field
data sheets (Table 9): substrate, cover, water temperature, water conductivity, oxygen,
13
and location (GPS). Coordinates of longitude and latitude were obtained from differential
GPS positions (NAD83) using a Garmin GPSMAP 175. Laser range finders were used
to record the distance from the point marker to shore. Dissolved oxygen, conductivity
and water temperature were taken at mid-depth with a YSI (model 85) that measures
oxygen, salinity, conductivity and temperature. For example, at a 1.0 m point sample,
the habitat measurements were taken at 0.5 m. Substrate was classified using the same
protocol for transect habitat sampling.
Macrophyte abundance was estimated visually in a one-metre radius around
each point marker. Similar to transect sampling, macrophyte abundance was assigned
to one of four categories: (0 %), sparse (1 to 19 %), moderate (20 to 70 %) or dense
(>70 %). In addition, plant genera were recorded on the point habitat field sheet (Fassett
1966; Hotchkiss 1967) (Table 11) and classified in the same manner as substrate:
dominant (>50 %), sub-dominant (10 to 50 %) and trace (<10 %). Dominant, subdominant and trace components of substrate were also recorded on the field data
sheets.
All data elements on the point sampling habitat field data sheet (Table 9) are
described in further detail in Appendix 3.
DATABASE DESCRIPTION
The Great Lakes’ electrofishing database was initially created in Microsoft
Access 2.0 (Moore et al. 1998). The software for this database was originally written in
Microsoft Visual Basic 3.0 for the purpose of bulk data input, updates and extractions.
The program was first moved to Visual Basic 6.0 and Access 97 then Access 2002 and
is now a 32-bit application, with bulk loading replaced by interactive data entry (JEMSys
Software Systems Inc 2003). The actual database is stored on a secure network drive,
allowing different members of the project to have access to the data. The front-end
user-interface (software for data entry and extraction) is stored on individual computer
hard-drives. This software was developed in a way that allows easy data entry (field
input screens are similar to field sheets) and also easy data manipulation within
Microsoft Access. Data can be exported as text files (.ext; tab, comma or space
delimited) and easily imported into Microsoft Excel for further queries and analyses.
Data from both habitat observations and fish catch data can be stored in the same
14
relational Access database. This arrangement has been useful for data analysis and for
interpreting fish-habitat linkages.
Data from both habitat and fish catches were carefully entered into the database.
Field sheets were initialed and dated by the individual entering the data (Tables 6, 7 and
9). After the data were entered, they were verified with the raw data from the field
sheets. Errors were easily corrected and the data were re-saved. The field sheet was
initialed and dated by the verifier. It takes approximately 40 to 50 minutes to enter
habitat data from 20 point samples into the database. Entry of transect habitat data
takes about 5 minutes per transect. The fish data entry time for both survey methods
varied depending on the number of fish captured.
Data validation is immediate upon entry into the electrofishing database. The
results of data validation are indicated by the background colour behind the data. A
white background indicates that the data is correct. A yellow background indicates a
warning which may be caused for example, in the individual tables by: missing lengths or
weights, length or weight out of historical range, or an unavailable length-weight
regression. A cyan or magenta-coloured background indicates a warning caused by
something exceeding confidence or prediction limits at P=0.05 and P=0.01, respectively.
For example, an individual’s weight exceeds prediction limits at length or for batch
weights, mean weight deviates significantly from the mean of individual weights or
historical geometric mean weight. A red background indicates an error caused by an
invalid transect identification, invalid date, invalid time, invalid species code, non-numeric
length or weight, or a missing count. Validation on the habitat assessment tables is less
precise and is generally limited to checks such as positive numeric values where
required, properly formatted dates and times, vaguely defined ranges for temperatures,
start times preceding end times and habitat date being the same as the transect
sampling date. For more details, refer to Moore et al. (1998).
15
RELEVANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
This section explains the relevance and significance of the environmental
measurements that are recorded during an electrofishing survey. Information that was
recorded can be grouped into three categories: (1) in situ sampling information (i.e.,
weather, date, time and location), (2) water quality (chemistry and temperature) and (3)
physical habitat characteristics. All of these factors can affect the fish catches at the
time of survey. The environmental information is paramount for maintaining the integrity
and usefulness of the data, and to aid in interpreting the temporal and spatially variability
of the fish catches. Standardization of procedures and controllable variables (e.g.,
electrical configuration and power output) are also important to minimize bias and
variation due to gear and operational practices (Hine 1971; Jesien and Hocutt 1990; Kolz
and Reynolds 1990; Harden and Conner 1992; Burkhardt and Gutreuter 1995; Kershner
and Marschall 1998; Boner and Hubert 2002; Bayley and Austen 2002). In the following
section, the potential effect of environmental and habitat data at the time of survey on
fish distribution and electrofishing efficiency will be discussed.
SAMPLING INFORMATION
Weather: For safety reasons, weather was the first variable to consider prior to
conducting an electrofishing survey. Rain, thunderstorms (lightning) and strong winds
are unsuitable for electrofishing as wet electrical equipment greatly increases the hazard
of shock (Reynolds 1996). In addition to safety, weather can affect other aspects of the
survey, such as sampling efficiency and the distribution of fish. Rain and wind can affect
electrofishing efficiency by disrupting surface visibility for netters and by affecting the
balance/stability of netters at the bow (Reynolds 1996). Other uncontrollable factors,
such as a cold front, storm or the moon cycle can cause abrupt changes in fish
distribution. For example, wind speed and barometric pressure were found to be
correlated with movements of black crappie (Guy et al., 1992). Springtime frontal
systems have been found to cause adult fish tending nests to temporarily move,
resulting in reduced catch rates (Reynolds 1996). Climatic conditions can also
determine the presence or absence of certain species, and weather conditions at the
time of the survey should be recorded.
Season (Date): Both season and date are important factors to record when
conducting a fish survey. Seasonal fluctuations in water levels, temperature,
16
conductivity, macrophyte cover, primary productivity, and abundance of food will
stimulate movement in fish and therefore affect catch rates (Zalewski and Cowx 1990).
The potential impact of these factors on catch efficiency and fish distribution will be
discussed later.
Species that seasonally or diurnally inhabit the shoreline such as centrarchids,
cyprinids, and percids can be more vulnerable to electrofishing during these times (e.g.,
spawning, feeding) than benthic or pelagic species (Reynolds 1996). Spring often brings
many life stages to the warmer inshore waters and it has been considered a good time
for sampling. Autumn can also be considered a good time to sample adult pelagic fish
as they move inshore to spawn or feed before returning to deeper waters to over-winter.
Day vs. Night: It is important to record the time of fish capture to determine the
effects of light intensity on fish catch. Despite high catch rates at night because of
increased visibility (fish are easier to see), the differences between day and night
catches can depend on many factors: species of fish, size, area (littoral vs. profundal),
habitat and season (Paragamian 1989; Pierce et al. 2001). Many researchers have
documented higher catch rates at night than in the day (Scott and Crossman 1973;
Prophet et al., 1989; Murphy and Willis 1996; Dumont and Dennis, 1997; Pierce et al.,
2001). For example, walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) prefer dark or turbid waters and low
light conditions. Like many predators, walleye venture into the shallows to feed under
the cover of darkness (Scott and Crossman 1973; Prophet et al 1989; Imbrock et al.,
1996). Many species of fish are more active at night as the darkness acts as cover
(Copp and Jurajda 1993, Reynolds 1996). Black crappies movements are also diel, but
these fish move from the shallow waters in daytime to deeper offshore waters at night to
feed (Guy et al., 1992). Other studies have concluded that fish moved to deeper waters
during the day where they were highly aggregated and patchy, but returned to the
shallows at night where they were highly dispersed (Helfman 1981; Paragamian 1989;
Appenzeller and Leggett 1992). For example, golden shiners used the nearshore areas
as feeding grounds and for refuge but during the daylight hours they moved to deeper
waters (Scott and Crossman 1973). In our experience on the Great Lakes, day and
night catches differed, particularly in littoral areas with little or no structure (Brousseau
and Clark, pers. obser, GLLFAS).
Global Positioning System (GPS): Position data were collected at transects or
point sample locations during each survey. Geo-referencing each study site created
opportunities for ongoing site analysis, long-term monitoring, map creation and the
17
determination of spatial linkages between fish and their habitat. Geo-referencing also
allowed data sharing with other projects. When possible, the collection of differential
GPS (DGPS) data is preferred. A differential antenna allows a GPS receiver to link to a
Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) reference station and therefore, increases the accuracy of
positions. The reference station will correct errors in the GPS signal and transmit these
corrections to receivers within the CCG or United States Geological Survey coverage
area. With differential correction, accuracy was horizontally 10 metres or better, 95% of
the time (Canadian Coast Guard, 2001). The Canadian DGPS augments the Navstar
Global Positioning System (GPS) by providing localized range correction factors and
auxiliary information that are broadcasted over a network of marine radio beacons.
WATER QUALITY
Conductivity: Water conductivity is a measure of the quality of water for electrical
transmission (Reynolds 1996) and can affect electrofishing operations. Water
conductivity is linearly correlated with total ion concentration (total dissolved solids, TDS)
and water temperature. Conductivity is only an approximate measure of TDS because it
is calibrated with potassium chloride (KCl in parts per million) rather than sodium
chloride (NaCl in micro-siemens-μS/cm).
Conductivity was measured and recorded at each sampling point. A target
current output of about 8 amperes (standardized) was maintained by adjusting the
voltage (percent of range). Changes in water conductivity can affect an electrofishing
operation in two ways: (1) by directly affecting the total current of the electrode system
and (2) by affecting the division of current between the water and the fish (Zalewski and
Cowx 1990). Extreme high (1000 μScm-1) or low (30 μScm-1) conductivity values will
exceed the capacity of most power sources and reduce catch efficiency (Reynolds
1996). In the lower Great Lakes, the range of water conductivity was usually in the
range (200 to 600 μScm-1) needed for effective electrofishing. For this range, Bayley and
Austen (2002) did not detect a significant effect of conductivity on the catchability of any
fish group.
Water Clarity: The ability to see and attract stunned fish is a factor that affects
electrofishing catch efficiency (Zalewski and Cowx 1990). The depth at which light can
penetrate the water column (i.e. secchi depth) depends upon suspended levels of
organic and inorganic particles or phytoplankton and ambient light (McMahon et al.
18
1996; Murphy and Willis 1996). Low transparency can be the result of excessive
turbidity or high phytoplankton densities due to nutrient enrichment. Low transparency
can also have a limiting effect on primary productivity and macrophyte growth. In clear
water, benthic species of fish tended to be caught more easily and catch efficiency was
high. In contrast, shoaling species with no cover exhibited increased avoidance
capabilities from a great distance, resulting in low catch efficiency (Zalewski and Cowx
1990). In turbid waters, stunned fish were less visible to netters. Bottom-dwelling,
camouflaged, and small body fish were most difficult to catch when immobilized
(Reynolds 1996).
Temperature and dissolved oxygen: Temperature and dissolved oxygen are
important variables used for assessing water quality and habitat suitability. There is a
negative relationship between water temperature and dissolved oxygen content and fish
have distinct thermal optima and limits (Scott and Crossman 1973). The seasonal
absence or fluctuation of suitable temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels can limit the
success of a species or even exclude it entirely from an ecosystem (McMahon et al.
1996). Several researchers have found that diverse fish communities including sport fish
(e.g., salmonids), percids (e.g., yellow perch), centrarchids (i.e. sunfish), and cyprinids
were greater at sites where the average summer dissolved oxygen concentrations were
greater than 5 mg/L than at sites where it was less (Davis 1975; Coble 1982; Rudstam
and Magnuson 1985; Knights et al. 1995). Although many species of fish are found at
dissolved oxygen levels below 5 mg/L (e.g., bluegills and black crappies; Knights et al.,
1995), the effects of suboptimal oxygen concentrations have been found to negatively
effect fecundity, growth (e.g., size), swimming ability, and metabolism (Coble 1982).
Salmonids tended to be more sensitive to dissolved oxygen levels than other fish groups
and required that minimum levels of dissolved oxygen exceeded 6.0 mg/L (Davis 1975).
In Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario (AOC), an anoxic hypolimnion prevents the reestablishment of a coldwater fishery and may also be negatively affecting the warmwater fishery through wind-generated upwelling of anoxic bottom water (Smokorowski et
al., 1998). Fitzsimons (unpublished data) found levels of dissolved oxygen below 3
mg/L, 40% of the time in the Harbour after three years (1994-1996) of data collection (in
situ logger placed at a depth of 5 m on an artificial reef). No fish were captured at the
artificial reefs when the dissolved oxygen levels fell below 3 mg/L (Fitzsimons
unpublished data; Smokorowski et al. 1998).
19
The thermal characteristics of an aquatic environment have both a controlling
and limiting influence on fish of all life stages (larval, juvenile, and adult) by affecting
metabolic rates, growth, reproductive success, and swimming speeds (Schlesinger and
Regier 1983; Koppelman et al. 1988). Fish require minimum temperatures for growth
and have optimal growth ranges in temperature. The optimal temperatures for Great
Lakes fish species were found over a wide range and some examples included: northern
pike (19oC), lake trout (10-16oC), brook trout (15-16oC), brown trout (13oC), rainbow trout
(13-22oC), lake whitefish (12.7-14oC), white sucker (14.1-22.4oC), golden shiner (16.823.7oC), blacknose dace (24-34oC), pumpkinseed sunfish (24-32oC), rock bass (2130oC), bluegill (30-31oC), largemouth bass (25-32oC), smallmouth bass (26oC), walleye
(21-23oC), and yellow perch (20-21oC) (Niimi and Beamish 1974; Schlesinger and
Regier 1983; Cincotta and Stauffer 1984; Rudstam and Magnuson 1985; Koppelman et
al. 1988; Haynes 1995).
Temperature indirectly affects electrofishing by changing fish distribution. Adults
typically moved shoreward to spawn with temperature increases, while extreme high
temperatures forced fish into deeper water, away from the areas being electrofished
(Reynolds 1996). Great Lakes’ fish spawned over a variety of temperature ranges.
Some examples included: northern pike (2-18oC), rainbow trout (1-18oC), longnose gar
(19-29oC), bluntnose minnow (20-28oC), brown bullhead (14-29oC), pumpkinseed
sunfish (13-29oC), largemouth bass (14-21oC), walleye (4-12oC), and yellow perch (722oC) (Lane et al. 1996c).
Extremely low or high temperatures can affect electrofishing efficiency; reactions
of fish tended to be poor under 5°C and over 28°C (Lamarque 1990). High temperatures
increased fish metabolism, resulting in an increased ability of fish to detect and escape
an electrical field. Lower temperatures decreased the buoyancy of stunned fish, making
netting fish more difficult. Alternatively, stunned fish may be easier to capture at low
temperatures because they recover less quickly. Water temperature will be discussed
further in the next section (see water depth).
FISH HABITAT
Habitat features affect the distribution of fish and to some extent, electrofishing
catch efficiency. Water depth, substrate, and structure or cover provided important
habitat for spawning, juvenile, and adult fish in the Great Lakes (Brown et al. 1995; Lane
et al. 1996 a, b, c). Water depth has been categorized into depth classes between 0-1
20
m, 1-2 m, 2-5 m, 5-10 m, and greater than 10 m (Brown et al. 1995; Lane et al. 1996 a,
b, c; MacRae and Jackson 2001). For the purposes of this report, only depths in the
littoral zone (0-1 m, 1-2 m, and 2-5 m) will be discussed. Substrate was grouped into
eight categories: bedrock, boulder, rubble, cobble, gravel, sand, silt and clay. Structure
or cover was divided into three major categories: submergent vegetation, emergent
vegetation, and logs and large rocks. Submergent and emergent vegetation was
strongly linked to substrate categories of gravel, sand and silt.
Water depth: Temperature dictates the depth strata occupied by adult fishes and
therefore, strongly influences fish distribution. Many adult fish occupy the littoral shallow
water zone during all or some part of the year. However, coldwater fish such as
salmonids (e.g., Coho salmon, lake and brook char) will only occupy shallow waters (0-2
m) in the winter or fall when water temperatures are low (Lane et al. 1996b). As soon as
temperatures begin to rise, coldwater fish will move out to deeper waters. Other
seasonal fish movements included those species (e.g., alewife, emerald shiner, rock and
smallmouth bass) that moved into the nearshore (0-2 m) for the summer months. The
majority of adult cyprinids (e.g., golden shiner, bluntnose minnow, and fathead minnow)
inhabited shallow water similar to their nursery habitats. Other species of fish also
inhabited shallow waters (0-2 m) for much of the time (e.g., bowfin, northern pike, brown
bullhead, American eel, and slimy sculpin). Most centrarchids (e.g., pumpkinseed
sunfish, largemouth bass, black crappie) and percids (e.g., yellow perch, johnny darter,
logperch) occupied water depths between 0 and 5 m year round (Lane et al. 1996b). In
addition to seasonal movements, some fish exhibited diel movements from shallow to
deep waters.
For spawning adult fishes, 69 out of 131 Great Lakes species spawned in lentic
habitats (Lane et al. 1996c). Sheltered, shallow areas warm quickly in the spring and
water temperatures played an important role in determining where fish chose to spawn
(Lane et al. 1996c). Many fish that spawned in water depths of 0-2 m were associated
with macrophytes (e.g., bowfin, gizzard shad, common carp, northern pike, pumpkinseed
sunfish, and largemouth bass). Other species spawned in 0-2 m depths without
macrophytes (e.g., alewife, rainbow trout, emerald shiner, and smallmouth bass). It is
important to note that many species of fish were vulnerable to sampling programs while
concentrated in shallow waters during spawning and pre- and post-spawning migrations.
The majority of Great Lakes young-of-the-year (age 0) fish occupied water
depths of 2 metres or less (Lane et al. 1996a). Some species (e.g., smallmouth bass
21
and alewife) were found in the warm, shallow waters during the spring and summer
when there is an abundant supply of food. With the onset of cooler temperatures, these
young fish moved to deeper waters (Lane et al. 1996a). Other age 0 fish spent the
spring in water depths between 0-1 m (e.g., longnose gar, bowfin, and northern pike)
and then moved to the 1-2 m strata in the fall. Many juvenile cyprinids (e.g., spottail
shiner, bluntnose and fathead minnows), centrarchids (e.g., pumpkinseed sunfish,
largemouth bass), and percids (e.g., yellow perch) spent the first year in 0-2 m water
depth (Lane et al. 1996a).
The electrical field from an electrofishing boat will only effectively penetrate the
water column to a depth of approximately 2.0 m. The effective field diminished at depths
greater than 2 metres (C.Brousseau, pers. obs., GLLFAS). At depths exceeding 1.5 m,
fish were more difficult to catch because of the length of the standard sampling nets (3
m) and the greater escape area (volume) available to fish. Catch efficiency was high in
shallow water with less volume and chance of escape, where cover was limited and the
effective field was strong enough to stun fish in the sample area (Saltveit 1990).
Substrate: Substrate is an important habitat feature that can affect the
electrofishing catch in different ways: (1) coarse substrates provide refuge for fish during
various life stages and (2) electrical conductance depends on the size of substrate. Both
of these factors can affect the catchability of fish. Great Lakes’ fish utilized a great
variety of substrates as adults, juveniles and during spawning. The most commonly
used substrates by all life-stages were gravel, sand, and silt (Lane et al. 1996b). Strong
adult fish associations with particular substrates included: boulder (e.g., stonecat,
smallmouth bass), cobble (e.g., rock bass, smallmouth bass), gravel (e.g., alewife,
gizzard shad, spottail shiner, killifish), sand, and silt (e.g., longnose gar, bowfin, northern
pike, common carp, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch). A strong affinity of many
species of adult and juvenile fish for sand and silt substrates was closely linked to the
presence of aquatic vegetation (Lane et al. 1996b). Plant material provides protection
from predators as well as food sources (i.e. prey). Juvenile fish typically found in
association with sand and silt included longnose gar, bowfin, northern pike, cyprinids
(e.g., golden shiner, emerald shiner, bluntnose minnow), brown bullhead, centrarchids
(e.g., rock bass, pumpkinseed and bluegill sunfish, largemouth bass), and percids (e.g.,
yellow perch, walleye). Other juvenile fish (e.g., alewife, lake trout, smallmouth bass and
slimy sculpin) found refuge among the cracks and crevices of boulders, rubble, and
cobble (Lane et al. 1996b). Cobble, gravel, sand and silt were the most commonly used
22
spawning substrates by Great Lakes’ fish (Lane et al. 1996b). The numbers of species
that spawned on silt were influenced by species that spawn on submergent and
emergent vegetation.
Fine substrates and organic debris are more conductive than course gravel and
cobble bottoms with little organic content. Highly conductive bottom substrates (e.g. mud
or silt) will often reduce the horizontal intensity (i.e. short circuit) of an electrical field by
drawing the electrical field into the substrate (Reynolds 1996). Different substrates can
also affect fish catchability. For example, large diameter rocks, boulders and cobble
provided cover for fishes and may prevent their capture if stunned fish remain hidden in
crevices instead of entering the water column. Fish such as rock bass (Centrarchidae)
and sculpins (Cottidae) hid in these rocky areas (C.Brousseau; pers. obs., GLLFAS).
Macrophytes/Cover: Cover provides protection from environmental conditions
(shade), protection from predators (refugia) and rich sources of invertebrate prey
(Murphy and Willis 1996). The types of habitat cover include aquatic vegetation, coarse
substrate (cobble and boulders), large woody debris (e.g. logs, root wads), and riparian
and shoreline features (e.g. undercut banks and overhanging terrestrial vegetation)
(McMahon et al 1996). All are important components of fish habitat. The type and
density of macrophytes can determine the amount of cover that is available to fish. A
number of factors such as photoperiod, water clarity and temperature, nutrients, depth
and substrate size will determine the type and abundance of macrophytes that will grow
in a particular area. Pure sand or gravel areas are not favorable for most macrophytes,
as their roots cannot properly penetrate the substrate. Mixed substrates with a quantity
of organic matter are optimal for plant growth (Newmaster et al. 1997). Certain species
of adult fish are often associated with submergent and emergent macrophyte cover,
such as bowfin, northern pike, golden shiner, brown bullhead, American eel,
pumpkinseed sunfish, and largemouth bass (Lane et al. 1996 b,c). Other adult fish
preferred logs or boulders as cover with little or no macrophytes (e.g., smallmouth bass,
walleye, and slimy sculpin). Similarly, fry and juvenile fish of many species (cyprinids,
centrarchids, and percids) found refuge and food among macrophytes in shallow
marshes and coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Many species spawned amongst
submergent and emergent vegetation (bowfin, northern pike, pumpkinseed sunfish, and
yellow perch) while others preferred submerged woody debris and large rocks
(smallmouth bass, lake trout) (Lane et al. 1996c).
23
The affinity of many species of fish to macrophytes and other structures (e.g.,
logs, woody debris) has the tendency to concentrate fish, making them vulnerable to
electrofishing. Conversely, in areas of extremely dense cover, it can be difficult for the
netters to see and recover narcotized fish.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Carolyn Bakelaar for providing the maps.
REFERENCES
Appenzeller A.R. and W.C. Leggett. 1992. Bias in hydroacoustic estimates of fish
abundance due to acoustic shadowing: evidence from day-night surveys of
vertically migrating fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science.
49:2179-2189.
Bayley, P.B. and D.J. Austen. 2002. Capture efficiency of a boat electrofisher.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 131, no.3, pp. 435-451.
Bonar, S.A. and W.A. Hubert. 2002. Standard Sampling of Inland Fish: Benefits,
Challenges, and a Call for Action. Fisheries. Vol.27, no. 3, pp.10-16.
Boston, C.M. and R. G. Randall. 2001. Productive capacity of nearshore fish habitat in
the Bay of Quinte. The Big Cleanup Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan.
Project Quinte Annual Report 1999-2000 Bay of Quinte RAP Restoration Council/
Project Quinte. August 2001. pp. 119-142.
Boston, C.M. and R.G. Randall, and C.K. Minns. 2002. Comparison of point and line
transect methods for surveying fish assemblages in littoral habitats of the lower
Great Lakes. Poster presentation at the Canadian Conference for Fisheries
Research, Vancouver, BC (Canada), 3-5 January, 2002 (World Meeting Number
000 5825).
Brown, R.W., M.P. Ebener, T.J. Sledge and W.W. Taylor. 1995. Forage fish
assemblage structure in the littoral and nearshore areas of St. Martin Bay, Lake
Huron. The Lake Huron Ecosystem: Ecology, Fisheries and Management. 207222. Edited by M. Munawar, T. Edsall and J. Leach.
Burkhardt, R.W. and S. Gutreuter. 1995. Improving electrofishing catch consistency by
standardizing power. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
15:375-381.
Canadian Coast Guard. 2001. Canadian Marine Differential Global Positioning System
(DGPS) broadcast standard. Version 2.1. http://www.ccggcc.gc.ca/dgps/main_e.htm
24
Cincotta, D.A. and J.R. Stauffer. 1984. Temperature preference and avoidance studies
of six North American freshwater fish species. Hydrobiologia 109: 173-177.
Coble, D.W. 1982. Fish populations in relation to dissolved oxygen in the Wisconsin
River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111: 612-623.
Copp, G.H. and P. Jurajda. 1993. Do small riverine fish move inshore at night? Journal
of Fish Biology 43(Supplement A): 229-241.
Cyr, H., Downing, J.A., Lalonde, S., Baines, S.B., Pace, M.L. 1992. Sampling larval fish
populations: choice of sample number and size. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 121, 356-368.
Davis, J.C. 1975. Minimal dissolved oxygen requirements of aquatic life with emphasis
on Canadian species, a review. Journal of Fisheries Resource Board of Canada
32: 2295-2332.
Dumont, S.C. and J.A. Dennis. 1997. Comparison of day and night electrofishing in
Texas reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17:939946.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. The Great Lakes atlas, introduction: The Great
Lakes. Great Lakes National Program Office (United States).
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/glat-ch1.html#1
Fassett, N.C. 1966. A manual of aquatic plants. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Guy, C.S., R.M. Neumann and D.W. Willis. 1992. Movement patterns of adult black
crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus, in Brant Lake, South Dakota. Journal of
Freshwater Ecology, 7(2). 137-147.
Harden, S, and L.L. Conner. 1992. Variability of electrofishing crew efficiency, and
sampling requirements for estimating reliable catch rates. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management. 12:612-617.
Hartig, J.H., M.A. Zarull, T.B. Reynoldson, G. Mikol, V.A. Harris, R.G. Randall, and V.W.
Cairns. 1997. Quantifying Targets for Rehabilitating Degraded Areas of the
Great Lakes. Environmental Management. 21 (5): 713-723.
Hayes, D.B., Ferreri, C.P., and Taylor, W.W. 1996. Linking fish habitat to their
population dynamics. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.53 (Suppl 1): 383–390.
Haynes, J.M. 1995. Thermal ecology of salmonids in Lake Ontario. Great Lakes
Research Review Vol. 2, No. 1:17-22.
Helfman, G.S. 1981. Twilight and temporal structure in a freshwater fish community.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 38:1405-1420.
25
Hine, R.L., editor. 1971. A guideline for portable direct current electrofishing systems.
Technical Bulletin No. 51, Department of Natural Resources Madison, Wisconsin.
Hotchkiss, N. 1967. Common marsh plants of the United States and Canada. General
Publishing Company, Ltd., Toronto.
Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques. Pages 157-192 In Murphy, B. R. and
D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Imbrock, F., A. Appenzeller and R. Eckmann. 1996. Diel and seasonal distribution of
perch in Lake Constance: a hydroacoustic study and in situ observations.
Journal of Fish Biology. 49:1-13.
JEMSys Software Systems Inc. 2003. Elecfish Version 4.3.31 Dundas, ON
Jesien, R. and R. Hocutt. 1990. Method for evaluating fish response to electric fields.
Pages 10-18 in Developments in Electric Fishing. Fishing News Books, Blackwell
Scientific Publications Ltd., Cambridge Ma.
Kelso, J.R.M and C.K. Minns. 1996. Is fish species richness at sites in the Canadian
Great Lakes the result of local or regional factors? Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 53(Supplement 1): 175-193.
Kershner, M.W. and E.A. Marschall. 1998. Allocating sampling effort to equalize
precision of electrofishing catch per unit effort. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management. 18:822-831.
Knights, B.C., B.L. Johnson, and M.B. Sandheinrich. 1995. Responses of bluegills and
black crappies to dissolved oxygen, temperature, and current in backwater lakes
of the Upper Mississippi River During Winter. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 15: 390-399.
Kolz and Reynolds 1990. A power threshold method for the estimation of fish
conductivity. Pages 5-9 in I.G. Cowx, editor. Developments in electric fishing.
Fishing News Books, Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd., Cambridge Ma.
Koppelman, J.B., G.S. Whitt, and D.P. Philippe. 1988. Thermal preferenda of Northern
Florida and reciprocal F1 Hybrid Largemouth Bass. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 117: 238-244.
Lamarque, P. 1990. Twenty years of electric fishing expeditions throughout the world.
Pages 334-351 in I.G. Cowx, editor. Developments in electric fishing. Fishing
News Books, Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd., Cambridge Ma.
Lane, P.A., C.B. Portt and C.K. Minns. 1996a. Nursery habitat characteristics of Great
Lakes fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science.
2338:v+42p.
26
Lane, P.A., C.B. Portt and C.K. Minns. 1996b. Habitat characteristics of adult fishes of
the Great Lakes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science.
2358:v+43p.
Lane, P.A., C.B. Portt and C.K. Minns. 1996c. Spawning habitat characteristics of Great
Lakes fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science.
2368:v+48p.
MacLeod, W.D., C.K. Minns, A. Mathers and S. Mee. 1995. An evaluation of biotic
indices and habitat suitability scores for classifying littoral habitats. Canadian
Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 2334: 26 p.
MacRae, P.S.D., D.A. Jackson. 2001. The influence of smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieu) predation and habitat complexity on the structure of littoral zone fish
assemblages. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 58:342351.
Mandrak, M.E., and E.J. Crossman. 1992. A checklist of Ontario freshwater fishes
annotated with distribution maps. Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences
Miscellaneous Publication., 31 pp.
McMahon, T.E., A.V. Zale and D.J. Orth. 1996. Aquatic habitat measurements. Pages
83-120. in B.R. Murphy and D.WW. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, second
edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Minns, C.K. 1989. Factors affecting fish species richness in Ontario lakes.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 118, no.5, pp. 533-545,
1989.
Minns, C.K,, S.W. King, and C.B. Portt. 1993. Morphological and ecological
characteristics of 25 fishes occurring in Great Lakes’ Areas of Concern.
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1993, no. 31 pp.
Minns, C.K., J.D. Meisner, J.E. Moore, L.A. Greig, and R.G. Randall. 1995. Defensible
methods for pre- and post-development assessment of fish habitat in the Great
Lakes. A prototype methodology for headlands and offshore structures.
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 2328:xiii+65p.
Minns, C.K., R.G. Randall, V.W. Cairns, and C.N. Bakelaar. 1996. Quantifying the
effects of the supply of suitable habitats on the dynamics of fish stocks in the
Great Lakes. 39th Conference of the International Association of Great Lakes
Research, Mississauga, Ontario (Canada), 26-30 May 1996. (World Meeting
Number 9625006).
Minns, C.K. 1997. Quantifying ‘no net loss’ of productivity of fish habitats. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Vol. 54, no.10, pp. 2463-2473.
Minns, C.K., J.F. Koonce, and C.N. Bakelaar. 1999. Habitat supply analysis for fish
communities in the Great Lakes Basin. IAGLR ’99. International Association of
Great Lakes Research: Great Lakes, Great Science, Great Cities. Programs and
Abstracts. P. A-81. 1999.
27
Minns, C.K., J.E. Moore, M. Stoneman and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2001. Defensible
Methods of Assessing Fish Habitat: Lacustrine Habitats in the Great Lakes Basin
– Conceptual Basis and Approach Using Habitat Suitability Matrix (HSM) Method.
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2559: viii+70 p.
Moore, J. E., C. K. Minns, B. Valere and R. G. Randall. 1998. Productive capacity of
Great Lakes nearshore fish habitats: design and implementation of an
electrofishing survey database. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and
Aquatic Science. 2441:vi+32p.
Murphy, B. R., and D. W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Newmaster, S.G., A.G. Harris and L.J. Kershaw. 1997. Wetland plants of Ontario.
Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton.
Niimi, A.J. and F.W.H. Beamish. 1974. Bioenergetics and growth of largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) in relation to body weight and temperature. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 52: 447-456.
Novotny, D.W. and G.R. Priegel. 1974. Electrofishing boats: improved designs and
operational guidelines to increase the effectiveness of boom shockers. Technical
Bulletin No. 73. Department of Natural Resources. Madison, Wisconsin.
Paragamian, V.L. 1989. A comparison of day and night electrofishing: size structure
and catch per unit effort for smallmouth bass. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management. 9:500-503.
Pierce, C.L., A.M. Corcoran, A.N. Gronbach, S. Hsia, B.J. Mullarkey and A.J.
Schwartzhoff. 2001. Influence of diel period on electrofishing and beach seining
assessments of littoral fish assemblages. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 21:918-926.
Prophet, C.W., T.B. Burngardt and N.K. Prophet. 1989. Diel behavior and seasonal
distribution of walleye, Stizostedion vitreum Mitchell, in Marion Reservoir, based
on ultrasonic telemetry. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, Volume 5, Number 2.
177-185.
Randall, R.G., C.K. Minns, V.W. Cairns, and J.E. Moore. 1993. Effect of habitat
degradation on the species composition and biomass of fish in Great Lakes Area
of Concern. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
1993, no. 1941, 45 pp.
Randall, R.G., C.K. Minns, V.W. Cairns, and J.E. Moore. 1996. The relationship
between an index of fish production and submerged macrophytes and other
habitat features at three littoral areas in the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 53, no. Suppl.1, pp.35-44.
Randall, R.G., C.K. Minns, V.W. Cairns, J.E. Moore and B. Valere. 1998. Habitat
predictors of fish species occurrence and abundance in nearshore areas of
28
Severn Sound. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
2440: vii+30 p.
Randall, R.G., C.K. Minns, J.R.M. Kelso, C. Boston, L. Carl, K. Clarke, B. Franzin, J.
Hume, M. Ridgeway, D. Scruton, K. Smokorowski and L. Stanfield. 1999. Field
measurement of the productive capacity of freshwater fish habitat- proceedings
of a scoping workshop.
Randall, R.G., and C.K. Minns. 2002. Comparison of a Habitat Productivity Index (HPI)
and an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for measuring the productive capacity of fish
habitat in nearshore areas of the Great Lakes. Vol. 28, no.2, pp. 240-255.
Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-253 in B.R. Murphy and D.WW. Willis,
editors. Fisheries techniques, second edition. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Rudstam, L.G. and J.J. Magnuson. 1985. Predicting the vertical distribution of fish
populations: analysis of cisco, Coregonus artedii, and yellow perch, Perca
flavescens. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 42:11781188.
Saltveit, S.J. 1990. Studies of juvenile fish in large rivers. Pages 109-114 in I.G. Cowx,
editor. Developments in electric fishing. Fishing News Books, Blackwell
Scientific Publications Ltd., Cambridge Mass.
Schlesinger, D.A. and H.A. Regier. 1983. Relationship between environmental
temperatures and yields of subarctic and temperate zone fish species. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 40: 1829-1837.
Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bull. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. 966p.
Smith, D. 1984. Introduction to electrofishing. Smith Aquatic Safety Services, SmithRoot Inc. Imperial, Missouri.
Smokorowski, K.E., and M.G. Stoneman, V.W. Cairns, C.K. Minns, R.G. Randall, and
B.G. Valere. 1998. Trends in the nearshore fish community of Hamilton
Harbour, 1988 to 1997, as measured using an Index of Biotic Integrity. Canadian
Technical Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, no. 2230: xii+97p.
Stanfield, L., M. Jones, M. Stoneman, B. Kilgour, J. Parish and G. Wichert. 1999.
Stream assessment protocol for southern Ontario: V3.1.
Straszynski, E.B and L.M. Carl. 2001. Class 1 electrofishing certification course
manual. Watershed Science Centre, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive,
Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8.
Valere, B. 1996. Productive capacity of littoral habitats in the Great Lakes: field sampling
procedures (1998-1995). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 2384, vi+44p.
29
Zalewski, M., and I. G. Cowx. 1990. Factors affecting the efficiency of electric fishing.
Pages 89–111 in I. G. Cowx and P. Lamarque, editors. Fishing with electricity,
applications in freshwater fisheries management. Fishing News Books, Oxford,
UK.
30
31
Table 1. Electrofishing survey locations, 1988-2001. The number of transects, points, samples
and records are given for each survey location. Transects are the number of unique line transects
at each location, samples are the number of surveys for all transects and dates for each location,
and records are the number of individual fish measured for length and weight. Point samples
were conducted at or adjacent to transects, with 5 samples at each of the 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 m
depth contours, respectively (see text).
Survey location Number of
transects
Number of
samples
Number of
records
Years1
TRANSECTS
Severn Sound, Georgian Bay
Penetang 35 124 3,173 1990, 1992, 2002
Hog 20 65 1,890 1990, 1992, 1995, 2002
Sturgeon 12 23 396 1992
Matchedash 12 38 1,318 1990
Green Island 9 27 755 1995
Lake Erie
Long Point 9 27 1,126 1994
Port Dover 16 48 790 1994
Port Colborne 22 66 605 1994
Lake Ontario, West
Port Credit 9 10 345 1990
Port Weller 5 13 230 1994
Port Dalhousie 23 52 1,063 1994
Hamilton Harbour 59 1,279 38,091 1988,1990, 1992, 19951998, 2001, 2002
Burlington Waterfront 6 24 212 1994, 1999
Bronte Harbour 21 86 1,677 1994, 1998, 1999
Lake Ontario, East
Presqu’ile Bay 10 30 978 1994
Trenton 10 52 2,412 1989, 1990, 1999
Belleville 9 53 2,772 1989, 1990, 1999
Big Island 14 103 4,145 1989, 1990, 1999, 2001
Hay Bay 8 20 263 1992
Carnachan 9 41 1,695 1992, 1999
Conway 6 12 261 1992
32
Table 1 continued
Suvey location Number of
transects
Number of
samples
Number of
records
Years1
Lake Ontario, East
Black River 6 62 3,071 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
Little and McMahon Bluff 6 85 1,455 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
West Lake 18 94 3,464 1998, 1999, 2002
Grand Total 354 2,434 72, 187 1988 – 2001
POINTS
Hamilton Harbour 6 303 1,149 2002
Bay of Quinte 7 278 1,376 2001
Little and MacMahon Bluffs 6 563 1,005 2000, 2001
Black River 6 394 2,166 2000, 2001
West Lake 12 320 1,038 2002
Grand Total 37 1,858 6,734 2000-2002
1 not all transects were surveyed each year and the number of samples per transect each year
varied from 1 to 6 (usually 2-4).
33
Table 2. Range in physical conditions during surveys at study locations in the lower Great Lakes
(1988-2002).
Location Macrophytes
(% cover)
Conductivity
Mean (range)
(μS cm-1)
Temperature
Mean (range)
(o C)
Severn Sound, Georgian Bay
Penetang Harbour 1-100 197.2 (150.0-239.2) 24.8 (23.0-27.2)
Hog Bay 20-100 195.0 (145.0-257.1) 26.0 (23.0-29.5)
Matchedash 0-100 NA NA
Green Island 0-100 238.5 (210.0-280.0) NA
Sturgeon Bay 0-100 229.1 (160.0-270.0) NA
Lake Erie
Long Point 0-100 250.4 (220.0-295.0) NA
Port Dover 0-100 261.5 (200.0-500.0) NA
Port Colborne 0-100 262.5 (220.0-360.0) NA
Lake Ontario, West
Port Credit NA NA NA
Port Weller 0-19 278.9 (260.0-305.0) NA
Port Dalhousie 0-100 265.3 (240.0-305.0) NA
Hamilton Harbour 0-100 546.6 (370.0-720.0) 22.1 (16.0-27.3)
Burlington waterfront 0 259.6 (220.0-360.0) 14.3 (10.7-17.7)
Bronte Harbour 0-100 264.7 (195.0-450.0) 15.9 (8.7-19.2)
Lake Ontario, East
Presqu’ile Bay 20-100 254.2 (220.0-285.0) NA
Trenton 1-100 223.1 (175.0-260.0) 25.6 (23.4-28.7)
Belleville 1-100 204.0 (150.0-250.0) 22.0 (11.0-27.0)
Big Island 0-100 218.2 (160.0-265.0) 20.7 (8.9-28.2)
Hay Bay 0-100 276.8 (255.0-300.0) NA
Carnachan 1-100 250.9 (210.0-290.0) 23.0 (18.2-26.7)
Conway 0-100 210.0-290.0 (265.4) NA
Black River 0-100 268.7 (210.0-413.6) 20.2 (14.4-24.9)
MacMahon Bluff 0 267.0 (236.7-360.0) 18.8 (14.1-22.4)
Little Bluff 0-20 266.8 (231.1-350.0) 19.0 (14.3-22.4)
West Lake 0-100 261.3 (200.0-330.0) 23.5 (14.1-29.1)
NA= not available
34
Table 3. Range in catch (numbers), biomass (kg), and species richness during surveys at study
locations in the lower Great Lakes (1988-2002).
Location Sample size
(N)
Numbers
Biomass
(kg)
Species
richness
Severn Sound, Georgian Bay
Penetang Harbour 124 36.2 (0-161) 3.64 (0.00-21.19) 4.9 (0-12)
Hog Bay 65 38.2 (0-166) 3.85 (0.00-34.82) 5.3 (0-10)
Matchedash 38 47.8 (7-170) 3.89 (1.32-12.09) 7.0 (4-12)
Green Island 27 36.9 (2-138) 2.77 (0.01-8.20) 6.4 (1-10)
Sturgeon Bay 23 17.5 (0-50) 1.88 (0.00-9.98) 4.3 (0-8)
Lake Erie
Long Point 27 43.2 (1-141) 2.52 (0.01-7.49) 8.5 (1-15)
Port Dover 48 19.5 (0-149) 3.30 (0.00-14.46) 4.4 (0-13)
Port Colborne 66 9.3 (0-75) 2.96 (0.00-17.72) 2.8 (0-9)
Lake Ontario, West
Port Credit 10 117.5 (7-309) 11.67 (0.19-24.68) 4.1 (1-9)
Port Weller 13 32.1 (2-120) 3.02 (0.11-9.61) 4.1 (2-6)
Port Dalhousie 52 34.4 (0-182) 6.01 (0.00-48.11) 4.3 (0-10)
Hamilton Harbour 1279 53.4 (0-332) 8.65 (0.00-89.00) 5.1 (0-15)
Burlington waterfront 24 34.4 (0-174) 1.30 (0.00-13.75) 1.6 (0-5)
Bronte Harbour 86 63.5 (0-804) 3.90 (0.00-50.67) 2.7 (0-10)
Lake Ontario, East
Presqu’ile Bay 30 38.9 (3-88) 2.53 (0.06-9.21) 5.8 (1-11)
Trenton 52 88.1 (0-541) 7.06 (0.00-20.86) 7.7 (0-14)
Belleville 53 91.6 (1-277) 6.42 (0.05-30.14) 8.0 (1-14)
Big Island 103 64.6 (0-376) 3.84 (0.00-14.59) 7.2 (0-14)
Hay Bay 18 17.9 (3-107) 3.48 (0.28-11.71) 5.3 (2-9)
Carnachan 41 44.2 (5-134) 3.30 (0.27-8.72) 6.8 (2-10)
Conway 12 23.0 (0-65) 3.67 (0.00-17.25) 4.8 (0-9)
Black River 61 65.3 (0-224) 4.10 (0.00-17.34) 7.4 (0-15)
MacMahon Bluff 44 21.2 (1-82) 1.30 (0.01-4.62) 5.0 (1-10)
Little Bluff 41 17.7 (0-74) 0.76 (0.00-2.28) 3.3 (0-7)
West Lake 94 41.4 (0-131) 1.92 (0.00-7.61) 7.3 (0-12)
35
Table 4a. Presence(x) or absence of fish species at electrofishing transects from 1988-2002 for each of the following locations in the Bay of
Quinte and Prince Edward County: TRENT= Trenton; BELL= Belleville; CARN= Carnachan Bay; BIGI= Big Island; HAYB= Hay Bay; CONW=
Conway; WLAK= West Lake; LBLF= Little Bluff, MBLF= MacMahon Bluff; and BRIV= Black River.
Common names Scientific names TRENT BELL CARN BIGI HAYB CONW WLAK LBLF MBLF BRIV
Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus x x x x
Bowfin Amia calva x x x x x x x x
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus x x x x x x x x x x
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cependianum x x x x x x x
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss x
Brown trout Salmo trutta x
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush x
Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis x
Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax x
Northern pike Esox lucius x x x x x x x x
Muskellunge Esox masquinongy
Grass pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus x
Chain pickerel Esox niger x x
Central mudminnow Umbra limi x x x
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus
White sucker Catostomus commersoni x x x x x x x x x x
Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta
Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus
Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum x x x
Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum
Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum x x
River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum x
Redhorse sp Moxostoma sp. x
Golfish Carassius auratus
Lake chub Couesius plumbeus
Common carp Cyprinus carpio x x x x x x
Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas x x x x x x x x x
Emerald shiner Notemigonus atherinoides x x x x x x x x x
Common shiner Luxilus cornutus x
Blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon x x x
Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis x
Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius x x x x x x x x x x
Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus x x x x x x x x
Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas x x x x x x x x
Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus x x
36
Table 4a continued
Common names Scientific names TRENT BELL CARN BIGI HAYB CONW WLAK LBLF MBLF BRIV
Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae x
Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus x x x x
Black bullhead Ameiurus melas
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus x x x x x x x x x
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus x
Stonecat Notorus flavus x
Tadpole madtom Notorus gyrinus x
American eel Anguilla rostrata x x x x x x x x x
Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous x x x x x x x x
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus x x x
Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus x
Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus x x
White perch Morone Americana x x x x x x
White bass Morone chrysops x x x x x
Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris x x x x x x x x x x
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus x x x x x x x x x x
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus x x x x x x x
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu x x x x x x x x
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides x x x x x x x x x
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus x x x x x x
Yellow perch Perca flavescens x x x x x x x x x x
Walleye Stizostedium vitreum x x x x x x x
Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare x x
Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum x x x x x x
Logperch Percina caprodes x x x x x x x
Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus x x x x x x x
Round goby Neogobius melanostomus
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens x x x x x x
Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus x x x
Sculpins Cottus sp. x
Hybrid (goldfish x carp) C. auratus x C. carpio
Hybrid (pumpkinseed x bluegill) L. gibbosus x L. macrochirus
Cumlative number of species: 32 33 22 34 17 16 33 23 30 32
37
Table 4b. Presence (x) or absence of fish species at electrofishing transects from 1988-2002 for each of the following locations in western Lake
Ontario: HAMH= Hamilton Harbour; PDAL= Port Dalhousie; PCRD= Port Credit; BRON= Bronte Harbour; BURL= Burlington Beach; PRES=
Presqu’ile’ and PWEL= Port Weller.
Common names Scientific names HAMH PDAL PCRD BRON BURL PRES PWEL
Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus x
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus x x
Bowfin Amia calva x x x
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus x x x x x x x
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cependianum x x x x x
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch x
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha x x x x x
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss x x x x
Brown trout Salmo trutta x x x x
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush x x
Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis x
Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax x x x x x
Northern pike Esox lucius x x x x
Muskellunge Esox masquinongy
Grass pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus x
Chain pickerel Esox niger
Central mudminnow Umbra limi
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus
White sucker Catostomus commersoni x x x x x x x
Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta
Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus x
Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum x
Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum x
Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum x x x x
River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum x
Redhorse sp Moxostoma sp.
Golfish Carassius auratus x
Lake chub Couesius plumbeus x
Common carp Cyprinus carpio x x x x x x x
Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas x x x
Emerald shiner Notemigonus atherinoides x x x x x x
Common shiner Luxilus cornutus x
Blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon x
Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis x x
Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius x x x x x
Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus x x
Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas x
Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus x
38
Table 4b continued
Common names Scientific names HAMH PDAL PCRD BRON BURL PRES PWEL
Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae
Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
Black bullhead Ameiurus melas x
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus x x x x
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus x
Stonecat Notorus flavus
Tadpole madtom Notorus gyrinus x x
American eel Anguilla rostrata x x x x x
Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus x x
Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus
Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus x x x x x
White perch Morone Americana x x x x
White bass Morone chrysops x x x x
Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris x x x x x
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus x
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus x x x x x
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus x x x
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu x x x x
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides x x x x x
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus x x x x x
Yellow perch Perca flavescens x x x x x x x
Walleye Stizostedium vitreum x x x x x
Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum x x
Logperch Percina caprodes x x x
Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus x x x x
Round goby Neogobius melanostomus x
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens x x x x
Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus x
Sculpins Cottus sp.
Hybrid (goldfish x carp) C. auratus x C. carpio x x
Hybrid (pumpkinseed x bluegill) L. gibbosus x L. macrochirus x
Cumulative number of species: 48 29 15 31 13 22 18
39
Table 4c. Presence (x) or absence of fish species at electrofishing transects from 1988-2002 for each of the following locations in Georgian Bay
and Lake Erie: HOGB= Hog Bay; PENE= Penetang Harbour; MATB= Matchedash Bay; GRIS= Green Island; STUB= Sturgeon Bay; PCOL= Port
Colbourne; PDOV= Port Dover; and LONG= Long Point.
Common names Scientific names HOGB PENE MATB GRIS STUB PCOL PDOV LONG
Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus x x x
Bowfin Amia calva x x x x x x x x
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus x x x x x x
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cependianum x x x x
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha x
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
Brown trout Salmo trutta
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush
Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis
Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax x x
Northern pike Esox lucius x x x x x x x x
Muskellunge Esox masquinongy x
Grass pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus x
Chain pickerel Esox niger
Central mudminnow Umbra limi x
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus x x x x
White sucker Catostomus commersoni x x x x x x x
Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta x
Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus
Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum x x
Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum x
Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum x x x x
River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum x
Redhorse sp Moxostoma sp. x
Golfish Carassius auratus x x x
Lake chub Couesius plumbeus
Common carp Cyprinus carpio x x x x x x x
Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius x
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas x x x x x x x
Emerald shiner Notemigonus atherinoides x x x
Common shiner Luxilus cornutus x x
Blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon x x x x
Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis x x x
Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius x x x x x x x
Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus x x x x
Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas
Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus
40
Table 4c continued
Common names Scientific names HOGB PENE MATB GRIS STUB PCOL PDOV LONG
Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae
Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus x x
Black bullhead Ameiurus melas
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus x x x x x x x x
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus x
Stonecat Notorus flavus x
Tadpole madtom Notorus gyrinus
American eel Anguilla rostrata x x
Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous x x
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus
Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus x
White perch Morone Americana x x
White bass Morone chrysops x x
Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris x x x x x x x x
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus x x x x x x x x
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus x x x x
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu x x x x x x x
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides x x x x x x x x
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus x x x x x x x x
Yellow perch Perca flavescens x x x x x x x x
Walleye Stizostedium vitreum x x x x
Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum
Logperch Percina caprodes x x x
Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus x x x x x x
Round goby Neogobius melanostomus
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens x x x
Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus
Sculpins Cottus sp.
Hybrid (goldfish x carp) C. auratus x C. carpio x x
Hybrid (pumpkinseed x bluegill) L. gibbosus x L. macrochirus
Cumulative number of species: 25 33 24 23 14 25 25 18
41
Table 5a. Example of average and maximum catch of fish by transect and point survey from Prince
Edward Bay, Lake Ontario in 2000 and 2001. For both catch (total number of fish) and species
richness, the number of samples (n), maximum (max), mean, and standard error of the mean (SE) are
given. For each transect sampled, 15 to 20 points were sampled to equal the numbers of samples (n).
Catch Species Richness
Year Survey Method n Max Mean SE Max Mean SE
2000 Transect 35 131 38.6 5.6 11 5.3 0.5
2001 Transect 37 180 39.0 7.2 15 6.7 0.5
2000 Point 566 39 3.4 0.2 7 1.6 0.1
2001 Point 669 35 4.0 0.2 8 1.8 0.1
Table 5b. Comparison of mean catch (number of fish) and average species richness (number of fish
species) at areas with and without macrophytes in eastern Lake Ontario (2000-2001). Taken from
(Boston et al. 2002). The samples were collected by boat electrofishing using point and line transect
survey methods. The number of samples required to produce a coefficient of variation of the mean of
0.20 is indicated, along with the effort (hours) needed to collect the samples.
Catch Species richness
Study Area
Survey Method Mean N1 Effort2
(h)
Mean N Effort
(h)
A (macrophytes) Point 5 27 (24) 3-4 2.3 12 (10) 1-2
Transect 66 13 (12) 12-14 7.3 4 (3) 3-4
B (no macrophytes) Point 2 35 (32) 3-4 1.0 27 (26) 3-4
Transect 24 18 (16) 17-20 4.6 6 (5) 5-6
1 N was estimated using the formula: N=aXb-2CVx-2 (Cyr et al. 1992), where a and b are coefficients from
the regression of variance versus mean catch and species richness for the electrofishing samples, and
CVx is the desired coefficient of variation of the mean.
2 Effort (approximate, in hours) required for collecting the fish and habitat data.
42
Table 6. Electrofishing fish field data sheet
43
Table 7. Transect habitat assessment field data sheet.
44
Table 8. Settings for the Lowrance X-16 echosounder used in habitat surveys to record depth and
macrophyte density (from Valere 1996).
Lowrance X-16 setting Electrofishing Transect
Sensitivity
Grayline
Print Intensity
Paper Speed
Scale*
Pulse Width
Suppression
Discrimination**
Surface Clutter**
Minimum
4
1
5 (2.1 in/min)
0-2 m
30 μs (Dense Vegetation)
110 μs (Sparse Vegetation)
0
0 to 4
1 to 7
* scale of the echogram was chosen to optimize the size of the tracing (i.e. largest possible tracing, that still included the
deepest part of the transect).
** these settings were set at minimum and increased accordingly to optimize the readability of the echogram. Conditions
such as rough water, extremely abundant vegetation, bubbles under the boat, etc., may have warranted the increase of
one or both settings.
45
Table 9. Point sample habitat assessment field data sheet
46
`
47
Figure 1: Figure showing the location of the electrofishing transects in relation to the shoreline and
offshore bathymetry.
48
Figure 2: Figure showing the location of electrofishing point samples in relation to the shoreline.
49
Figure 3: General location of all study areas.
50
Figure 4: Overview of Severn Sound, Georgian Bay
51
Figure 5: Penetang Harbour
52
Figure 6: Hog Bay
53
Figure 7: Sturgeon Bay
54
Figure 8: Matchedash Bay
55
Figure 9: Green Island
56
Figure 10: Overview of Lake Erie
57
Figure 11: Long Point
58
Figure 12: Port Dover
59
Figure 13: Port Colborne
60
Figure 14: Overview of western Lake Ontario
61
Figure 15: Port Credit
62
Figure 16: Port Weller and Port Dalhousie
63
Figure 17: Hamilton Harbour
64
Figure 18: Burlington waterfront
65
Figure 19: Bronte Harbour
66
Figure 20: Presqu’ile Bay
67
Figure 21: Overview of the Bay of Quinte and Prince Edward County sampling areas
68
Figure 22: Trenton Harbour
69
Figure 23: Belleville
70
Figure 24: Big Island
71
Figure 25: Lower Bay of Quinte
72
Figure 26: Prince Edward Bay
73
Figure 27: West Lake
74
75
Appendix 1. List and description of data fields for electrofishing fish field data sheet
Data Element Description
Location One geographic location or area within which sampling stations are located
Date Date of electrofishing survey
Transect Transect number (pertaining to line transect names)
Time Start Time electrofishing survey began (24 hour clock)
Time Finish Time electrofishing survey finished (24 hour clock)
Shocker Seconds Duration of electrofishing time in seconds (read from the console)
Sheet_of_ Current sheet # and total sheets for electrofishing transect
Time Period Time of electrofishing, check either before dusk or after dusk
Amps Amps put out during electrofishing, (e.g. 8.0-8.2)
Volts Voltage setting (always 340)
Percentage of Range Percentage of output (read from the console)
Wind Speed (0-9) A rating of wind speed on a scale of 0 to 9, in increments of 5kph (based on
weather info)
Wind Direction Direction of predominate wind (1=N, 2=E, 3=S, 4=W) NW would be recorded as
1.4 (based on weather info and field compass)
Id # Consecutive numbering of fish, for data entry
SPP Species name or code number from MNR species code list
FL (mm) Fork length of fish measured in mm, total length for fish with a rounded or
truncated caudal fin
Wt. (gm) Total fish weight in grams
Sex Sex of fish
Scale # Scale sample number (if determined)
Note Any extra information about fish (i.e. tumors, fin clips)
Batches Number and weight of fish exceeding 20 fish per species
SPP Species name or MNR code
Number of Fish Number of fish in batch
Batch Weight (gm) Total weight of batched fish
Notes Any additional information or comments about electrofishing run (i.e. strong winds,
excess vegetation, stalling motor)
Data Verification The date and initials of person performing data entry and verification are entered
in this area
76
Appendix 2. List and description for electrofishing line transect habitat field data sheet
Data Element Description
Location Geographic location or area within which sampling stations are located
Date Date of habitat survey
Transect Transect number
Time (24hr) Time in 24 hr clock
Mid-Transect Measurements taken at the midpoint between transect markers
Secchi Depth (m) Depth secchi dish can be seen at mid transect
Temp (°C) Water temperature in °C, at mid transect, taken at the surface, mid-depth(0.75m)
and bottom (1.5m)
Conductivity (μS/cm) Conductivity readings at mid transect, measured in μS/cm taken at surface, 0.75m
and 1.5m, regulated to 25 °C
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved oxygen readings in mg/L, measured at surface, 0.5m and 0.75m
5 m depth near transect Measurements taken at 5m depth perpendicular to transect
5 m Secchi Depth (m) Secchi depth reading at 5m depth contour
5 m Temp (°C) Temperature in °C at surface, 2.5m and bottom (5.0m)
5 m Conductivity (μS/cm) Conductivity reading taken in μS/cm at surface, 2.5m and 5.0m
5 m Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved oxygen taken at surface, 2.5m and 5.0m
Echogram Times (S, E) Start and stop times of echogram, recorded as hh:mm:ss
Pulse width Pulse width setting on echogram (default value 30)
Surface clutter Surface clutter setting on echogram (default value 1)
Discrimination Discrimination setting on echogram (default value 0)
Paper speed Paper speed setting on echogram (default value 5)
Transect marker descriptions Check appropriate box for accuracy of GPS readings
77
Appendix 2 continued
Data Element Description
Latitude Latitude of marker, recorded as dd mm.mmm (NAD 83)
Longitude Longitude of marker recorded as dd mm.mmm (NAD 83)
Orientation of marker Orientation of marker (i.e. is marker to the N, S, E or W)
Distance to shore Distance to shore from marker (recorded in m)
Sediment categories Check type and density of sediments observed
Marker description Record any additional information about transect marker (i.e. changes in landmarks,
reflectors added)
Waypoint name Waypoint name given to marker for GPS purposes
Observer Name of person observing macrophytes
Density Check one box describing the density of macrophytes
Names of dominate types Record the dominate types of vegetation found in the transect (using a key such as
Newmaster, S.G., A.G. Harris, L.J. Kershaw. 1997. Wetland plants of Ontario.
Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton Alberta.)
Notes Record any notes regarding the vegetation
Comments Record any general comments about the transect habitat data
Data verification The date and initials of person performing data entry and verification are entered in
this area
78
Appendix 3. List and description for electrofishing point sample field data sheet
Data Element Description
Location Geographic location or area within which sampling stations are located
Date Date of electrofishing survey
Transect Transect number (pertaining to line transect names)
Point Name of point (depth and label, i.e. 1.0a, 1.5b, as indicated on float marker)
Depth (m) Depth of point sample
Time (24hr) Time of habitat observations (24 hr clock)
Distance to shore (m) Distance from float marker to shore
Latitude Latitude of point recorded in dd mm.mmm
Longitude Longitude of point recorded in dd mm.mmm
Sediment categories Check type and density of sediments observed
Temperature (°C) Water temperature at mid-depth of the point
Conductivity (μS/cm) Conductivity readings at mid-depth of the point
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved oxygen readings at mid depth of the point
Macrophyte density Select density of macrophytes
Macrophyte composition Select type and dominance of macrophytes
Data entry and verification Enter date and name of person performing data entry and verification
79
Appendix 4. List of tasks and safety checklists to complete before initiating an electrofishing boat survey.
Tasks Checklist Annual Daily
Equipment and safety
checks
Boat
Check hull integrity
Check to confirm that painted areas are intact and the proper
colour.
Check to confirm that safety railing is intact and sturdy.
Check flooring to confirm that it is non-skid and secure
Check that all metal equipment in the boat is electrically
bonded /connected to the hull with a volt/ohm metre
Check to confirm that all batteries are properly enclosed and
vented.
Check to confirm that fuel containers are up to regulation
standard
Check to confirm that boat is cleaned and all equipment is
stored in compartments
Confirm that all decals, numbers, and names are intact and
legible
Check that navigational lights, head lights, back-up lights,
deck lights, dash lights and overhead lights are working.
Check that fuel lines are in good condition
Check to ensure that a tool kit is complete and present
Check to ensure that miscellaneous equipment (i.e., fuses,
spare boat plug) is onboard and intact
Check to confirm that the boat plug is present and that the
livewell is functioning and standpipe is present
Check for adequate mechanical protection on wiring
Check for adequate connectors and interlocking.
Safety Equipment
Check to ensure that the following safety equipment is on
board: two wooden paddles, six approved distress flares, first
aid kit, one class B-I fire extinguisher working and present, life
jackets for maximum number of crew, bullhorn present and
working, anchor and rope present(min. 15.24 m), one bailer or
manual pump, safety ladder, and approved buoyant heaving
line
Check to ensure that the manuals "Smith-Root, Inc.
Electrofishing Boat Owners Manual" and "Smith-Root, Inc.,
GPP Generator Manual" are onboard and kept in a waterproof
bag on the boat.
Outboard Engines
Check to ensure that the main and auxiliary engines are
working and servicing is up to date
Check to ensure no gasoline or oil leaks
Check to ensure that a propeller and spare are present and in
working condition
Check for adequate oil levels in reservoir
Check for adequate fuel
Check to ensure that the cooling water is coming out of the
engine water pump indicator
Equipment and safety
checks, cont’d
Trailer
80
Tasks Checklist Annual Daily
Check for frame integrity
Check that tires are properly inflated and checked for visible
damage or wear
Check that wheel bearings are greased, spare tire, trailer
hitch, safety chain and lock all functioning, lights working,
winch working properly and in good condition, rollers all
present and operating smoothly, tie down straps working and
in good shape.
Electrofisher
Check to ensure that all controls and gauges are operational
Ensure that unit has been checked and overhauled by
manufacturer in last 3 years (Smith-Root electrician)
Check to ensure that audible tone generator is working
Check to ensure that all foot switches are present and working
Check to ensure that high Voltage flashing lights are working.
Check to ensure that "Kill Switch" is working
Check to ensure that primary booms are secure and isolated
from high voltage
Check to ensure that anode arrays are in good shape and
free of oxidation
Check to ensure that there is adequate mechanical protection
of wiring
Conduct high voltage checks
Generator
Ensure that generator is electrically bonded/connected to hull
Ensure that exhaust is directed away from operator
Ensure that all electrical connections are secure and protected
Ensure that oil is changed and engine servicing is up to date
Ensure that mountings are secure
Check to ensure the gas is full
Other equipment
Ensure net handles are made of non-conductive material (e.g.,
wood)
Ensure that each crew member is wearing waterproof,
insulated work gloves
Ensure that gloves are dry inside
Ensure that each crew member is wearing insulated rubber
boots
Ensure that each crew member is briefed on boat operations
and safety procedures
Ensure that each crew member is wearing protective hearing
gear (where applicable -see below)
Ensure that each crew member has a foot activated "kill
switch"
Ensure that each crew member is aware of emergency
procedures (e.g., hospital route, phone numbers, etc.)
Ensure that the weather forecast has been checked
Inform local authorities of your location and work schedule
(Activate Sail Plan)
Train all personnel
All crew members and crew leader must have CPR and First
Aid.
All crew leaders must be certified through the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources (OMNR) Electrofishing certification
81
Tasks Checklist Annual Daily
Train all personnel
cont’d
program.
All crew members must be certified through either the OMNR
certification program or through the crew leader
All crew leaders and members must read "Electrofishing
Guidelines and Procedures" (Goodchild 1986)
All boat operators must have a medical examination once
each year.
The crew leader must read and understand the contents of the
"Smith-Root, Inc. Electrofishing Boat Owners Manual" and
"Smith-Root, Inc., GPP Generator Manual". Copies should be
kept in a waterproof bag on the boat.
All crew members must sign a contract stating that they have
received the proper training (above) and read all the required
materials.
Plan the trip
No electrofishing will be conducted under heavy rain
conditions or in the presence of lightning. Postpone the trip
until weather conditions have improved.
Staff will be trained in accordance with recommended
measures listed under "Train all personnel".
Required safety equipment is available as listed in Safety
Equipment- .See above.
Activate Sail Plan before and after electrofishing work
Operations
Make sure that the aisles and steps on boat are free from
clutter
Boat and live-well operators will wear protective hearing gear
(e.g., earplugs)
All crew members must be wearing insulated rubber gloves
and boots
If a large fish is captured, the netter should step off the foot
pedal and walk the fish back to the live-well
The crew leader will ensure will occur at a safe distance from
areas where people are working or recreating near or in the
water.
Small boat operations
Boat operators and crew must possess and carry Small Boat
Operator Card.
Crew must carry Scientific Collectors Permit
82
83
Appendix 5. Listing of sampled stations and associated habitat information. Habitat information from stations sampled between 1999 and 2002
was collected from the year of the last fish survey and habitat information from sites sampled prior to 1999 contain information from the productive
capacity database for substrates sampled between 1991 and 1995 and macrophyte surveys between 1990 and 1995.
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
PENE PH1 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Si, Org 3
PENE PH2 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si, Org 3
PENE PH3 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
PENE PH4 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Si 3
PENE PH5 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
PENE PH6 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 3
PENE PH7 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Si, Org 2
PENE PH8 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si, Org 2
PENE PH9 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 2
PENE PH10 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
PENE PH11 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 1
PENE PH12 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 1
PENE PH13 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 2
PENE PH14 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 2
PENE PH15 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 1
PENE PH16 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 1
PENE PH17 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 2
PENE PH18 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 1
PENE PH19 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 3
PENE PH20 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 2
PENE PH21 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
PENE PH22 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 2
PENE PH23 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 3
PENE PH24 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 3
PENE PH25 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 2
PENE PH26 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Co, Sa 2
PENE PH27 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 3
PENE PH28 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 2
PENE PH29 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
84
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
PENE PH201 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 Sa 0
PENE PH202 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 Sa 0
PENE PH203 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 Sa 0
PENE PH204 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 Sa 2
PENE PH205 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 Sa 1
PENE PH206 Penetang Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 Sa 1
HOGB HB1 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 1
HOGB HB2 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Sa 1
HOGB HB3 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Cl 1
HOGB HB4 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 1
HOGB HB5 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
HOGB HB6 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
HOGB HB7 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Si 2
HOGB HB8 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Si 3
HOGB HB9 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
HOGB HB10 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Si, Org 2
HOGB HB11 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
HOGB HB12 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
HOGB HB13 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Si 3
HOGB HB14 Hog Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 2002 Si 3
HOGB HB207 Hog Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 Sa 3
HOGB HB208 Hog Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1995 Cl 2
HOGB HB209 Hog Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1995 Sa 1
HOGB HB210 Hog Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 NA NA
HOGB HB211 Hog Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 NA NA
HOGB HB212 Hog Bay Severn Sound Outer bay 1992 Si 3
STUB SB213 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 NA NA
STUB SB214 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Si 3
STUB SB215 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Si 3
STUB SB216 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Si 3
STUB SB217 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Si 3
STUB SB218 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Sa 3
85
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
STUB SB219 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Sa, Si 3
STUB SB220 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Si 3
STUB SB221 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Si 3
STUB SB222 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Gr, Sa, Si 1
STUB SB223 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Gr, Sa, Si 1
STUB SB224 Sturgeon Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1992 Gr, Sa, Si 1
MATB MB1 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 2
MATB MB2 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
MATB MB3 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
MATB MB4 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
MATB MB5 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
MATB MB6 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
MATB MB7 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 2
MATB MB8 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 2
MATB MB9 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
MATB MB10 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 1
MATB MB11 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
MATB MB12 Matchedash Bay Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1990 Si 3
GRIS GI507 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Sa 2
GRIS GI508 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Sa 3
GRIS GI509 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Si 3
GRIS GI506 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Si 3
GRIS GI505 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Si 3
GRIS GI504 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Si 3
GRIS GI501 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Si 3
GRIS GI502 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Si 3
GRIS GI503 Green Island Severn Sound Shore, AOC 1995 Si 3
LONG E271 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 3
LONG E272 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 1
LONG E273 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 3
LONG E274 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 3
LONG E275 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 2
86
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
LONG E276 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 2
LONG E277 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 2
LONG E278 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 3
LONG E279 Long Point L. Erie Wetland 1994 Si 3
PDOV E311 Port Dover L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
PDOV E312 Port Dover L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
PDOV E313 Port Dover L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Sa 1
PDOV E321 Port Dover L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Si 1
PDOV E322 Port Dover L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Si 1
PDOV E323 Port Dover L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Si 2
PDOV E331 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 Sa 0
PDOV E341 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 Sa 0
PDOV E342 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 NA NA
PDOV E343 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 NA NA
PDOV E351 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 Co 0
PDOV E352 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 Sa 0
PDOV E353 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 Co, Gr, Sa 0
PDOV E381 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 Sa 1
PDOV E382 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 Gr 1
PDOV E391 Port Dover L. Erie Shore 1994 NA NA
PCOL E411 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Arm, Bo 0
PCOL E412 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Bo 0
PCOL E413 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Gr 0
PCOL E414 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Bo 0
PCOL E415 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Bo 0
PCOL E416 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
PCOL E417 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
PCOL E418 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 2
PCOL E421 Port Colborne L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 1
PCOL E422 Port Colborne L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 1
PCOL E423 Port Colborne L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 1
PCOL E431 Port Colborne L. Erie West shore 1994 Bo 0
87
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
PCOL E432 Port Colborne L. Erie West shore 1994 Bo 0
PCOL E433 Port Colborne L. Erie West shore 1994 Bo 0
PCOL E441 Port Colborne L. Erie East shore 1994 Sa 0
PCOL E442 Port Colborne L. Erie East shore 1994 Sa 0
PCOL E443 Port Colborne L. Erie East shore 1994 Sa 0
PCOL E481 Port Colborne L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Sa 2
PCOL E482 Port Colborne L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Sa 3
PCOL E483 Port Colborne L. Erie Inside breakwall 1994 Gr 3
PCOL E491 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Si
PCOL E492 Port Colborne L. Erie Outside breakwall 1994 Si 0
PCRD PCC1 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PCRD PCC2 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PCRD PCC3 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PCRD PCC4 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PCRD PCC5 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PCRD PCC6 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PCRD PCC7 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PCRD PCC8 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PCRD PCC9 Port Credit L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1990 NA NA
PWEL O151 Port Weller L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 0
PWEL O152 Port Weller L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 0
PWEL O153 Port Weller L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 1
PWEL O181 Port Weller L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 NA NA
PWEL O182 Port Weller L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 NA NA
PDAL O211 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
PDAL O212 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
PDAL O213 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 1
PDAL O221 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 2
PDAL O222 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 1
PDAL O223 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 1
PDAL O232 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Shore 1994 Co 0
PDAL O241 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 0
88
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
PDAL O242 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 0
PDAL O243 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 0
PDAL O261 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 0
PDAL O262 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 0
PDAL O263 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Shore 1994 Sa 0
PDAL O291 Port Dalhousie L. Ontario Shore 1994 Gr 0
PDAL PDD1 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
PDAL PDD2 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
PDAL PDD3 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
PDAL PDD4 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
PDAL PDD5 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
PDAL PDD6 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
PDAL PDD7 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
PDAL PDD8 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
PDAL PDD9 Port Dalhousie (SCH) L. Ontario Small Craft Harbours 1994 NA NA
HAMH HH1 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1997 Sa 1
HAMH HH2 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Bo 2
HAMH HH3 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1992 Sa 0
HAMH HH4 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo, Sa 1
HAMH HH5 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1992 Sa 1
HAMH HH6 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 0
HAMH HH7 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1997 Sa 0
HAMH HH8 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 1
HAMH HH9 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo 1
HAMH HH10 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo, Co, Sa 1
HAMH HH11 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo 2
HAMH HH12 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo 0
HAMH HH10A Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 0
HAMH HH11A Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo, Sa 2
HAMH HH12A Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 2
HAMH HH13 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1992 Sa 0
HAMH HH14 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 2
89
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
HAMH HH15 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1997 Sa 1
HAMH HH16 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Co, Sa, Si 2
HAMH HH17 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 2
HAMH HH18 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
HAMH HH19 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
HAMH HH20 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
HAMH H9H21 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1992 Sa 2
HAMH HH22 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 1
HAMH HH23 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1997 Sa 2
HAMH HH24 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa 1
HAMH HH25 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1997 Sa 3
HAMH HH26 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
HAMH HH27 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1992 Sa 3
HAMH HH28 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si 2
HAMH HH29 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1997 Si 1
HAMH HH30 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Si 0
HAMH HH31 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Si 1
HAMH HH32 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Si 0
HAMH HH33 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1997 Sa 0
HAMH HH34 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1998 Sa, Co 1
HAMH HH34A Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Co 2
HAMH HH35 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1992 Si, Co 1
HAMH HH36 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1998 Si, Sa 2
HAMH HH36A Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Co 2
HAMH HH37 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Co, Si 3
HAMH HH38 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Co, Si 3
HAMH HH39 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Co, Sa, Si 3
HAMH HH40 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1992 1
HAMH HH41 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1998 Gr 1
HAMH HH42 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1995 Sa 0
HAMH HH43 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1995 Bo 0
HAMH HH44 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Sa, Si, Org 3
90
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
HAMH HH45 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo, Gr, Zm 2
HAMH HH46 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1998 Bo
HAMH HH47 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1998
HAMH HH48 Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002
HAMH HH41B Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo, Gr, Si 3
HAMH HH42A Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Gr, Sa, Si 3
HAMH HH42B Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo, Co 2
HAMH HH43B Hamilton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2002 Bo, Co 2
BURL O441 Burlington L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Sa 0
BURL O442 Burlington L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Sa 0
BURL O443 Burlington L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Sa 0
BURL O461 Burlington L. Ontario Exposed shore 1994 Arm 0
BURL O462 Burlington L. Ontario Exposed shore 1994 Bed 0
BURL O463 Burlington L. Ontario Exposed shore 1994 Bed 0
BRON O511 Bronte L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
BRON O512 Bronte L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
BRON O513 Bronte L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
BRON O514 Bronte L. Ontario Outside breakwall 1994 Si 0
BRON O521 Bronte L. Ontario Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
BRON O522 Bronte L. Ontario Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
BRON O523 Bronte L. Ontario Inside breakwall 1994 Arm 0
BRON O531 Bronte L. Ontario Vertical exposed 1994 Bed 0
BRON O561 Bronte L. Ontario Hardened shore 1994 Bed, Si 0
BRON O562 Bronte L. Ontario Hardened shore 1994 Bed 0
BRON O563 Bronte L. Ontario Hardened shore 1994 Bed 0
BRON O564 Bronte L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Bed 0
BRON O565 Bronte L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Bed 0
BRON O566 Bronte L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Bed 0
BRON O591 Bronte L. Ontario Vertical protected 1994 Bed 0
BRON O5101 Bronte L. Ontario Protected 1994 Bed 0
BRON O5102 Bronte L. Ontario Protected 1994 Bed 0
BRON O5103 Bronte L. Ontario Protected 1994 Sa 0
91
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
BRON O9801 Bronte L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Co 0
BRON O9802 Bronte L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Co 0
BRON O9803 Bronte L. Ontario Exposed shore 1999 Co 0
PRES O771 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
PRES O772 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
PRES O773 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
PRES O774 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Sa, Si 3
PRES O775 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
PRES O776 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
PRES O777 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
PRES O778 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
PRES O779 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
PRES O7710 Presqu'ile L. Ontario Wetland 1994 Si 3
BOFQ BQ1 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Sa, Si 2
BOFQ BQ2 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Sa 2
BOFQ BQ3 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Co, Gr 1
BOFQ BQ4 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Co, Gr, Sa 1
BOFQ BQ5 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Sa, Si 3
BOFQ BQ6 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Si 3
BOFQ BQ7 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Co, Gr, Si 3
BOFQ BQ8 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Sa, Si 3
BOFQ BQ9 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Si 3
BOFQ BQ10 Trenton Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Si 3
BOFQ BQ11 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Bed, Sa 3
BOFQ BQ12 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Si 3
BOFQ BQ13 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Sa, Si 3
BOFQ BQ14 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Gr 3
BOFQ BQ15 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Gr 3
BOFQ BQ16 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Gr, Sa 3
BOFQ BQ17 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Sa, Si 3
BOFQ BQ18 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Co, Si 3
BOFQ BQ19 Belleville Harbour L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Gr, Sa 3
92
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
BOFQ BQ20 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Si 1
BOFQ BQ21 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Co, Gr 1
BOFQ BQ22 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2001 Co, Sa, Org 3
BOFQ BQ23 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2001 Si, Org 3
BOFQ BQ24 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Sa 1
BOFQ BQ25 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2001 Co, Zm, Org 3
BOFQ BQ26 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Bed 1
BOFQ BQ27 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1999 Co, Gr 1
BOFQ BQ28 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Bed 0
BOFQ BQ29 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2001 Co, Zm 1
BOFQ BQ30 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Sa 2
BOFQ BQ31 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2001 Sa, Zm 1
BOFQ BQ32 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2001 Co, Sa, Zm 1
BOFQ BQ33 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 1989 Co 1
BOFQ BQ2K1 Big Island L. Ontario Shore, AOC 2001 Si, Cl, Org 3
BOFQ BQ201 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1999 Si 3
BOFQ BQ202 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Si 2
BOFQ BQ203 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1999 Si, Cl 3
BOFQ BQ204 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1999 Gr, Sa 3
BOFQ BQ205 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1999 Gr, Sa 2
BOFQ BQ206 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Gr 2
BOFQ BQ207 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1999 Sa, Si 2
BOFQ BQ208 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Si 3
BOFQ BQ209 Carnachan Bay L. Ontario Shore 1999 Sa, Si 2
BOFQ BQ210 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Gr, Sa, Si 2
BOFQ BQ211 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Gr, Sa, Si 3
BOFQ BQ212 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Gr. Sa 2
BOFQ BQ213 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Si 3
BOFQ BQ214 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Si 2
BOFQ BQ215 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Si 2
BOFQ BQ216 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Sa 3
BOFQ BQ217 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Sa 2
93
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
BOFQ BQ218 Hay Bay L. Ontario Shore 1992 Sa 2
BOFQ BQ219 Conway L. Ontario Shore 1992 Si 3
BOFQ BQ220 Conway L. Ontario Shore 1992 Si 3
BOFQ BQ221 Conway L. Ontario Shore 1992 Si 2
BOFQ BQ222 Conway L. Ontario Shore 1992 Bo 0
BOFQ BQ223 Conway L. Ontario Shore 1992 Co 0
BOFQ BQ224 Conway L. Ontario Shore 1992 Co 0
PECO P9804 Little Bluff L. Ontario Exposed shore 2001 Bo, Zm 0
PECO P9805 Little Bluff L. Ontario Exposed shore 2001 Bo, Zm 0
PECO P9806 Little Bluff L. Ontario Exposed shore 2001 Bo, Zm 0
PECO P9807 McMahon Bluff L. Ontario Exposed shore 2001 Bo, Zm 0
PECO P9808 McMahon Bluff L. Ontario Exposed shore 2001 Bo, Zm 0
PECO P9809 McMahon Bluff L. Ontario Exposed shore 2001 Bo, Zm 1
PECO P9810 Black River L. Ontario Shore 2001 Co, Zm 0
PECO P9811 Black River L. Ontario Shore 2001 Co 0
PECO P9812 Black River L. Ontario Wetland 2001 Org 3
PECO P9813 Black River L. Ontario Wetland 2001 Org 3
PECO P9814 Black River L. Ontario Wetland 2000 Org 3
PECO P9815 Black River L. Ontario Wetland 2000 Org 3
PECO P9816 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 1999 Sa 2
PECO P9817 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 1999 Sa 2
PECO P9818 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 1999 Sa 2
PECO P9819 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 1999 Sa 2
PECO P9820 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 1999 Cl 2
PECO P9821 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 1999 Sa 2
PECO P0201 West Lake L. Ontario Exposed shore 2002 Sa, Si 2
PECO P0202 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 2002 Sa, Si 2
PECO P0203 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 2002 Si 3
PECO P0204 West Lake L. Ontario Wetland 2002 Sa, Si 3
PECO P0205 West Lake L. Ontario Shore 2002 Sa 2
PECO P0206 West Lake L. Ontario Shore 2002 Co, Sa 2
PECO P0207 West Lake L. Ontario Shore 2002 Sa, Si 2
94
Appendix 5 (cont’d)
LOCATION Station_ID Location Waterbody Transect Location Last Fish Survey
Dominant
Substrate1
Macrophyte
Density2,3,4
PECO P0208 West Lake L. Ontario Exposed shore 2002 Sa 2
PECO P0209 West Lake L. Ontario Exposed shore 2002 Sa 2
PECO P0210 West Lake L. Ontario Exposed shore 2002 Co 2
PECO P0211 West Lake L. Ontario Exposed shore 2002 Co, Sa 2
PECO P0212 West Lake L. Ontario Exposed shore 2002 Sa 2
1 Dominant substrate (> 50%) categories: Arm=Armourstone, Bed=Bedrock, Bo=Boulder, Co=Cobble, Gr=Gravel, Sa=Sand, Si=Silt, Org=Organic
matter, Cl=Clay, and Zm=zebra mussels.
2 Macrophyte density categories: 0=No macrophytes, 1= sparse (1-19%), 2= moderate (20-70%) and 3=dense (> 70%).
3 Mean vegetation cover estimates from 1990-1995 are based on technical report values, visual estimates, or echogram interpretation.
4 Mean vegetation estimates for stations sampled between 1999 and 2002 are based on visual estimates.
NA= not available

PDF Document reader online

This website is focused on providing document in readable format, online without need to install any type of software on your computer. If you are using thin client, or are not allowed to install document reader of particular type, this application may come in hand for you. Simply upload your document, and Docureader.top will transform it into readable format in a few seconds. Why choose Docureader.top?

  1. Unlimited sharing - you can upload document of any size. If we are able to convert it into readable format, you have it here - saved for later or immediate reading
  2. Cross-platform - no compromised when reading your document. We support most of modern browers without the need of installing any of external plugins. If your device can oper a browser - then you can read any document on it
  3. Simple uploading - no need to register. Just enter your email, title of document and select the file, we do the rest. Once the document is ready for you, you will receive automatic email from us.

Previous 10

Next 10